CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 1 of 37

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 06

th

May, 2026

Date of Decision: 29

th

May, 2026

Uploaded on: 29

th

May, 2026

+ CRL.A. 859/2018

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Ashneet Singh, APP.

versus

DHEERAJ KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Dinesh Garg, Adv along with

Respondent No. 1 present in person.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

BACKGROUND:

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the impugned

judgment dated 3

rd

October, 2017 passed by Ld. ASJ-FTC, (Shahdara),

Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby, the Respondents herein have been

acquitted inSession Case No. 42/2014arising out ofFIR No. 165/2014

registered at Police Station M.S. Park, for offences punishable under Sections

498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter ‘IPC’).

BRIEF FACTS:

2.The present FIR was registered on 23

rd

March, 2014, on the statement

of Mahender Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased Rajni. As per the

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 2 of 37

complaint, deceased Rajni was married to Respondent-1, Dheeraj on 29

th

April, 2013. After marriage, his daughter stated that her husband and in-laws

started harassing and beating her on account of the demand for a car.

Moreover, the deceased gave birth to a child on 27

th

February, 2014, and after

the delivery of the child, she complained that her husband was not coming to

her room and that her mother-in-law was harassing her.

3.It is the prosecution case that the deceased asked PW-1 to fulfil the

demand of her in-laws with regard to a car, failing which they would kill her,

and therefore, on 22

nd

March, 2014, PW-1 went to the house of the

Respondents and gave Rs.25,000/- to Respondent-4, Asha Rani for

purchasing the car.

4.VideDD No. 10A dated 23

rd

March, 2014 (Ex. PW-15/A), which was

received at PS M.S. Park regarding the commission of suicide by the wife of

the Respondent 1, pursuant to which SI Gaurav Singh (PW-15), along with

Ct. Krishan (PW-12) reached the spot, i.e. Ram Nagar Extension, where the

dead body of a female was found lying on the bed. Based on the statement of

Sh. Mahender Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased present case FIR was

registered and the Respondents/Accused(s) were subsequently arrested.

5.On the basis of the said information and statement, a case under

Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and in alternate under Section 302 IPC was

registered against all the four accused (Respondents herein) Dheeraj Kumar,

Respondent No.1 (husband of the deceased), Vinay @ Mannu, Respondent

No.2 (Brother in-law of the deceased), Kewal Krishan, Respondent No.3

(Father in-law of the deceased) and Asha Rani, Respondent No.4 (Mother in-

law of the deceased). Upon appearance, the Respondents pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 3 of 37

6.After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

7.The prosecution examined seventeen (17) witnesses in support of its

case to establish the charges against the Respondents. They are Mahender

Singh (PW-1), Dr. Neha Gupta (PW-2), HC Sonu Kaushik (PW-3), Ct. Ajeet

Singh (PW-4), W/HC Bandana(PW-5), Raghuvir(PW-6), SI E.S. Yadav(PW-

7), HC Ram Prakash(PW-8), GS Pandey(PW-9), T.R. Saini(PW-I0), Smt.

Sudesh(PW-11), Ct. Krishan(PW-12), W/HC Geeta(PW-13), Ct. Sahender

(PW-14), SI Gaurav Singh(PW 15), W/Ct. Sangeeta(PW-16) and Inspector

Jai Bhagwan(PW-17). The ld. Trial Court, in the impugned judgment,

discussed them as under:

“6.PW-1 Sh. Mahender Singh is the complainant

and father of deceased. He deposed that he is a

Halwai and that on 29.04.2013, her deceased

daughter Rajni was married with accused Dheeraj.

He deposed that accused Asha Rani & Kewal

Krishan are mother in-law and father-in-law and

accused Vinay @ Mannu is devar of deceased. He

deposed that after marriage, all the four accused

started harassing and beating his daughter Rajni on

account of demand of Car, which fact was told to

him by deceased Rajni. He deposed that Rajni gave

birth to a child on 27.02.2014 and after delivery of

child, she complained that her husband was not

coming to her room and that her mother in-law was

harassing her. His daughter Rajni asked him to

fulfill the demand of her in-laws with regard to Car,

failing which they would kill her and therefore, on

22.03.2014, he went to the house of accused persons

and gave Rs.25,000/- to accused Asha Rani for

purchasing the Car and promised them to given

more money next day for the purchase of Car. He

further deposed that on 23.03.2014, he received a

telephone call from accused Asha Rani that his

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 4 of 37

daughter has hanged herself. He then rushed to

their house and found that the body of his daughter

was lying on the bed. Police was already present

there. SDM came at the spot and recorded his

statement Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that the said

statement was recorded in the handwriting of police

official under his dictation as per the instruction of

SDM. He deposed that body was sent for

postmortem and on next day after postmortem

handed over to him and his statement regarding

identification of dead body Ex.PWl/B was recorded.

He deposed that prior to the incident, he made no

complaint to police against accused so that family

life of her daughter may not be spoiled.

In response to leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP,

he admitted that when his son Raghuvir went to the

house of accused persons and gave a mobile phone

to his daughter, accused Vinay @ Monu asked him

why he had given only a mobile phone and not a

four-wheeler.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel,

he was confronted with his statement given to SDM,

wherein he had not stated that all the four accused

persons used to harass his daughter for demand of

Car. He was confronted with major portion of his

testimony. He admitted that he had not stated to the

SDM that deceased Rajni asked him to fulfill the

demand of her in-laws with regard to Car, failing

which they would be kill her or that on 22.03.2014

he went to the house of accused and gave

Rs.25,000/- to accused Asha Rani for purchase of

Car or that after marriage, all the four accused

persons used to harass and give beatings to Rajni

on account of demand of Car. He admitted that there

was no demand from accused side before or at the

time of marriage. He admitted that he did not lodge

any complaint with police or any other authority

prior to the incident against accused persons for

harassing and troubling his daughter for demand of

Car. He further admitted that there was no demand

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 5 of 37

of Car before or at the time of marriage nor any

such promise was made by him to give a Car

subsequent thereto. He deposed that he had been to

the house of accused persons 3-4 times after the

marriage of his daughter. He deposed that he had

discussed the factum of his visit to the house of

accused persons on 22.03.2014 and handing over of

Rs.25,000/- to accused Asha Rani, with other family

members. He deposed that his daughter came to his

home on 2-3 occasions on festivals.

He admitted that after the incident, son of his

deceased daughter is with him. He further admitted

that son of his deceased daughter was being taken

care by his brother in-law Sh. T.R.Saini and that Sh.

T.R.Saini is issueless Admitting that accused

persons had booked Shyam Palace, Old Tejab Mill,

Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara for 02.04.2014 for

celebrating the birth of son of deceased Rajni, in

next breath he stated that no such place was booked

and Shyam Palace was booked for the purpose of

Sagai Ceremony of Rajni.

7.PW-2 is Dr. Neha Gupta, who conducted the

postmortem on the body of deceased. As per her,

cause of death was asphyxia as a result of

antemortem hanging. She proved her report as

Ex.PW2/A. She had also examined the shawl

allegedly used by deceased for committing suicide

and opined that injury no. 1 mentioned in

postmortem report was possible with that shawl.

8.PW-3 HC Sonu Kaushik is the draftsman, who

had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW3/A.

9.PW-4 Ct. Ajeet Singh is the photographer posted

with Mobile Crime Team. He had taken 14

photographs of the spot from different angled and

proved the same as Ex.PW4/A-l to Ex.PW4/A-14

and negatives as Ex.PW4/A-15 to Ex.PW4/A-28.

10. PW-5 W/HC Bandana is the duty officer. She

proved the registration of FIR as Ex.PW5/A and her

endorsement as Ex.PW5/B.

11.PW-6 Sh. Raghuvir is the brother of deceased.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 6 of 37

He deposed that after marriage of his deceased

sister Rajni with accused Dheeraj on 29.04.2013, all

the accused started harassing and torturing her.

They started making dowry demand from deceased

and demanded a four- wheeler. He deposed that

whenever deceased met him, she used to tell him

about the demand and torture, however, he does not

remember the specific dates when she told him

about the demand. He further deposed that perhaps

in the month of August or September, he visited

house of deceased Rajni at about 11 am, where all

the accused persons were present. He deposed that

he was having a mobile phone of Samsung and he

tried to give the same to his sister, however, accused

Vinay @ Monu threatened him and said in the

presence of all accused persons that they do not

want a mobile phone but a four wheeler vehicle

should be arranged. When they did not allow him to

hand over the mobile, he returned with his mobile.

He deposed that on 23.03.2014, accused persons

informed them that his sister had committed suicide.

He alongwith his parents and maternal uncle

reached the house of accused, where police was

already present. SDM recorded his statement

EX.PW6/A. He identified the dead body of his sister

vide statement EX.PW6/B and after postmortem,

body was handed over to them. He had also signed

the unnatural death report Ex.PW6/C. He deposed

that one day-prior to death of his sister, on

22.03.2014, his father went to the house of accused

persons and perhaps gave an amount of Rs.20,000/-

to 25,000/- to the accused persons. He deposed that

three days prior to that, his father also received a

telephonic call from his sister and she disclosed

about the demand of four wheeler by the accused

persons and she further told to his father that

accused persons would kill her, if demand was not

fulfilled. He deposed that this fact was told to them

by his father on 14.05.2014.

12.PW-7 is SI E.S.Yadav, who on 23.03.2014 after

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 7 of 37

receiving the message from control room had

reached the spot and after inspecting the same,

prepared his report Ex.PW7/A.

13.PW-8 HC Ram Prakash is the MHC(M). He

deposed about depositing of pullandas in the

malkhana on 23.03.2014 vide entry Ex.PW8/A and

also about sending of pullandas to GTB Hospital for

opinion on 13.05.2014 vide RC Ex. PW8/B.

14.PW-9 is Sh. G.S.Pandey, who at the relevant

time was posted as SDM. He deposed that on

23.03.2014, he received information from SI Ghetan

Singh Meena that one Smt. Rajni have committed

suicide at about 7.30 am. He reached the spot and

found the dead body lying on double bed in a room

at first floor. Sh. Mahender Singh, father of

deceased identified the body, who alongwith other

relatives was present there. He deposed that he

asked all the persons related with the deceased if

they have anything to say on the incident, however,

the parents and brother of deceased informed that

Sh. Mahender Singh, father of deceased will give a

combined statement. He deposed that father of

deceased stated that in-laws of Rajni informed them

that she has committed suicide but they suspect that

she has been murdered. He inspected the dead body

and in view of the allegations of father of deceased,

he directed to register the FIR and conduct further

investigation. He proved the inquest report as

Ex.PW9/A.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot

confirm as to who wrote statement of father of

deceased Ex.PWl/A. He stated that he did not

measure the height of the door of the kitchen. He

stated that besides family members of deceased,

other people were also present at the spot, however,

he did not record their names and addresses during

inquest proceedings.

15. PW-10 is Sh. T.R.Saini, maternal uncle (Mama)

of deceased. He deposed that on 23.03.2014 he was

present at his shop and received a call from his

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 8 of 37

nephew Raghuvir about death of Rajni by hanging,

whereafter, he alongwith his wife Sushma, brother

in-law Mahender Singh, sister Sudesh and nephew

Raghuvir reached at the house of accused persons,

where dead body of Rajni was lying on the bed. He

deposed that nobody had seen her in hanging

condition. Even police officials of PGR Van told

them that Rajni was on the same bed itself when they

had reached. SDM also reached the spot. He

deposed that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan on

20.08.2013, Rajni had visited his house and told him

that accused Dheeraj used to harass her and further

that accused Dheeraj used to beat her and family

members of Dheeraj used to demand dowry from

her. He deposed that deceased further told him that

her mother in-law used to lock her in the room,

whenever she (mother in-law) went outside. He

deposed that prior to death of Rajni on 27.02.2014,

she had given birth to a child and he was also told

by Rajni that her mother in-law was not providing

her food.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel,

he deposed that his statement was recorded once on

23.03.2014 in the evening hours at PS, which is

Ex.PW10/DA and that he had stated to the police

that Dheeraj used to harass Rajni and further that

accused Dheeraj used to beat Rajni and family

members of Dheeraj used to demand dowry from

her. He was confronted with his statement, wherein

none of the above mentioned fact was mentioned. He

did not mention the fact that mother in-law of Rajni

used to lock her in the room, whenever she went

outside. He deposed that his wife and sister were

present on 20.08.2013 when deceased disclosed all

these facts to her. He deposed that deceased came

to her house on 20.08.2013 with his sister and

admitted that he is issueless. He admitted that

before 30.03.2015 child of deceased. Rajni was

being taken care of by him and volunteered that he

handed over the custody of child to his sister and

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 9 of 37

brother in-law on 30.03.2015.

16. PW-11 Smt. Sudesh is the mother of deceased.

She deposed that after sometime of marriage, all the

accused persons started harassing and beating her

deceased daughter Rajni for not bringing four

wheeler vehicle and they pressurised her to bring

the four wheeler. She deposed that once her son

Raghuvir went to the house of Rajni to give her

mobile phone but her Dewar Vinay in the presence

of all accused persons told him " Mobile kya deta

hai, char pahiye ki gaadi de". He abused her son

and pushed him out of the house. She deposed that

Rajni delivered a baby boy and after five days of

delivery, she went to her house and gave eatables

but her mother in-law, did not allow her to take the

same telling her that her B.P. was high. The

husband of Rajni also stopped visiting her room.

She deposed that her daughter informed her on

telephone that if they would not give Car to the

accused persons, they would kill her and that she

was weeping on the phone. She deposed that one day

prior to death of Rajni, her husband gave

Rs.25,000/- to the accused persons. Next morning,

they received telephone call from the mother in-law

of Rajni informing them that Rajni had hanged

herself.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel,

she admitted that son of deceased was in the custody

of her brother for eight months and the child was

returned to them during the pendency of the case.

17.PW-12 is Ct. Krishan. He, on receipt of DD No.

10-A alongwith SI Gaurav had gone to spot, where

body of a female was found lying on the double bed

on the first floor of the room. He deposed that SI

Gaurav called the crime team and informed the

SDM. SDM recorded the Statement of father of

deceased. Crime Team inspected the spot and took

photographs. He deposed that the shawl with which

the victim hanged herself was seized vide memo

Ex.PW12/A and the stool lying in the room was also

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 10 of 37

seized vide memo EX.PW12/B.

18.PW-13 W/HC Geeta joined the investigation on

24.03.2014 and deposed about arrest of accused

Asha vide memo Ex.PW 13/A.

19.PW-14 Ct. Sahender had delivered the copy of

FIR to Ilaka Magistrate, AGP and Addl. CP.

20.PW-15 SI Gaurav Singh deposed on the lines of

PW-12 regarding receiving of DD No.1-A and

thereafter proceedings conducted at the spot.

21.PW-16 W/Ct. Sangeeta deposed that on

23.03.2014, she was posted at PGR and had

received a call at about 9.03 am regarding suicide

by a lady. She proved the PCR form as Ex.PW16/A.

22.PW-17 is Inspector Jai Bhagwan to whom the

further investigation was handed over after

registration of FIR. He had prepared site plan

Ex.PW15/DA at the instance of SI Gaurav. He

deposed about arrest of accused persons. He

recorded the statement of witnesses Raghubir Singh,

Mahender Singh and Sudesh Rani. He collected the

postmortem report from hospital and also collected

the scene of crime report. He deposed that during

investigation, he collected the photographs of

deceased Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A-14 and of her

marriage Ex.PW17/H & Ex.PW17/I. He also

obtained the subsequent opinion Ex.PW2/B on

shawl from department of forensic science and after

completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet

in the court.”

8.Statements of Accused Persons/Respondents were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of prosecution as a false

case and claimed themselves innocent and falsely implicated. They all stated

that deceased Rajni wanted to give her first child in adoption to her Mama

T.R.Saini, PW-10 and that they did not give their consent and for this reason,

she used to remain irritated and aggressive and committed suicide.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 11 of 37

9.The Respondents examined Sh. Ajay Kumar Ojha (DW-1), Sh. Manu

Gautam (DW-2), Sh. Om Prakash (DW-3), Sh. Rajiv Kumar (DW-4), and Sh.

Israr Babu (DW-5) in their defence. The ld. Trial court discussed them, in the

impugned judgement, as under:

“24.DW-1 Sh. Ajay Kumar Ojha, who proved the

report of ultrasound of deceased Rajni prepared by

Dr. Navneea Mittal of Newlife Ultrasound &

Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.DW1/A. He deposed that

patient was referred to SDN Hospital.

25. DW-2 Sh. Manu Gautam from SDN Hospital. He

proved life admission slip and discharge card of

Rajni, who was admitted in SDN hospital, as

Ex.DW2/A (colly.)

26.DW-3 Sh. Om Prakash deposed that he joined

Shyam Palace, Bhola Nath Nagar Road, Near Old

Tejab Mill, Shahdara as Manager in the year 2012

and remained there as Manager till October 2014.

He deposed that on 28.02.2014, Shyam Palace was

booked by one Halwai in the name of Vinod for

02.04.2014. He proved the booking slip as Mark

DW3/A.

27.DW-4 Sh. Rajiv Kumar is the owner of Om

Imaging & Diagnostic Center, A-2, DDA Market,

GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden. He proved the

ultrasound report of deceased Rajni dt. 16.01.2014

& 07.02.2014 signed by Dr. K.K.Phukon, who was

earlier working with Om Imaging & Diagnostic

Center, as Ex.DW-4/A & Ex.DW4/B.

28. DW-5 Sh. Israr Babu is the Nodal Officer,

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He brought the

certified copy of CAP of mobile number

9716392989 along with ID Proof & supporting

documents registered in the name of Dheeraj S/o.

Kewal Kishan and proved the same as Ex.DW5/A.

He also proved the CDR of abovesaid mobile

number for the period from 19.02.2014. to

03.03.2014 as Ex.DW5/B (colly.) He also proved the

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 12 of 37

Cell ID Chart of Vodafone as Ex.DW5/C and

certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as

Ex.DW5/D.”

10.The ld. Trial Court, upon perusal of the material placed on record and

after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,

proceeded to hold as under:

“54.The ingredients of Section 304-B IPC – In order

to hold an accused guilty of an offence under

Section 304-B IPC, apart from the fact that the

woman died on account of burn or bodily injury or

otherwise than under normal circumstances within

seven years of her marriage, it has also to be shown

that soon before her death, she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband for, or in connection with,

any demand for dowry. Only then would such death

be called a “dowry death” and such husband or

relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of

the woman concerned.

In the present case, though the first two ingredients

were admitted, the third and main ingredient i.e.,

dowry demand soon before the death, could not be

established. The prosecution failed to prove by

leading believable evidence that there was any

demand of dowry or any harassment caused due to

unfulfilled demand of dowry. The case of the

prosecution fails under Sections 498-A and 304-B

IPC.

55. Now coming to the alternate charge framed

under Section 302 IPC. In the present case, the

prosecution witnesses have been inconsistent

regarding dowry being the main cause of

harassment of the deceased and have not been able

to establish the case. The prosecution witnesses

have stated in their evidence that the deceased was

tortured by her in-laws and claimed that the

harassment was on account of demand of a car.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 13 of 37

It is alleged that there was some communication

between the deceased and her mother 3–4 days

prior to the incident, wherein the deceased made a

telephonic call to her mother and asked them to

fulfil the demand of her in-laws regarding a car,

failing which they would kill her. Whereas, there is

no mention of any such fact in the initial statement

of the father of the deceased. The mother of the

deceased, in her statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., stated that when after the birth of the

grandson she went to the matrimonial home, she

was told by the deceased that the accused persons

were pressurising her for a car.

The brother of the deceased has come up with a

different version. In his statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C., he stated that when on 22.03.2014 his

father went to the matrimonial home of the

deceased, she told him that her in-laws were

harassing her for a car and that if the car was not

given, they would kill her. If the facts were correct

as per their versions, the three witnesses ought to

have corroborated each other. However, there are

contradictions in the statements of the witnesses

with regard to the most vital part of the case.

The father of the deceased, who is the complainant,

omitted to mention the most important aspect, which

according to them was the root cause of all the

harassment and murder of the deceased, in the first

statement given by him to the SDM. The other two

witnesses gave different versions of the incident.

The other incriminating circumstance asserted by

all the prosecution witnesses is that the body of the

deceased was lying on the bed and nobody saw her

hanging, thereby raising a doubt regarding foul

play on the part of the accused persons. However,

no investigation from that angle was conducted. The

medical evidence also does not support the version

of the witnesses with regard to the charge under

Section 302 IPC.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 14 of 37

PW-2 Dr. Neha Gupta, who conducted the

postmortem on the body of the deceased, deposed

that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of

ante-mortem hanging and that injury No.1

mentioned in the postmortem report was possible

with the shawl recovered from the spot. No external

injury was found on the body of the deceased and no

subsequent opinion from Dr. Neha Gupta was

sought to rule out the possibility of suicide. Thus, the

prosecution has not been able to bring anything

substantial on record with regard to the charge

under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons.

In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court reported as 2012 (2) JCC 1319 titled

Sandhya Tripathi & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

wherein it was held that:

“10. In the present case the death was caused due

to hanging and thus no alternative charge for

offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34

IPC could be framed against the petitioners.

Undoubtedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir

& Raju and another vs. State of Haryana in SLP

(Crl.) No. 9507 of 2010 directed that all trial courts

in India should ordinarily add Section 302 IPC to

the charge of Section 304-B IPC, so that death

sentences can be imposed in such heinous and

barbaric crimes against women, however, the said

charge cannot be framed in a case of suicide.”

56. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has also

pointed out the lacunas in the investigation. Ld.

Defence Counsel argued that neither the SDM nor

the Investigating Officer made any inquiry

regarding the call details; they did not conduct any

local inquiry to find out the real cause of death and

no neighbours were examined to ascertain the exact

relationship of the deceased with her in-laws.

These are the technical flaws in the investigation,

the benefit of which is to be given to the accused

persons in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 15 of 37

Supreme Court reported as 2012 (1) LRCS 1 (SC),

Kailash Gaur & Ors. vs. State of Assam. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter

observed that benefit arising from faulty

investigation by the police ought to go to the

accused and not to the prosecution.”

11.In view of the technical faults and inconsistencies in the prosecution

evidence,videjudgement dated 3

rd

October, 2017, the ld. Trial Court

acquitted the Respondents by extending benefit of doubt. The relevant portion

of the Judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:

“57. The prosecution thus, fails to prove that

deceased was harassed for dowry and because of

that reason she committed suicide or was murdered

by accused persons. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, I am of the considered opinion that

prosecution has failed to prove its case against all

the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. On

the contrary, the version of the defence seems more

believable. Accordingly, all the accused are given

benefit of doubt and thus acquitted of all the charges

framed against them. However, accused are

directed to furnish personal bonds u/s. 437-A

Cr.P.C. for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.

10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount

each. After furnishing the bail bonds, file be

consigned to record room.”

12.The State has challenged the impugned judgment only to the extent

whereby the accused persons/respondents were acquitted of the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. The acquittal of the accused

persons/respondents under Section 302 IPC has not been challenged.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 16 of 37

13.Videorder dated 23

rd

August, 2018, this Court was pleased to grant

leave in CRL.L.P.90/2018and directed its registration asCriminal Appeal

No. 859/2018.Pursuant thereto, the present appeal was admitted.

14.The aforesaid impugned judgment dated 3

rd

October, 2017 is under

challenge in the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON THE BEHALF OF THE STATE/ APPELLANT

15.At the outset, the Ld. APP for the State submitted that PW-1, PW-6,

PW-10 and PW-11 are the material witnesses in the present case. It is

contended that PW-1, being the father of the deceased, categorically deposed

that his daughter was subjected to harassment, physical beatings and

persistent demands for a car by the Respondents. It is further submitted that

the deceased had informed PW-1 about such harassment over phone calls.

16.Ld. APP further submits that PW-1 also deposed regarding payment of

Rs. 25,000/- to the accused persons, and the said fact has been corroborated

by the testimonies of the mother and brother of the deceased. It is contended

that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses consistently establish the

demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the deceased.

17.It is further submitted that PW-11, who is the mother of the deceased,

also supported the prosecution case in material particulars and categorically

stated in her testimony that the accused persons used to harass the deceased

in connection with dowry demands. It is contended that there are no material

contradictions in the testimonies of the family members of the deceased.

18.Ld. APP further contends that the death of the deceased occurred within

one year of marriage and all the essential ingredients constituting the offence

under Section 304-B IPC are duly satisfied. It is therefore submitted that the

acquittal recorded by the Ld. Trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable in

law.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 17 of 37

SUBMISSIONS ON THE BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS

RESPONDENTS ACCUSED PERSONS

19.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the deceased

was desirous of giving her child to her maternal uncle, PW-10(‘mama’);

however, the family members refused the same, owing to which the deceased

became disturbed and, in a state of frustration, allegedly committed suicide.

20.Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further contends that an MoU dated

20

th

May, 2022 was executed between the husband of the deceased and the

father of the deceased, which has also been placed on record by the

Respondents. It is further contended that, as per the said MoU, the child

namelyShivawas given in adoption by the biological father, Respondent -1

to Sh. Thuru Ram, PW-10 and his wife Smt. Shushma Saini with the consent

of the parties.

21.Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further contends that there is no

cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that an amount of Rs.

25,000/- was paid to the accused persons towards any alleged dowry demand.

22.It is also contended that no witness had actually seen the deceased

hanging, though certain marks were found on the body. It is further submitted

that the prosecution case under Section 302 IPC already stands rejected, as

the Ld. Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the said offence and the

State has not challenged the said acquittal.

23.Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the allegations

levelled by the complainant are vague and general in nature without any

specific instances of cruelty or dowry demand attributable to the accused

persons.

24.It is further contended that PW-1, in his testimony, stated that limited

gifts were given by the family to the accused persons and that after the

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 18 of 37

delivery of the child, the husband did not visit the room of the deceased. It is

submitted that the same was merely a customary ritual being followed by the

family and cannot be construed as an act of cruelty.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

25.This Court has heard both the parties.

26.The principal issue that arises for consideration before this Court is

whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt

that the deceased Rajni was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the

Respondents in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death so

as to attract the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC,

and whether the judgment of acquittal dated 3

rd

October, 2017 passed by the

ld. Trial Court suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court

in appellate jurisdiction.

27.At the outset, it is pertinent to note that upon perusal of the postmortem

report and the testimony of PW-2 Dr. Neha Gupta, the cause of death of the

deceased has been opined as ‘asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.’

PW-2 further deposed that the ligature injury mentioned in the postmortem

report was possible by the shawl recovered from the spot. It has also come on

record that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. Thus,

the medical evidence clearly indicates that the death was suicidal in nature by

hanging. The relevant part of the postmortem report and the testimony of PW-

2 are extracted hereinbelow:

Postmortem Report

“External Antemortem Injuries

Dry, hard, reddish brown abraded parchmentised

ligature mark present obliquely and incompletely

around the neck above the thyroid cartilage. The

mark in midline is six cm below chin and 4 cm wide.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 19 of 37

On left side, the mark is 3 cm below angle of

mandible and is 2.5 cm wide. The mark further goes

obliquely upwards and merges with the head line

just behind the mastoid process. On right side, mark

goes obliquely upwards and is 2 cm below angle of

mandible and is 2.7 cm wide. The mark goes further

obliquely upward and merges with the hair line just

behind the right ear. The mark is absent posteriorly

for a distance of 18 cms. Neck circumference is 31

cm.

XXX

Time Since Death – About one day.

Cause of Death – Asphyxia as a result of

antemortem hanging.

PW-2, Dr. Neha Gupta

“On 13.05.2014, Insp. Jai Bhagwan produced

before me one sealed parcel duly sealed with the

seal of GS and opening the parcel it was found

containing one single red and yellow colour printed

cotton cloth (shawl) which was been cut into two

pieces. The larger piece measure 169x99 cms and

the small piece measure 99x31 cms. No tears

present. Wrinkling present. No knot was present in

either of the pieces. The print was present on one

surface of the cloth. After examination of the

ligature material, I am of the opinion that injury

no.1 mentioned in the postmortem report no. 338/14

was possible from the shawl produced before me.

My subsequent opinion is Ex.PW2/B which bears my

signature at point A. After examination, the exhibit

was sealed by me with the seal of NG and handed

over the same to Chetan Singh of PS M.S. Park

against receipt at point B.”

28.The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimonies of PW-1

Mahender Singh (father of the deceased), PW-6 Raghuvir (brother of the

deceased) and PW-11 Smt. Sudesh (mother of the deceased), all of whom

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 20 of 37

sought to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment

in connection with demand of a four-wheeler vehicle soon before her death.

29.At the outset, it is important to examine the statement of PW-1, father

of the deceased, recorded before the SDM vide Ex.PW1/A on 23

rd

March,

2014. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced below:

महलवाईकाकामकरताँ।मनेअपनीलड़कीरजनी,

उलगभग22वष,कीशादीिदनांक29.04.2013को

धीरजकेसाथिहदूरीित-रवाजसेकरवाईथी।शादीके

बादमेरीलड़कीनेबतायािकउसकेपिततथाससुराल

वालेउसेफोनपरबातनहींकरनेदेतेथेऔरउसेपरेशान

करतेथे।करीबपाँचमहीनेपहलेमेरालड़कारघुवीरमेरी

लड़कीकेससुरालनयामोबाइलफोनदेनेगयाथा,तो

मेरीलड़कीकेदेवरमोनूनेमेरेलड़केकोधमकायाऔर

इसकारणमेरीलड़कीहमेशापरेशानरहतीथी।

मेरीलड़कीजबभीघरआतीथी,तबवहकहतीथीिक

धीरजउसेपरेशानकरताहैतथाससुरालवालेभीउसे

परेशानकरतेह।मेरीलड़कीरजनीकोिदनांक

27.02.2014कोएकलड़काआ।लड़काहोनेकेबाद

रजनीकोउसकेपिततथाससुरालवालोंाराखानेको

भीनहींिदयाजाताथा,िजससेवहहमेशापरेशानरहती

थी।जोमेरीलड़कीरजनीसेतीनिदनपहलेफोनपरमेरी

पीकोबतलायािकजबसेउसेलड़काआहैउसका

पितकमरेमनहींआताहैऔरउसकीसासआतीहै

उससेवहपरेशानहै।

30.Upon perusal of the aforesaid statement, it can be seen that only general

allegations were made to the effect that the deceased was not being properly

treated by her in-laws and that she used to remain disturbed and tense. There

is no mention of any specific incident of cruelty, demand of car, alleged

threats, or payment of money to the accused persons.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 21 of 37

31.This Court shall now examine the deposition of PW-1 Mahender Singh

(father of the deceased) before the Court. The relevant extracts of the said

deposition are reproduced hereinbelow:

PW-1 Mahender Singh (father of the deceased)

Examination-In-Chief Cross-Examination

After her marriage, all the

four accused started

harassing and beating Rajni

on account of demand of car.

This fact was told to me by

my daughter.

XXX

After the delivery of the

child, my daughter

complained that her

husband was not coming to

her room and that her

mother-in-law was

harassing her.

My daughter asked me to

fulfill the demand of her in-

laws with regard to the car,

failing which they would

kill her and therefore, on

22.03.14, I went to the

house of the accused and

gave Rs.25,000/- to accused

Asha Rani for purchasing

the car and promised that I

would give more money

next day for the purchase of

the car.

On 23.03.14 morning, I

received a telephone call

from accused Asha Rani

It is correct that when my son Raghuvir

went to the house of the accused persons

and gave a mobile phone to my daughter,

accused Vinay @ Monu asked him why

we had given only a mobile phone and not

a four-wheeler. It is correct that after

marriage, my daughter informed me on

telephone that accused Keval Krishan,

Asha Rani, Dheeraj and Vinay @ Monu

used to harass her for fulfillment of

demand of car.

XXX

It is correct that my first statement was

recorded by the SDM. I had stated to the

SDM in my statement that all the four

accused persons used to harass my

daughter for demand of car, confronted

with Ex.PW1/A where such harassment

for demand of car is not mentioned,

rather harassment is mentioned. I had

not stated to the SDM in my statement

that my daughter asked me to fulfill the

demand of her in-laws with regard to

car, failing which they would kill her or

that on 22.03.14

XXX

I have stated about these facts in my

subsequent statement to the police. I did

not tell the SDM in my statement

Ex.PW1/A that prior to the incident I

made no complaint to the police against

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 22 of 37

that my daughter had

hanged herself.

the accused so that her family life may not

be spoiled. It is incorrect to suggest that

I have made deliberate improvements in

my statement before the Court than to my

statement Ex.PW1/A.

XXX

I had stated to the police in my statement

dated 24.03.14 that my daughter asked

me to fulfill the demand of her in-laws

with regard to car, failing which they

would kill her or that on 22.03.14

XXX

I went to the house of the accused and

gave Rs.25,000/- to accused Asha Rani

for purchasing the car and promised

that I would give more money next day

for the purchase of the car, confronted

with statement Ex.PW1/DA dated

24.03.14 where it is not so recorded. It is

incorrect to suggest that no such facts

were ever stated by me to the police on

24.03.14.

XXX

It is correct that there was no demand

from accused side before or at the time of

marriage.It is correct that marriage was

solemnized by me and money spent was

as per the prevailing custom and

traditions. It is correct that I have

satisfied myself before marriage that

accused Dheeraj was a suitable match

for my daughter. I did not lodge any

complaint with police or any other

authority prior to the incident against

accused persons for harassing and

troublingmy daughter or demand of car.

Vol.I did not lodge any complaint as I did

not want to spoil matrimonial life of my

daughter. It is incorrect to suggest that I

am giving false explanation for not

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 23 of 37

lodging any complaint against the

accused persons or that I did not lodge

any complaint against them as there was

no cause with me.

XXX

While giving my statement to the SDM, I

gave reply to the queries put by the SDM

and did not give statement from my own

side. I signed my statement at the

instance of the SDM without reading the

same. I can read Hindi language. It is

correct that it is mentioned at point DA

on statement Ex.PW1/A that SDM

recorded my statement at the spot which

was read by me and found correct. My

statement was recorded by the SDM in his

own handwriting. My statement was

recorded by the SDM at about 9.00/9.15

am on 23.03.14.

XXX

It is correct that a lady is generally

observing 40 days rest after delivery of a

child. It is correct that usually the

elderly ladies in the house are taking

care of the woman during those 40 days

for her every need. It is correct that

during those 40 days even the said lady

is not advised to have co-habitation with

her husband.

32.A bare perusal of both the statements shows that in the statement given

to the SDM, PW-1 did not specifically allege any demand of a car and did not

even whisper about the fact that his daughter Rajni-deceased had asked him

to fulfil the demand of her in-laws with regard to a car, failing which they

would kill her. He also did not state anything regarding his visit to the house

of the accused persons on 22

nd

March, 2014 or about allegedly giving

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 24 of 37

Rs.25,000/- to them for purchase of a car. Such an event, namely visiting

one’s daughter a day before her death and allegedly paying a substantial

amount towards fulfilment of dowry demand, is undoubtedly a material and

foundational circumstance forming the very basis of the prosecution case.

33.In the ordinary course of human conduct, it appears highly improbable

that such a significant fact would be omitted while giving the very first

statement before the SDM immediately after the incident. The omission of

such a crucial fact from the earliest version casts a serious doubt on the

subsequent improvements made during deposition before the Court.

34.The material on record reflects that PW-1 further admitted that there

was no demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage and that no promise

regarding giving of a car was ever made by him. He also admitted that no

complaint was ever lodged with the police or any authority prior to the

incident despite the alleged continuous harassment. Though PW-1 attempted

to explain that he refrained from lodging any complaint to avoid spoiling the

matrimonial life of his daughter, the absence of any contemporaneous

complaint weakens the prosecution case, particularly when the allegations

pertain to persistent cruelty and dowry demand. The relevant extracts are

reproduced hereinbelow:

“It is correct that there was no demand from

accused side before or at the time of marriage. It is

correct that marriage was solemnized by me and

money spent was as per the prevailing custom and

traditions. It is correct that I have satisfied myself

before marriage that accused Dheeraj was a

suitable match for my daughter. I did not lodge any

complaint with police or any other authority prior

to the incident against accused persons for

harassing and troubling my daughter or demand of

car. Vol. I did not lodge any complaint as I did not

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 25 of 37

want to spoil matrimonial life of my daughter. It is

incorrect to suggest that I am giving false

explanation for not lodging any complaint against

the accused persons or that I did not lodge any

complaint against them as there was no cause with

me.”

35.Another important aspect emerging from the testimony of PW-1 relates

to the post-delivery conduct alleged against the husband. PW-1 stated that

after the delivery of the child, the husband was not visiting the room of the

deceased. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that as per

customary practice, a woman generally observes rest for about forty days after

delivery and cohabitation with the husband is ordinarily avoided during that

period. This admission supports the defence contention that the said

circumstance was misconstrued as cruelty, though it may have been part of a

customary post-natal practice. The relevant extracts are reproduced

hereinbelow:

“It is correct that a lady is generally observing 40

days rest after delivery of a child. It is correct that

usually the elderly ladies in the house are taking

care of the woman during those 40 days for her

every need. It is correct that during those 40 days

even the said lady is not advised to have co-

habitation with her husband.”

36.This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that when PW-1 was confronted

with the material omissions and additions appearing between his statement

Ex.PW1/A recorded before the SDM and his subsequent deposition before the

Court, PW-1 gave vague explanations and attempted to rely upon subsequent

statements allegedly made to the police. However, even in his subsequent

statement Ex.PW1/DA dated 24

th

March, 2014, there was no mention

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 26 of 37

regarding the alleged demand of car, threats extended to the deceased or

payment to accused Asha Rani (Respondent-4) on 22

nd

March, 2014. This

assumes significance while appreciating the credibility and consistency of his

testimony. The relevant extract of the cross-examination of PW-1 is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“It is correct that my first statement was recorded

by the SDM. I had stated to the SDM in my statement

that all the four accused persons used to harass my

daughter for demand of car,confronted with

Ex.PW1/A where such harassment for demand of

car is not mentioned rather harassment is

mentioned. I had not stated to the SDM in my

statement that my daughter asked me to fulfill the

demand of her in-laws with regard to car failing

which they would kill her or that on 22.03.14, I

went to the house of accused and gave Rs.25,000/-

to accused Asha Rani for purchasing the car.

I have stated about these facts in my subsequent

statement to the police.I did not tell the SDM in

my statement Ex.PW1/A that prior to the incident

I made no complaint to the police against the

accused so that her family life may not be spoiled.

It is incorrect to suggest that I have made deliberate

improvements in my statement before the court then

to my statement Ex.PW1/A.

My statement was recorded by the police on

23.03.14. My another statement was recorded on

24.03.14 in the hospital regarding identification of

dead body. No other statement was recorded by the

police. I had stated to the police in my statement

dated 24.03.14 that my daughter asked me to fulfill

the demand of her in laws with regard to car failing

which they would kill her or that on 22.03.14 I went

to the house of accused and gave Rs.25,000/- to

accused Asha Rani for purchasing the car and

promised that I would give more money next day for

the purchase of the car,confronted with statement

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 27 of 37

Ex.PW1/DA dated 24.03.14 where it is not so

recorded. It is incorrect to suggest that no such

facts were ever stated by me to the police on

24.03.14.”

37.This Court now turns to the statements recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and the Court depositions of PW-11 Smt. Sudesh, mother of the

deceased, and PW-6 Raghuvir, brother of the deceased. This Court finds a

similar pattern in their depositions as observed in the testimony of PW-1. Both

PW-11 and PW-6 made material improvements and additions during their

depositions before the Court which were absent in their earlier statements

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The relevant extracts are reproduced

hereinbelow:

PW-11 Smt. Sudesh, Mother of the deceased

Statement under 161 CrPC Deposition before the Court.

उसनेबतायािकउसकापित,सासतथा

देवरउसकोफोननहींकरनेदेतेथेऔर

कमरेमहीबंदरखतेथे।रघुवीरमेरीलड़की

कोफोनदेनाचाहताथा,लेिकनदेवरिवनय

चारपिहयोंकीगाड़ीदे।”उससमयमेरी

लड़कीकापित,सासतथाससुरवहींमौजूद

थे।

मेरीलड़कीहमेशापरेशानरहतीथी।जब

हमनेइसबारेमउसकेपितधीरजतथा

ससुरसेबातकी,तोउोंनेभीकहािक

है।जबमेरीलड़कीकोएकलड़काआ,

तबउसेखानाभीनहींिदयाजाताथा।

उसकापितभीउसकेकमरेमनहींआता

था।

My daughter informed me over

the telephone that if we did not

give a car to the accused

persons, they would kill her.

She was weeping on the phone.

One day prior to her death, my

husband gave Rs.25,000/- to

the accused persons. The next

morning, I received a

telephone call from Rajni’s

mother-in-law informing me

that Rajni had hanged herself.

XXX

I had stated to the police in my

first statement that one day

prior to the death of my

daughter, my husband had

given Rs.25,000/- to the

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 28 of 37

XXX

जो म अपनी लड़की को सामान देने उसके

ससुराल आई तो लड़की ने बताया िक उसके

पित, सास व देवर कार के िलए दबाव बनाते

ह व परेशान रखते ह जब मने धीरज व

उसके परवार वालों को बतलाया िक अभी

हमारी गुंजाइश नही है। जो कल िदनांक

23.3.14 को समय करीब 10 बजे सुबह मेरी

लड़की रजनी की सास ने फोन से बतलाया

िक रजनी ने फांसी लगा ली है। जो हम वहाँ

आए तो मेरी लड़की Bed पर पड़ी ई थी।

मुझे शक है िक मेरी लड़की रजनी को

उसके पित, सास, ससुर व देवर ने मारा है।

जो आपने मेरा बयान GTB मोचरी म िलखा

है। पढ़कर सुनाया है जो ठीक है।

accused persons (confronted

with statement Ex.PW11/DA

where it is not so recorded). It

is wrong to suggest that we

subsequently concocted the

false story regarding the visit

of my husband to the house of

the accused persons and

payment of Rs.25,000/- to them

one day prior to the incident

PW-6 Raghuvir, Brother of the Deceased

Statement under 161 CrPC Deposition before the Court.

परवाररहताँऔराइवेटकामकरताथा

मेरीबिहनरजनीकीशादीहमने29/04/13

कोDheeraj S/o Sh Kewal Krishan R/o

H.No.-1/3538 A, Ram Nagar ext, Shd

Del.सेकीथी।शादीकेबादहीमेरीबिहन

अपनीससुरालमबतपरेशानरहतीथी

औरहमबतातीथीिकउसकापितधीरजव

ससुरालवालेउसेपरेशानकरतेहऔर

िकसीफोनपरबातनहींकरनेदेतेथेकरीब

5माहपहलेमअपनीबिहनकेयहाँउसे

मोबाईलफोनदेनेगयाथािकउसकेदेवरने

गाड़ीदोऔरमुझेधमकाया।जोमेरीबिहन

को27 Feb 2014कोएकलड़काआथा

जोलड़केहोनेकेबादमेरीबिहनकोउसका

One day prior to the death of

my sister, on 22.03.14, my

father went to the house of the

accused persons and perhaps

gave an amount of Rs.20-

25,000/- to the accused

persons (objected to by Ld.

Defence Counsel). Prior to

that, my father also received a

telephonic call from my sister

and she disclosed about the

demand of a four-wheeler by

the accused persons. This

phone call was received three

days prior to the present

incident (objected to by Ld.

Defence Counsel). She further

told my father that the accused

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 29 of 37

पितवससुरालवालेफोन से नहीं देते थेऔर

तीनिदनपहलेमेरीबिहननेफोनकरकेमेरी

माँकोबतलायािकउसकापितउसेकमरे

मनहींआनेदेताहैऔरवहपरेशानहै।

आजरजनीकीसासनेफोनकरकेबतलाया

िकरजनीनेफाँसीलगालीहै।तोहममौका

परपँचेजबहममौकापरपँचेतोमेरी

बिहनबेडपरपड़ीईिमली।जोमुझेशक

हैिकमेरीबिहनकोउसकेपित,सास,ससुर

वदेवरनेमाराहै।मेरीबिहननेखुदकुशी

नहींकीहै।उनकेखलाफउिचतकानूनी

कायवाहीकीजाये।आपनेमेराबयानिलया

जोपढ़िलयाठीकहै।

persons would kill her if the

demand was not fulfilled

(objected to by Ld. Defence

Counsel). This fact was told to

us by my father on 14.05.14

38.A perusal of the aforesaid statements reveals that the principal

allegation regarding PW-1 visiting the matrimonial home one day prior to the

incident and allegedly handing money to the Respondents, though deposed

before the Court, finds no mention in the statements recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C. The same pattern of improvements and additions, as observed in

the testimony of PW-1, is also visible in the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-6.

39.The material on record clearly reflects, and this Court finds, that the

allegations regarding dowry demand made by PW-1, PW-11 and PW-6 are

vague and general in nature and lack specific particulars. This Court further

finds that material variations are apparent between the statements recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent depositions made before the

Court, wherein several material allegations appear to have been introduced by

way of improvements during testimony.

40.The Supreme Courtin State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta,

(2025) 3 SCC 433held that material omissions in the statements recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which subsequently emerge as improvements

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 30 of 37

during deposition before the Court, materially affect the credibility of the

prosecution case and such improved versions cannot be safely relied upon.

The relevant extract is reproduced below:

“15. On a reading of the evidence recorded at the

trial, we are of the considered opinion that the

demand of dowry was not proved by the

prosecution. The omissions in the statements

under Section 161 CrPC which are deemed to be

material contradictions put to peril the prosecution

story of demand of dowry. A three-Judge Bench of

this Court on such omissions held so in Darshan

Singh v. State of Punjab, in para 31 : (SCC p. 176)

“31.If the PWs had failed to mention in their

statements under Section 161 CrPC about the

involvement of an accused, their subsequent

statement before court during trial regarding

involvement of that particular accused cannot be

relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a

fact during trial through a witness which such

witness had not stated to police during

investigation. The evidence of that witness

regarding the said improved fact is of no

significance. [See : (i) Rohtash v. State of

Haryana

5

, (ii) Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal

Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (iii) Rudrappa

Ramappa Jainpur v. State of Karnataka, and

(iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake

Apal S.P.]”

16. Both PWs 1 and 2 admitted in their deposition

that they had not personally witnessed any physical

violence on the wife and PW 2 the father also

deposed that the son-in-law was quite aware of his

financial condition; which would not have enabled

him to raise Rs 4,00,000 or purchase a plot for

construction of a house. It was his specific

statement that the son-in-law and his family was

apprised of this fact at the time of marriage and

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 31 of 37

they had agreed to accept his daughter, as such.

The essential ingredient of a demand of dowry

being absent under Section 304-B IPC, we cannot

find the suicidal death; though, categorised as an

unnatural one, as one akin to murder inviting a

punishment under Section 304-B IPC.

17. We, hence, reject the appeal, confirming the

order of acquittal of the High Court; but for the

different reasons, stated hereinabove. The parties

to bear their own costs.”

41.To constitute a “dowry death” punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the

prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients:

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns, bodily injury or

otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty

or harassment by her husband or his relatives; and

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must have been in connection with demand

of dowry.

42.The expression ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide

enough to include a suicidal death. Once the aforesaid ingredients are

established, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act

would arise against the accused persons. However, such presumption can be

invoked only after the prosecution first proves, beyond reasonable doubt, the

foundational facts constituting the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The

burden initially remains upon the prosecution to establish that the deceased

was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection

with dowry demand.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 32 of 37

43.In the present case, it is not disputed that the death of the deceased

occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and within seven years

of marriage. However, the core issue which arises for consideration is whether

the prosecution has been able to establish that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of

dowry.

44.The testimonies of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-11 do not reveal any specific

demand of dowry made either prior to or at the time of marriage. Rather, the

allegations regarding demand of car surfaced subsequently during deposition

before the Court. Significantly, several material allegations, including the

alleged demand of car, the alleged payment of Rs.25,000/- by PW-1 one day

prior to the death, and the alleged threats extended to the deceased, are absent

from the earliest statements recorded before the SDM and under Section 161

Cr.P.C.

45.The absence of these allegations and narration of such important events

in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., coupled with their

subsequent introduction during deposition before the Court, materially

weakens the credibility of the witnesses and raises serious doubt upon the case

of the prosecution. Though reliance has been placed upon the alleged

statement “Mobile kya deta hai, chaar pahiye ki gaadi de”, the same appears

to be an isolated allegation and is insufficient, by itself, to establish cruelty or

harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand.

46.Having regard to the material on record, this Court concurs with the

finding of the ld. Trial Court that the ingredients of Sections 304-B IPC and

498-A IPC have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

47.The Supreme Court inShoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 2

SCC 815reiterated that for attracting the offence under Section 304-B IPC,

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 33 of 37

the prosecution is required to establish not merely an unnatural death within

seven years of marriage, but also that soon before her death the deceased was

subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The

relevant extract is reproduced below:

“17. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the

deceased died otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of her marriage.

However, the issue between the parties is about her

being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or his relative, soon before her death, in

connection with any demand for dowry.

18. The testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 do

not indicate that any demand for dowry was made

by the appellant-accused either before or at the

time of marriage of the deceased with their son.

Further, there is no evidence that the appellant-

accused directly demanded a motorcycle or cash

from any of the above witnesses. In fact, evidence

is to the effect that the deceased had informed PW

1 and PW 2 on 4-1-2007 and 11-1-2007 about the

demand for a motorcycle and cash. Further, from

the deposition of PW 1 and PW 2, it appears that

the aforesaid demand was not in connection with

marriage but as a mark of celebration on birth of

a male child.

19.No doubt testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 would

not be hit by the rule against hearsay evidence

because it related to one of the circumstances of the

transaction resulting in their daughter's unnatural

death. However, a distinction must be drawn

between admissibility and acceptability/reliability

of a piece of evidence. Merely because a piece of

evidence is admissible does not mean that it must be

accepted. Before accepting the evidence to hold that

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 34 of 37

the fact in issue stands proved beyond reasonable

doubt, the court must evaluate the same against the

weight of surrounding circumstances and other

facts proven on record.

20.In the instant case, the witnesses PW 1 and PW

2 were asked whether they took up the issue of

motorcycle/cash demand with the accused. Their

reply was that they did not, because they took it as a

joke. We fail to understand how parents could treat

their daughter's multiple reporting of apprehension

to her life, on account of demand being not met, as

a joke. This creates a serious doubt about the

truthfulness of the allegation more so when there is

no allegation that any such demand was ever raised

either before or at the time of marriage.

21.This doubt gets fortified by change in stance of

PW 1 from what was taken in FIR. Notably, in FIR

it was alleged that the appellant-accused including

their elder son, and his wife, had directly raised

demand for a motorcycle and cash. This allegation

was not supported by the deposition of both PW 1

and PW 2 while admitting that the appellant's elder

son was a doctor serving in another district.

22. Thus, there appears to be a knee-jerk reaction

to the unnatural death of their daughter to make

out a case of dowry death. Besides that, no

independent witness of the vicinity was examined.

In our considered view, therefore, one of

the essential ingredients of dowry death, namely,

any demand for dowry, was not proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

23.Indisputably, the accused have not been

convicted for murder, and rightly so, because there

was no worthwhile evidence to show that except for

the burn injuries, which could be self-inflicted, the

accused suffered any other ante-mortem injury.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 35 of 37

Moreover, the presence of the accused in the house

at the time of occurrence is not proved. In such

circumstances, the death was most probably

suicidal though this would not make a difference for

commission of an offence punishable under

Section 304-B IPC if all the other ingredients of

dowry death stand proved. But, as noted above, here

harassment/cruelty at the instance of the appellants

in connection with any demand for dowry has not

been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

24.As regards the reason to commit suicide, though

it is not necessary for us to dwell upon, suffice it to

say that husband of the deceased was in service and

stayed away from the deceased. Suggestion was

given to the prosecution witnesses, and statement

was also made under Section 313 CrPC, that the

deceased used to remain depressed for being unable

to join her husband at the place of his posting due

to lack of residential quarter. That apart, a

photograph of the deceased (Ext. Kha-1), regarding

which no dispute was raised by the prosecution

witnesses, showing her alone with a male stranger

had surfaced. In the statement under

Section 313 CrPC a stand was taken that this

photograph had shamed her.

25. Be that as it may, once all the necessary

ingredients of dowry death have not been proved

beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be

available to the prosecution. Hence, in our

considered view, the appellants are entitled to be

acquitted of the charge of offences punishable

under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

26.The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order

convicting and sentencing the appellants under

Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC is set aside. The

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 36 of 37

appellants are on bail. They need not surrender.

Their bail bond(s) stand discharged.”

48.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death

in connection with demand of dowry. The testimonies of the material

prosecution witness, namely PW-1, PW-6 and PW-11, suffer from material

omissions, improvements and inconsistencies on vital aspects of the

prosecution case, particularly regarding the alleged demand of car, alleged

threats extended to the deceased and the alleged payment one day prior to the

incident. The allegations are vague and general in nature and the evidence on

record does not establish the essential ingredients of cruelty or harassment

soon before death in connection with dowry demand as required under Section

304-B IPC. There are no medical records or independent credible witnesses

on record to substantiate the allegations of cruelty or dowry-related

harassment. Further, no specific overt act attributable to any of the accused

persons has been established so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 498-

A or 304-B IPC.

CONCLUSION

49.This Court further finds no perversity, illegality or misappreciation of

evidence in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the ld. Trial Court

warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The view taken by the ld.

Trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based upon appreciation of

evidence on record.

CRL.A. 859/2018 Page 37 of 37

50.Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The impugned judgment dated 3

rd

October, 2017 passed by the ld. Trial Court is hereby affirmed.

51.The Personal Bonds and Surety Bonds of the Respondents are

cancelled.

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MAY 29, 2026/RM/YS