“Giving Dowry Is Also An Offence”: Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband After Prosecution Fails To Prove Dowry Allegations

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a husband who was convicted by the trial court under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence concerning the alleged demand and payment of dowry. It also held that the prosecution failed to establish that the husband had abetted his wife’s suicide, particularly when the evidence showed that the couple had not been in contact for more than five months before her death.

In an important observation concerning the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court emphasised that Section 3 penalises not only the giving and taking of dowry but also abetting the giving or taking of dowry.

The judgement was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in Ankur Tandon v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow, Criminal Appeal No. 3471 of 2024.

Background Of The Case

The marriage between the appellant, Ankur Tandon, and the deceased woman took place on December 14, 2004.

According to the prosecution, the husband and his family allegedly demanded ₹10 lakh from the woman’s family for purchasing a flat.

The deceased’s father claimed that he sold a plot and paid ₹6 lakh in cash towards the alleged demand. It was further alleged that the husband and his family subsequently demanded the remaining ₹4 lakh.

The prosecution case was that the woman was subjected to harassment over the alleged dowry demand and ultimately died by suicide on October 2, 2010.

The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC.

The husband challenged the conviction before the Allahabad High Court.

Allahabad High Court Finds Major Inconsistencies In Dowry Evidence

The High Court closely examined the evidence relating to the alleged payment of ₹6 lakh.

The Court found that the prosecution witnesses did not give consistent accounts regarding when, how and under what circumstances the alleged payment was made.

There were also gaps concerning the alleged sale of the plot by the deceased’s father. Important particulars, including the date of sale and the consideration received from the transaction, were not satisfactorily established.

The Court also noticed differences between the allegations made in the FIR and the subsequent oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

These discrepancies assumed significance because the alleged payment of ₹6 lakh was central to the prosecution’s case concerning dowry.

“Giving Dowry Is Also An Offence”

While examining the alleged payment, the High Court made an important observation regarding Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court pointed out that the provision does not merely penalise a person who takes dowry. It also covers the giving of dowry and abetment connected with giving or taking dowry.

Therefore, an allegation that the deceased’s father had actually paid ₹6 lakh as dowry had to be established through reliable evidence.

The Court ultimately found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the alleged ₹6 lakh payment had actually been made as dowry.

The Court observed:

“Thus, not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry, is an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

The Court added that the allegation that the deceased’s father had given ₹6 lakh to the appellant as dowry had not been proved.

The observation is significant because Section 3 adopts a broader approach to dowry-related conduct. The provision covers giving, taking and abetting the giving or taking of dowry, subject to the statutory framework.

Why the Section 498A Conviction Could Not Be Sustained

Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a married woman.

For a conviction based on dowry-related harassment, however, the prosecution must establish the necessary ingredients of the offence through legally admissible and reliable evidence.

In the present case, the High Court found that the alleged dowry payment and demand were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 498A IPC as recorded by the trial court.

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence.

Five Months And Twelve Days Without Contact Became Crucial

The High Court separately examined the conviction under Section 306 IPC, which concerns abetment of suicide.

A conviction for abetment of suicide cannot be based merely on the fact that a matrimonial relationship had become strained.

The prosecution must establish the legally required connection between the accused’s conduct and the suicide, including evidence of instigation, intentional aid or other conduct amounting to abetment.

In this case, the High Court highlighted a particularly important factual circumstance.

The trial court itself had found that the husband and wife had not been in contact since April 20, 2010.

The woman died by suicide on October 2, 2010.

Thus, there had been no contact or communication between the spouses for approximately five months and twelve days before her death.

The High Court considered this circumstance incompatible with the finding that the husband had abetted the suicide in the absence of evidence establishing a proximate act of instigation or intentional assistance.

The Court observed:

“When the trial court has held that the appellant had no contact with the deceased for the past 5 months and 12 days before the incident, it cannot be said that the appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide even without there having been any contact or communication between them.”

Presumption Under Section 113A Could Not Replace Evidence

The High Court also considered Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits a court, subject to specified statutory conditions, to presume abetment of suicide by a married woman in appropriate circumstances.

However, the Court made it clear that a statutory presumption cannot be used as a substitute for evidence establishing cruelty or abetment.

The Court held:

“In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. by straightway invoking Section 113-A so as to presume that he has abetted the commission of suicide.”

Thus, the mere existence of a strained matrimonial relationship was not sufficient to establish criminal liability for abetment of suicide.

Trial Court’s Finding Was Found Contradictory

The High Court also took note of an apparent inconsistency in the trial court’s reasoning.

On one hand, the trial court had found that the husband and wife had not been in contact for more than five months before the suicide.

On the other hand, the husband had been convicted for abetment of suicide.

The High Court found that the conviction could not be sustained merely because the matrimonial relationship had deteriorated.

Criminal liability for abetment requires evidence satisfying the statutory ingredients of the offence. A troubled marriage, by itself, does not automatically establish instigation or intentional aid.

Key Legal Provisions Considered By The High Court

High Court Acquits Husband Of All Charges

After examining the entire evidence, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court therefore allowed the criminal appeal.

It:

• Set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the husband.
• Acquitted him of all the charges.
• Directed his release, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
• Ordered that the fine deposited by him be refunded.

What The Judgement Means

The judgement reinforces an important principle of criminal law: serious allegations must ultimately be established through reliable evidence before a person can be convicted.

The Court did not dilute the statutory prohibition against dowry. Instead, it highlighted the scope of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which applies to both giving and taking dowry.

At the same time, the Court insisted that the prosecution must prove the alleged dowry transaction and the ingredients of cruelty or abetment with sufficient evidence.

The ruling also demonstrates that the presumption under Section 113A cannot automatically result in a conviction under Section 306 IPC. There must be a proper evidentiary foundation showing the circumstances required for invoking the presumption and establishing the offence.

Most importantly, the Court found that the five-month-and-twelve-day period without communication between the spouses was a significant circumstance when assessing the allegation of abetment.

Case Details

Key Takeaway

The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores two distinct principles.

First, Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not target only those who receive dowry; giving dowry is also punishable under the provision.

Second, a conviction for cruelty or abetment of suicide cannot rest solely on allegations or the existence of a failed matrimonial relationship. The prosecution must prove the relevant statutory ingredients through credible evidence.

In Ankur Tandon, the High Court found that the alleged ₹6 lakh dowry payment was not proved, the evidence regarding the alleged demand was inconsistent, and there was no sufficient evidence establishing abetment of suicide. The husband’s conviction was consequently set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.

Need Legal Advice On A Dowry, 498A Or Abetment Of Suicide Case?

Facing a Section 498A IPC, Section 306 IPC, or Dowry Prohibition Act matter? Legal proceedings involving dowry allegations, matrimonial cruelty, or abetment of suicide require careful examination of the evidence and applicable law.

Consult an experienced Supreme Court Advocate for professional legal guidance.

Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years Of Legal Experience

Get Professional Legal Assistance

Get professional legal assistance for your case and understand your legal rights, remedies, and available options.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965