29 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Groom Refuses to Cooperate With Wedding Reception Over Gold Demand, Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A & Dowry Law

Case- M. Venkateswaran vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Date of Order- January 24, 2025

Bench- Justice K.V. Vishawanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act due to his refusal to cooperate with wedding reception arrangements unless his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry was met. The marriage in question lasted only three days, following an engagement in 2006.

Demands for Dowry: After the engagement, the bridegroom's family insisted on receiving 100 sovereigns of gold as a condition for participating in the wedding reception. This demand was not accepted by the bride's family.

Refusal to Cooperate: The groom and his family did not allow customary practices to be performed during the marriage ceremony. Although they attended the reception, the groom's father took him away from the reception dais, and he refused to return despite pleas from the bride's relatives.

Harassment Evidence: The court noted that the groom subjected his wife (PW-4) to harassment aimed at coercing her and her mother into fulfilling the unlawful dowry demand. Testimonies, including that of a photographer, indicated a lack of cooperation from the groom's family during the wedding events.

Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court found that all elements of Section 498A IPC were satisfied, confirming that the groom's actions constituted cruelty as defined by law. However, considering mitigating factors such as the short duration of the marriage and both parties' subsequent lives, it reduced his sentence to time already served.

Monetary Compensation: The court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to benefit the children of the de facto complainant, acknowledging that although there was no voluntary offer for compensation, it deemed it necessary under special circumstances.

Judicial Precedent: The decision referenced a previous case (Samaul Sk. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.) where similar considerations led to a reduced sentence, emphasizing a reformative approach in criminal jurisprudence.

This case highlights ongoing issues related to dowry demands and domestic violence in India, illustrating how legal frameworks like Section 498A are applied in real-life scenarios.

2. In Cases Without Test Identification, Witness Identifying Accused For First Time During Trial After Many Years Raises Doubts: Supreme Court

Case- Venkatesha & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka

Date of Order- January 9, 2025

Bench- Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an individual accused of kidnapping due to significant procedural flaws in the prosecution's case. Here are the key facts surrounding the case:

Case Overview

• Accusation: The individual was accused of kidnapping a girl under Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship).
• Initial Conviction: The accused was initially convicted, but the High Court later altered the conviction to Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship).

Key Details

• Victim's Age: The victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident.
• Delay in Identification: The witness identified the accused for the first time after a substantial delay of eight years, raising concerns about the reliability of the identification.
• Lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP): The prosecution failed to conduct a TIP, which is crucial for establishing the identity of an accused in kidnapping cases.

Court Observations

• The Supreme Court noted that while witnesses can identify an accused in court, a long delay without a TIP casts doubt on the prosecution's case.
• The Court emphasized that such delays can impair witness memory and affect evidence quality, leading to concerns about trial fairness.

Conclusion

Based on these factors, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction under Section 361 IPC and acquitted the accused, allowing the appeal due to insufficient evidence and procedural shortcomings in the prosecution's case.

3. Violation of Familial Trust: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to POCSO Accused For Illicit Relation With Minor Sister-In-Law

Case- Devideen vs, State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Date of Order- January 2, 2025

Bench- Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh

The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a man accused of serious offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Here are the key facts regarding the case:

Case Details

Accusations: The accused is charged with harassing his wife for dowry and enticing her minor sister, subjecting her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Legal Provisions Involved: The FIR includes charges under:

• IPC Sections: 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl), 427 (mischief), and 376(2)(N) (rape).
• POCSO Act Sections: 5(L)/6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
• Dowry Prohibition Act Sections: 3/4.      

Background

• Marriage Duration: The complainant married the applicant approximately six years ago. Following the birth of their daughter, she alleged ongoing harassment and violence related to dowry demands, leading her to live with her parents.
• Incidents of Enticement: The applicant allegedly enticed away the complainant's minor sister, aged about 16 years, in February 2023. After being jailed, he was released on bail but reportedly lured the minor sister again in August 2023.

Court Proceedings

• Bail Application: The accused sought bail, arguing that the minor sister had recorded statements indicating she went with him willingly and had provided an affidavit in his favor. He also claimed a financial dispute involving Rs. 2,00,000 borrowed by the complainant's father as a motive for false accusations.
• Opposition to Bail: The Additional Government Advocate and the complainant's counsel contended that the accused continuously harassed his wife for dowry and that consent from a minor is legally irrelevant.

Court's Findings

• Minor's Age Consideration: The court emphasized that the victim is a minor (about 17 years old) and that her consent is immaterial under the law.
• Second Incident: The court noted this was a second incident of enticing the minor victim, invoking Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes guilt unless disproven by the accused.
• Emphasis on Familial Trust: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked on the gravity of the applicant's actions as a severe breach of marital trust and familial integrity, highlighting emotional trauma inflicted upon his wife and disruption of family harmony.

Conclusion

Given these observations regarding the serious nature of the offenses and potential harm to minors, the court denied bail to the accused, considering both legal implications and societal norms surrounding such conduct.