Allahabad High Court
State Of Up vs Raj Kumar And 2 Others on 27 July, 2026
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Dictated by Honble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Ritesh Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant-State and perused the record.
2. Challenge in this government appeal is to the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Court no. 2, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 2016 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and alternate Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, whereby trial Court has acquitted the accused opposite parties 1 to 3 of the charges framed against them.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Rama Shankar had solemnized marriage of his daughter Shivrani with Raj Kumar in the month of May, 2013. The husband Raj Kumar, Siyaram (father-in-law), Surajkali (mother-in-law/ second wife of Siyaram), Shiv Kumar (brother-in-law/ Dever), Nisha Devi and Suman Devi (sister-in-law/ Nanad) used to torture his daughter physically and mentally for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- and one motorcycle. The family members of Raj Kumar namely Nand Kishor and Matru also used to torture his daughter. His daughter had informed him about the torture made by her in-laws for additional dowry. On 16.8.2016 the informant received an information that that in-laws of his daughter have forcibly given poison to his daughter and committed her murder. On the aforesaid information when the informant reached the matrimonial house of his daughter alongwith his brother Daya Shankar, they found Shivrani dead and there was crowd at that place.
4. In view of above, complainant submitted a written report/Tehrir (Ext. Ka-1) at P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur alleging therein that accused husband Raj Kumar, Siyaram (father-in-law), Surajkali (mother-in-law), Shiv Kumar (brother-in-law/ Dever), Nisha Devi and Suman Devi (sister-in-law/ Nand) and Nand Kishor have committed dowry death of his daughter Shivrani. On the aforementioned written information of complainant, an FIR was registered on 20.8.2016 as Case Crime No. 223 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jafarganj, District Fatehpur at 16:30 hours against accused Raj Kumar (husband), Siyaram (father-in-law), Surajkali (mother-in-law), Shiv Kumar (brother-in-law), Nisha Devi (sister-in-law), Suman Devi (sister-in-law), Nand Kishor (relative) and Matru.
5. Before registration of FIR, the informant PW-1 gave information of death (Fauti Report) in writing at the concerned police station vide application Ext. Ka-2 which was registered in G.D. No. 18, Time 12:40 hours dated 16.8.2016. In furtherance of aforementioned information of death, the then Naib Tehsildar, Ramesh Chandra Pandey PW-4 conducted inquest proceedings and prepared inquest (Ext. Ka-4) alongwith other documents and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem examination.
6. Dr. R.S. Prajapati PW-3 conducted post mortem of the body of deceased on 17.08.2016. Upon internal examination, the brain membranes were found congested and the brain substance was soft and congested. Both lungs were congested. The right chamber of the heart was filled with blood, while the left chamber was empty. Approximately 200 ml of greenish fluid was present in the stomach, which was congested. The small intestine was empty and contained gas, while the large intestine contained fecal matter and gas. The liver was congested, the gall-bladder was full, both kidneys were congested and the spleen was also congested. The urinary bladder was half-filled and the uterus was empty. In his opinion, the death had occurred approximately one and half day prior to the time of post-mortem examination. No ante-mortem injury was found on the person of the deceased by the Autopsy Surgeon and therefore the cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained. Therefore, viscera was preserved. As per viscera report, DDVP insecticide was found, meaning thereby that the deceased died on account of consuming poisonous insecticide.
7. The then Circle Officer, Madan Singh took over the investigation. He visited the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded statements of various witnesses and collected post mortem report, inquest report and other papers. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 24.9.2016 only against husband Raj Kumar, Siyaram (father-in-law) and Surajkali (mother-in-law) i.e. accused- opposite parties 1 to 3 herein. Thereafter, cognizance was taken upon same on 02.12.2016 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties, charges were framed by the concerned Sessions Judge under Section 498-A, 304-B and in the alternate under Section 302 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused opposite parties 1 to 3.
8. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Rama Shankar (informant and father of deceased), PW-2 Shiv Kumari (neighbour of informant), PW-3 Dr. R.S. Prajapati (Autopsy Surgeon), PW-4 Ramesh Chandra Pandey (Tehsildar), PW-5 Constable Anurag Kumar (G.D. writer). The witnesses adduced by the prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 12 prosecution papers, which were marked as exhibits. The same are tabulated herein below:-
Sl. No. Name Nature of evidence Documents proved
PW-1 Rama Shankar Informant, who is father of deceased and witness of fact regarding demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased Written Report (Tehrir) as Ext. Ka-1, information of death as Ext. Ka-2
PW-2 Shiv Kumari Neighbour of first informant –
PW-3 Dr. R.S. Prajapati
(Autopsy Surgeon) Doctor, who conducted post mortem of deceased Post mortem report as Ext. Ka-3
PW-4 Ramesh Chandra Pandey
(Tehsildar)
Formal witness, who prepared Inquest Report i.e. Panchayatnama Inquest report as Ext. Ka-4, Chalan Nash as Ext. Ka-5, Photo Nash as Ext. Ka-6, Letter to CMO as Ext. Ka-7, Specimen Seal as Ext. Ka-8
PW-5 Anurag Kumar
(Constable) Formal witness, who prepared Check FIR and made G.D. entry Check FIR as Ext. Ka-9, G.D. entry as Ext. Ka-10, Site plan as Ext. Ka-11, Charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-12
9. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/ incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused opposite parties 1 to 3, in question answer form for their version of the occurrence as per mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the suggestions put to them one by one by repeatedly saying that it is false or they have been falsely implicated or the prosecution case is false or the depositions of prosecution witnesses are false.
10. By the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2025, Court below acquitted the accused- opposite parties of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC as well as alternate charge under Section 302 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the State-appellant.
12. Mr. Kunwar Ritesh Kumar, the learned counsel for State-appellant submits that the impugned judgment is manifestly illegal and erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
13. It has been argued by the learned counsel for State- appellant that prosecution has been able to prove that informants daughter Shivrani died on account of poisoning within 07 year of her marriage. It is established from record that the death of the deceased was unnatural. Complainant Rama Shankar himself as PW-1 in his testimony, has proved the factum of demand of dowry made by accused- opposite parties. It has also been proved in their evidence that the accused opposite parties were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were harassing the deceased Shivrani on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. It has also been proved in evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with said demand of dowry by her in-laws, that too, soon before her death. As a result, the prosecution was able to establish all the ingredients of dowry death. All the circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, Court below failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. He, therefore, strenuously, urged that in view of above, Court below has erred in acquitting the accused. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Court.
14. We have heard the learned AGA for State- appellant and also carefully perused the record in the light of above arguments.
15. Court below, while acquitting the accused, has recorded the following reasons/ findings:-
(1) The marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused- opposite party 1 Raj Kumar in May, 2013.
(2) As per viscera report and post-mortem report, the deceased had died on 16.8.2016 on account of consuming poisonous DDVP insecticide, therefore, her death was an unnatural one.
(3) Informant PW-1 in his deposition has stated that accused used to taunt his daughter for bringing less dowry. He has also stated that accused were demanding one motorcycle and Rs. 1,50,000/- cash as additional dowry. PW-1 has not given any evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to any physical assault or harassment on account of non fulfillment of above additional demand of dowry.
(4) Shiv Kumari PW-2 in her deposition has stated that when Shivrani came to her parental home after her marriage, she (deceased) met this witness. This witness found her very upset from her face and asked the reason for the same, on which, she (Shivrani) told that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are demanding one motorcycle and Rs. 1,50,000/- cash in dowry. Shiv Kumari PW-2 could not state that when Shivrani (the deceased) visited her (PW-2).
(5) PW-2 in her deposition has merely stated that the deceased met this witness when she (shivrani) visited her parental home after marriage. However, the marriage of the deceased was solemnized three years before the incident, therefore, it cannot be said that she was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.
(6) PW-1 has also not given any evidence from which it could be established that the deceased was tortured and harassed on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry soon before her death.
(7) The prosecution has failed to prove that any cruelty was committed upon deceased before her death, therefore, there is no ground to raise presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. Resultantly, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was forced to commit suicide.
(8) Informant PW-1 has made general allegations regarding demand of dowry, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section of D.P. Act beyond reasonable doubt.
(9) There is no ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased which could have been indicative of the fact that the deceased was forcefully poisoned to death. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the alternate charge under Section 302 IPC.
16. After recording above findings, the learned trial Court deduced that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the accused- opposite parties.
17. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views are possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by Court below. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415 : AIR 2007 SCC (SUPP) 111, wherein Apex Court has observed as under:
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by Court below.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by Court below.
18. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, has observed as under:-
“39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.”
19. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of an accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. It has also been observed that the appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record is that the guilt of accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and no other conclusion is possible.
20. The Supreme Court in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636, has observed that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in exceptional circumstance. It was further held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions arrived at by the trial court. However, it is limited to those cases where the judgment of the trial court was perverse. Apex Court went on to declare that the word “perverse”, as understood in law, has been understood to mean, “against the weight of evidence”. If there are two views and the trial court has taken one of the views merely because another view is plausible, the appellate court will not be justified in interfering with the verdict of acquittal.
21. Perusal of the impugned judgment in the light of above-noted well settled legal position reveals that present case relates to dowry death of deceased Shivrani. It is an admitted fact to the parties that the marriage of Shivrani was solemnized with accused- opposite party 1, Raj Kumar, in May, 2013 and she died on 16.08.2016 i.e. within 03 years of her marriage. It is also an admitted fact that the death of deceased was unnatural. The deceased died on account of consuming a poisonous insecticide, therefore, death of deceased within 07 years of her marriage on that account is also a proved fact.
22. While dealing with an appeal against conviction for dowry death, the Supreme Court in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine 214, has observed as under:-
5. Sections 498-A and 304-B read thus:
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.For the purposes of this section, cruelty means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
304-B. Dowry death.(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is 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, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband’s relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.
23. While setting aside the judgment of conviction, it has also been observed in above mentioned judgment that presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, will apply only when it is established that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless the said burden is completely discharged, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
24. Thus, to bring home a charge under section 304-B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband/ her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry and such demand of dowry was made soon before death. The prosecution must prove firstly demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment of a lady by her in-laws including her husband in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as demand for dowry or in connection thereof which are the common constituents of both the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC respectively.
25. Out of abundant caution and further to find out whether as per the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the necessary ingredients of the charging sections are borne out/ satisfied or not, we have carefully perused the depositions of informant Rama Shankar PW-1 and Shiv Kumari PW-2 as transcripted in the impugned judgment.
26. PW-1, Rama Shankar, father of deceased/ informant, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that marriage of his daughter Shivrani was solemnized with accused- opposite party 1 Raj Kumar in May, 2013. After the marriage, her in-laws taunted her (deceased) for bringing insufficient dowry. They used to torture and abuse her on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- and one motorcycle. He told her daughter that he would provide it (additional dowry) later on as he has no means at present. When PW-1 visited the matrimonial place of her daughter, then Nand Kishor and Matru used to say that they will subject his daughter to torture and abuse until fulfillment of their dowry demand. Firstly, Raj Kumar had called him in midnight at 12:00 thereafter his villager Matru called him in morning and informed that his daughter had died as she had been killed by poisoning. He went to matrimonial home of his daughter with his brother Daya Shankar and found her daughter lying dead and some black substance was oozing out from her mouth. A large crowd had already gathered there. Then, he went to P.S. Jafarganj to report the matter, then the police came and thereafter post mortem of the body of deceased was got conducted after completing the due formalities. Thereafter, he went to register the case. PW-1 has levelled a general allegation regarding demand of dowry against in-laws of Shivrani and has not narrated any specific instance with any date, time and place of causing cruelty or harassment of his daughter at the hands of accused- opposite parties soon before death. This witness has further not proved any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the accused that too, soon before death of his daughter, i.e. deceased Shivrani, due to nonfulfillment of the additional demand of dowry.
27. The prosecution further got examined Shiv Kumari, neighbour of informant as PW-2 to prove its case. This witness, in her examination-in-chief, has stated that after marriage, Shivrani came to her parental home then she met her. When she saw her, she (the deceased) was very upset as was apparent from her face. Then she (PW-2) asked the reason for her being upset, then she told that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are demanding Rs. 1,50,000/- and one motorcycle in additional dowry. In her cross examination however PW-2 has fairly conceded that she has no knowledge about the time, when Shivrani visited her parental home. Thus from the deposition of this witness, no inference can be drawn that there was demand of dowry soon after marriage or soon before death of Shivrani. No specific act of cruelty and / or harassment with any date or month of Shivrani by accused- opposite parties 1 to 3 has been narrated by this witness.
28. PW-1 and PW-2 have failed to specify any place, time and date of additional dowry demand as well as any specific instance of cruelty, torture or harassment of Shivrani on account of non fulfillment of such demand.
29. If there was any consistent demand of additional dowry and harassment of deceased on account of non fulfillment of such demand, then it was quite natural that informant PW-1 would have complained regarding same at the earliest and not after the death of deceased, which is an adverse circumstance in prosecution story and has remained unexplained by the prosecution.
30. The basic prosecution story as unfolded in written report/ Tehrir (Ext. Ka-1) is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry when the demand of dowry of the opposite parties could not be meted out, then the deceased was poisoned to death. It is specifically stated in written report/ Tehrir (Ext. Ka-1) that in the morning of 16.8.2016 the informant received a telephonic call that her daughter was poisoned to death and on receiving this information the informant went to matrimonial home of his daughter where he found his daughter lying dead surrounded by a crowd. Then he (PW-1) gave information of death at concerned police station, upon which police visited the spot and got the post mortem of the body of deceased conducted. PW-1 in his deposition has clearly stated that he first received a telephonic call from the husband of his daughter namely Raj Kumar (appellant no. 1) in the intervening night at 12:00 hours. Thereafter, he received a telephonic call of one Matru, who informed him that his daughter was poisoned to death. Thus, it is apparently clear that the informant was allegedly aware that his daughter was poisoned to death in the morning of 16.8.2016. However, he moved a simple information of death (Fauti Report) Ext. Ka-2 at the concerned police station, meaning thereby that upto stage of moving information of death Ext. Ka-2 the first informant did not allege that the death of his daughter is a dowry death. Upto this stage there was no complaint of dowry or harassment on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry or cruelty to the victim in any manner. However, the FIR was lodged only on 20.8.2016 and there is an inordinate delay of 04 days in registration of aforesaid FIR. The informant PW-1 was fully aware that his daughter was poisoned to death and inspite of this knowledge coupled with fact that informant knew that sometime in the past his daughter was tortured and harassed on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry, then such an inordinate delay coupled with simple information of death i.e. Fauti Report raises a grave suspicion on the prosecution story, which doubt remains unexplained.
31. We have carefully perused the deposition of Autopsy Surgeon as mentioned in the impugned judgment. No ante mortem injury was found on the person of deceased. Cause of death could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, DDVP insecticide was found. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the death of deceased is suicidal not homicidal.
32. PW-4 Naib Tehsildar, Ramesh Chandra Pandey has stated that on 16.08.2016, he reached the residence of the in-laws of deceased for conducting inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased Shivrani Devi on the orders of the then Sub Divisional Magistrate. At the spot, SHO Subhash Chaurasia, SSI Rakesh Maurya, Constable Harishchandra Saroj and Constable Shishupal were present alongwith the inquest papers, death information report and other documents. The deceased’ body was shown to her mother and upon examination, no external injuries were found. Thus, it is clear that the mother of the deceased was present at the time of inquest, however, she has not been examined as prosecution witness.
33. The factum regarding demand of additional dowry and harassment of deceased has emerged in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2. The same is primarily based on the disclosure made by the deceased to these witnesses when she visited her parental home. However, PW-1 in his deposition has stated that Raj Kumar and Matru had called him and informed regarding death of his daughter. It is the prosecution case that Matru was also harassing the deceased and he was one of the named accused against whom no charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer. Thus, it was the husband and Matru who informed about the death of the deceased. Inspite of Matru being a named accused, yet no action was taken by the informant to get him summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to establish that there was any demand of dowry prior to marriage or at the time of marriage. None of these witnesses in their deposition have stated about the time period when the deceased disclosed the specific fact of additional demand of dowry and her (deceased) harassment on account of this i.e. no date with month and year has been specified by these witnesses. Both these witnesses have also not specified any date, time and place of last alleged harassment and even no specific instance of harassment or cruelty to the deceased has been narrated by these witnesses in their oral depositions. There is no evidence to indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of accused. Except for general and vague allegations regarding demand of motorcycle and Rs. 1,50,000/- cash as additional dowry by the accused and harassment of deceased on that count. Not a single instance specifically attributable to the opposite parties regarding mental and / or physical harassment of the deceased on a particular date, time and place has emerged. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring on record atleast some specific instance of cruelty or harassment caused to the deceased in connection with any demand of dowry. As the prosecution has failed to prove any specific instance of cruelty or harassment, therefore, in our considered opinion the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was any demand of dowry by the accused as alleged by the prosecution, after the marriage of deceased and before her death. Resultantly, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cruelty or harassment to the deceased was committed in connection with any demand of dowry. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the very basic ingredients of dowry death. Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that there was any demand of dowry then prosecution has also miserably failed to prove that the said demand of dowry was made soon before the death of deceased.
34. When the prosecution case is tested on the anvil of well settled parameters regarding dowry death, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cruelty or harassment to the deceased was committed in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in the two provisions of the India Penal Code (i.e. 498-A & 304-B IPC) under which, the accused- opposite parties have been charged. Admittedly, no demand of dowry arose at the time of marriage. However, after marriage, demand for additional dowry is alleged to have been raised. The alleged demand of additional dowry as projected by the prosecution, even if for the sake of arguments, is accepted to be true, had lingered for almost about 03 years. Yet, irrespective of above, no complaint was made in respect thereof. Although, it is true that the deceased died on 16.8.2016, which was within 03 years of her marriage. It is equally true that the death of deceased had occurred due to poisoning. Therefore, the factum of unnatural death in her matrimonial home, that too, within 03 years of the marriage, is proved by the prosecution, but the same is ipso-facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC of the Code against accused. The prosecution has rather failed to prove that deceased was harassed/ subjected to cruelty on account of non fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry. It is also apparent that death of deceased is suicidal and not homicidal. As the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredients of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence, therefore, statutory presumption available under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act gets clearly rebutted. As the death of deceased is prima facie not a dowry death, therefore, Court below has rightly recorded its finding that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges leveled against opposite parties 1 to 3 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act under the impugned judgment. As a logical consequence of above analysis we are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings returned by the Court below regarding failure of prosecution to prove that accused demanded additional dowry from the deceased and also that she was tortured for not fulfilling the demand of additional dowry as well as failure of the prosecution to establish and prove that deceased Shivrani was subjected to cruelty or torture soon before her death are based upon due appreciation of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2.
35. As prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges regarding demand of additional dowry, harassment of deceased on account of demand of additional dowry and dowry death, therefore, Court below has also examined the evidence available on record with respect to alternate charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for appellant State argued that as unnatural death of deceased took place in the house of accused- opposite parties 1 to 3, therefore, section 106 of Evidence Act comes into picture and no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the manner of occurrence. Accused opposite parties 1 to 3 have failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act as to how and under what circumstances, unnatural death of deceased took place in their house. It was thus urged by learned counsel for appellant that accused opposite parties 1 to 3 be convicted under Section 302 IPC.
36. The Apex Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1249, has observed as under:-
22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused.
37. In the present case, it was the accused Raj Kumar (husband of deceased), who has firstly informed the first informant regarding death of deceased. We have already come to the conclusion that deceased committed suicide by poisoning herself. There was no other mark of injury on the body of deceased. Therefore, no sign of any struggle was found on the body of deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of homicidal death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence on record that someone has lastly seen the accused- opposite parties with the deceased soon before her death or that the accused opposite parties were in the house with the deceased at the date of her death. Thus, the prosecution has failed to discharge the primary burden of proving the prosecution case of murder of deceased by accused opposite parties 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the present case, Section 106 of Evidence Act does not help the prosecution. In view of the above circumstances, it cannot be presumed that accused- opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed murder of deceased either. We are therefore of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed murder of deceased. The prosecution has failed to discharge its primary burden of proving charge of murder of deceased against accused opposite parties 1 to 3 and therefore, statutory presumption available under Section 106 of Evidence Act also does not get attracted. The analysis of evidence by the trial Court, in our view, has been in proper perspective i.e. factual and legal and thus the findings recorded by it are correct and cogent findings and same are not liable to be upset by this Court.
38. Apex Court in the case of “Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of Maharashtra“, (2018) 6 SCC 591 has observed in Paragraph Nos. 15 and 23 as under:-
15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court observed:
“This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed.”
“23. Before we proceed to analysis of the case, we must first focus on the aspect concerning the standard the High Court has to apply, while hearing a case against an acquittal order of the trial court. In the case on hand, the trial court, followed by a full fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent reasoning acquits the accused. In such a case the appellate Court is further burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the accused. In such cases, the appellate Court is expected to be very cautious and its interference with the order of acquittal is called for only when there are compelling reasons and substantial grounds. In other words, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons (refer Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 Cri LJ 331)”.
39. Criminal Appeal under Section 413 BNSS No. 705 of 2025 filed by the complainant- informant Ramashankar has already been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2025. We could have simply dismissed the present appeal on aforesaid ground. But since it was strenuously urged by the learned AGA that offence under section 302 IPC is prima facie made out we heard the appeal in detail.
40. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any perversity in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by Court below. The conclusion drawn by Court below is the outcome of due appreciation of evidence on record. No misreading or omission could be pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant. However, being the last Court of fact, we have ourselves evaluated the evidence on record to find out whether there is any perversity in the impugned judgment or Court below has misconstrued any material evidence. However, we could not gather any such fact from the record so as to conclude that the conclusion drawn by Court below is against the weight of evidence on record. It thus, cannot be said that only the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible as per the evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeal filed under Section 419(3) BNSS, which consequently fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
Â
Â
