{"id":9586,"date":"2026-08-10T10:53:19","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T05:23:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=9586"},"modified":"2026-08-10T10:41:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T05:11:10","slug":"dowry-case-498a-acquittal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/dowry-case-498a-acquittal\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cGiving Dowry Is Also An Offence\u201d: Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband In 498A Case After Prosecution Failed To Prove Dowry Allegations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can a wife\u2019s family claim to have given dowry while only the husband is prosecuted for taking it? The Allahabad High Court has highlighted that giving dowry is also an offence while acquitting the husband after the allegations against him could not be proved.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

ALLAHABAD:<\/em> The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has acquitted a husband convicted under Sections 498A<\/a> and 306 IPC<\/strong> and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong>, while making an important observation that the law does not punish only those who take dowry. Giving dowry is also an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from the marriage of the appellant-husband and the deceased on December 14, 2004. According to the prosecution, the husband and his family demanded \u20b910 lakh for purchasing a flat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deceased’s father claimed that he sold a plot and paid \u20b96 lakh in cash, but the remaining \u20b94 lakh was allegedly demanded thereafter. The prosecution alleged that the woman was subjected to harassment and later died by suicide on October 2, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 306 IPC<\/strong> and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong>, although it acquitted him of the charge under Section 304B IPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hearing his criminal appeal, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi<\/strong> found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged dowry demand and payment. The prosecution witnesses gave different versions about the alleged \u20b96 lakh payment, while relevant details regarding the alleged sale of the plot, including its date and sale consideration, were not disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also found material differences between the allegations contained in the FIR <\/a>and the oral evidence given by prosecution witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, while examining the allegation that the deceased’s father had paid \u20b96 lakh as dowry, the Court pointed out that Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act penalises giving as well as taking dowry<\/strong>. Therefore, proving such an allegation would also involve admitting an act prohibited by the same provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Thus, not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, as I have come to a conclusion that the allegation that the father of the deceased had given Rs.6,00,000\/- to the appellant as dowry, has not been proved..”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Since the alleged payment itself was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the prosecution could not establish the required ingredients of Section 498A IPC<\/strong> and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court then examined the husband’s conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC<\/strong>. It referred to Supreme Court principles requiring evidence of instigation, incitement or intentional aid and a sufficiently proximate act connecting the accused with the suicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A crucial fact was that 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. This meant there had been no contact or communication between them for five months and twelve days before her death<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“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”.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court further held that the statutory presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act<\/a><\/strong> could not substitute the requirement of cogent evidence of cruelty or abetment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“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”.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also noted that the trial court had convicted the husband “merely because the relations between the appellant and his wife had turned sour”<\/strong>, despite its own finding that there had been no contact between the spouses for more than five months before the suicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court ultimately held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It allowed the husband’s appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence, acquitted him of all charges and directed his release<\/strong>, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC. The fine deposited by him was also ordered to be refunded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>What It Means<\/strong><\/td>Application In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 498A IPC<\/strong><\/td>Punishes specified cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.<\/td>The trial court convicted the husband, but the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 306 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Punishes abetment of suicide. Abetment requires legally sufficient evidence such as instigation, intentional aid or other conduct satisfying the law on abetment.<\/td>The High Court found it significant that the husband had no contact with his wife for five months and twelve days before her suicide and held that abetment was not proved.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 304B IPC<\/strong><\/td>Deals with dowry death where statutory requirements, including the connection with dowry-related cruelty or harassment, are satisfied.<\/td>The husband had already been acquitted of this charge by the trial court.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/strong><\/td>Provides punishment for giving, taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry<\/strong>, subject to the Act.<\/td>The High Court expressly stressed that giving dowry is also an offence, but found the alleged \u20b96 lakh payment was not proved.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/strong><\/td>Punishes demanding dowry.<\/td>The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/strong><\/td>Permits a court, subject to statutory conditions, to presume abetment of suicide by a married woman in specified circumstances.<\/td>The Court held that the presumption could not justify the conviction in the absence of cogent evidence regarding cruelty or abetment.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 437A CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Requires an accused to execute bonds to appear before the higher court if required after disposal of the case.<\/td>The husband’s release was made subject to compliance with this provision.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particular<\/strong><\/td>Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Case Title<\/strong><\/td>Ankur Tandon v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow<\/em><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Court<\/strong><\/td>High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench<\/td><\/tr>
Case Number<\/strong><\/td>Criminal Appeal No. 3471 of 2024<\/td><\/tr>
Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>2026:AHC-LKO:52960<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Bench<\/strong><\/td>Hon\u2019ble Justice Subhash Vidyarthi<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Appellant<\/strong><\/td>Ankur Tandon<\/td><\/tr>
Respondent<\/strong><\/td>State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow<\/td><\/tr>
Counsel for Appellant<\/strong><\/td>Vivek Kumar Rai and Ajai Kumar<\/td><\/tr>
Counsel Heard for Appellant<\/strong><\/td>Shri Vivek Kumar Rai<\/td><\/tr>
Counsel for State<\/strong><\/td>Smt. Shikha Sinha, Additional Government Advocate<\/td><\/tr>
Trial Court<\/strong><\/td>Special Judge, Ayurveda Scam\/CBI, Lucknow<\/td><\/tr>
Trial Case<\/strong><\/td>Session Trial No. 747 of 2012, arising from Case Crime No. 386 of 2010<\/td><\/tr>
Impugned Judgment<\/strong><\/td>21 September 2024<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n