Court holds post-marriage dowry demand lawful under Dowry Prohibition Act; overturns appellate acquittal, affirms trial court's conviction under IPC Section 498A and Dowry Act Section 4.
Indore, Madhya Pradesh - In a landmark judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinstated the conviction of the accused in the case of Deepti Beesani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, holding that the demand for dowry made after marriage falls squarely within the ambit of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and that repeated harassment to coerce such demand constitutes cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case dates back to a matrimonial dispute where the complainant, Deepti Beesani, alleged that after her marriage on July 21, 2007, to respondent No. 2 Akhilesh Daga, she was subjected to continuous harassment and physical abuse due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. The respondents had demanded a dowry of Rs. 25 lakhs, but the complainant's family had brought Rs. 17 lakhs at the time of marriage. The balance amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was repeatedly demanded post-marriage, leading to severe mental and physical cruelty.
The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposing a fine. However, the Sessions Court overturned the conviction, citing inconsistencies and absence of any pre-marriage dowry agreement as key reasons.
On appeal, the High Court thoroughly examined the evidence, including testimonies of the complainant, her parents, brother, and family friend, all of whom corroborated the repeated post-marriage demand of dowry and harassment. The Court emphasized that the law does not require a prior written or settled agreement for dowry demand to constitute an offense. It held that dowry includes any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at, before, or any time after marriage in connection with the marriage.
Rejecting the appellate court's magnification of minor discrepancies in witness statements, the High Court held that such variations in details are common in delayed testimonies and do not vitiate the core case. It also clarified that the cruelty under Section 498A includes harassment with a view to coercing unlawful dowry demands and does not necessitate proof of conduct driving the woman to suicide or grave injury.
Significantly, the Court restored the trial court's direction for the release of stridhan jewelry seized from a joint bank locker. The Court cited Supreme Court precedent recognizing that ornaments and gifts received by a wife before, at, or after marriage remain her exclusive property, regardless of their physical custody.
The judgment further noted that the appeal abated against the deceased respondent No. 3 due to his death in 2024, but proceeded against the surviving accused, restoring his conviction and sentence.
The Court directed the accused to surrender within seven days to serve the remaining sentence and ordered the trial court to comply with the judgment's directions, including the release of the seized jewelry to the complainant.
This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that dowry demands made even after marriage are punishable offenses and underscores the protection extended to women against matrimonial cruelty and unlawful demands. It also clarifies evidentiary standards in dowry cases, cautioning courts against dismissing credible testimonies due to minor inconsistencies.
Bottom Line:
Dowry demand made after marriage in connection with marriage falls within Sections 2 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; absence of any pre-marriage dowry agreement is not fatal. Repeated post-marriage demand of Rs. 8,00,000/- and harassment to coerce payment constituted cruelty under Section 498-A, Explanation (b), IPC. Appellate Court erred in overturning conviction by magnifying minor discrepancies and ignoring core oral evidence. Stridhan recovered from joint locker was liable to be restored to wife.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Section 498A, 406, 506 Part-II; Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 2, 4; Indian Evidence Act Section 27
Deepti Beesani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998071
