SC Acquits Husband in 498A Dowry Case

In a significant judgment passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019, dated 13 May 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“DP Act”), underscoring the importance of precise and credible evidence in matrimonial offences. The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma expressed deep concern over the increasing misuse of dowry-related provisions and cautioned against vague, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes.

Main Facts of the Case:
The marriage between the complainant and the convict was solemnized on 12 February 1997, but the couple lived together for only 12 days. The wife alleged harassment, dowry demands, and physical assault by her husband and in-laws, leading to her expulsion from the matrimonial home while she was pregnant. She also claimed to have suffered a miscarriage due to physical assault. A complaint was lodged on 20 December 1999, nearly three years later, after the husband had already filed for divorce in February 1999. The Trial Court convicted the husband under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act but acquitted him under Sections 323/34 and 506 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and later by the Allahabad High Court in revision.

Issue Before the Supreme Court:
Whether the High Court had correctly upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act despite the absence of specific and corroborative evidence.

Observations of the Court:
The Court analyzed the scope and meaning of “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC, noting that it must consist of willful conduct endangering a woman’s life, limb, or health, whether physical or mental. Similarly, dowry demands under the DP Act must be direct or indirect but require clear proof of demand and harassment. The following key observations were made:

• Vague Allegations Are Insufficient: The complainant’s allegations lacked specific dates, times, or circumstances. Assertions of harassment without particular details were deemed inadequate to sustain a conviction.
  
  

• No Medical Evidence: Despite claims of miscarriage due to physical harassment, no medical records or certificates were produced before the Trial Court.
  
  

• Misuse of Law: The Bench criticized the growing trend of implicating aged parents, distant relatives, and married sisters in dowry harassment cases, diluting the core purpose of protective provisions.
  
  

• Delayed FIR: The complaint was filed after the husband had initiated divorce proceedings, raising doubts about its genuineness.
  
  

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act could not stand on generalized allegations and unsubstantiated claims. The Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and acquitted the husband from all charges. It observed that proper examination of the material could have spared the accused six additional years of litigation in a case already dragging on for over two decades.

Significance of the Judgment:
The judgment is a reminder that criminal law must be invoked with specificity, corroboration, and bona fide intent, not as a tool of vengeance in matrimonial disputes. By acquitting the husband, the Court balanced protection for genuine victims with prevention of abuse of criminal provisions, reiterating the principle that justice must be grounded in evidence, not assumptions.

*****By Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate, Supreme Court of India