Delhi High Court
State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Aftab & Anr on 17 February, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th February,2026
Uploaded on: 17th February, 2026
+ CRL.A. 561/2016
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms.
Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advs.
with SI Sagar Navdeep M, PS Gokul
Puri.
versus
AFTAB & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R. K. Tarun, Mr. Reyazul Haque,
Ms. Capt. Subedita Rani, Ms. Aditi
Shivadhatri (through VC), Ms.
Khushi Gupta and Mr. Hemant Jain,
Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC‘) challenging the impugned
judgment dated 15th December, 2024 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions
Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the ld. Trial
Court acquitted the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the following observations:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 1 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
“40. After, analyzing the evidence on the record
(as discussed herein before) on the parameters of
aforesaid case laws, I do find that prosecution has
failed to prove charge of offence under Section
498- A/304-B IPC against the accused persons
because there is no reliable evidence on the record
even to suggest that any sort of harassment was
being caused to deceased Ruby for any kind of
demand.
XXX
42. In this case, a charge for offence under Section
302/34 IPC was also framed against both the
accused persons. However, there is no evidence to
such effect to even raise a suspicion that it was a
case of culpable homicide. Rather, the medical
evidence coming through PW-14 and PW-27 give a
total clean chit to the accused persons for the
allegations of culpable homicide. These two
witnesses were doctor/forensic experts. Both had
conducted postmortem examination and their
common opinion was that it was a case of suicide,
rather than strangulation. Therefore, charge of
Section 302 IPC also does not hold ground.
43. In view of my aforesaid findings, accused
persons namely Aftab and Zareena are acquitted of
all the charges against them. File be consigned to
record room, as per rules.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.2010, information was
received at Police Station Gokalpuri vide DD No. 60-B at about 7:25 PM to
the effect that a lady, namely Ruby, had been taken to GTB Hospital by her
husband in an unconscious condition, where she was declared “brought dead”
by the attending doctors. Upon receipt of the said information, ASI Dev Raj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 2 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
reached GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased. It further
transpired that the deceased had been married to Respondent no.1
approximately seven months prior to the incident. The MLC of the deceased
is reproduced hereinbelow:
3. ASI Dev Raj informed the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
whereupon Sh. A.K. Sharma, SDM, reached GTB Hospital and recorded the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 3 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
statement of the mother of the deceased, namely Smt. Ruksana (PW-1). In her
statement, she alleged that her daughter Ruby was married to accused Aftab
on 30.05.2010 and that on 23.12.2010 at about 5:00 PM, accused Aftab
informed her that Ruby was not feeling well and that he was taking her to the
hospital. The relevant statement of PW-1 dated 23.12.2010 before the SDM
is reproduced hereinunder:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 4 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
4. Thereafter, PW-1 reached a hospital at Yamuna Vihar, where the
accused Aftab was present with Ruby, and the doctors there advised that Ruby
be taken to GTB Hospital, where she was declared brought dead.
5. On the basis of the said statement, FIR No. 379/2010 was registered
initially under Sections 304-B/34 IPC at PS Gokalpuri. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet dated 23.03.2011 under Sections 498-A/304-
B/34 IPC was filed against accused persons namely Aftab (Husband), Zareena
(Mother-in-law), Farukh (Uncle of Aftab) and Naushad Ali (Maternal Uncle).
6. Vide order dated 06.08.2011, the ld. Trial Court passed an order on
charge, whereby accused Farukh and Naushad were discharged, and accused
Aftab and Zareena were directed to be charged for offences punishable under
Sections 498A/34 IPC, 304B/34 IPC and, in the alternative, under Section
302/34 IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed on 09.08.2011, to which the
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a total of 32
witnesses. The principal witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are the
mother (PW-1), father (PW-2) and maternal grandfather (PW-3) of the
deceased, who sought to support the prosecution case regarding alleged dowry
demands and harassment. However, the ld. Trial Court, upon a detailed
appreciation of their testimonies, found the same to be unreliable and
unworthy of credence, and while rejecting their evidence, observed as under:
“33. The star witnesses of the prosecution in
respect of demand of dowry and consequential
cruelty and harassment to the deceased are PW-1Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 5 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
Smt. Ruksana, PW-2 Sh. Rizwan and PW-3 Sh.
Umed Ali. PW-1 is mother of the deceased, PW-2
is father of the deceased and PW-3 is maternal
grandfather of the deceased. PW-1 was the
complainant in this case. In her complaint
Ex.PW1/A, she simply alleged that accused Aftab,
Zareena along with Farukh and Naushad used to
harass her daughter Ruby for dowry. She had given
a motorcycle, but they used to demand a car and
cash amount. Therefore, she had suspicion that in-
laws of her daughter were responsible for her
death. So much of statement given by PW-1, at first
instance after declaration of death of Ruby, is a
typical allegation being made by a mother of
deceased daughter. This complaint was apparently
devoid of minute particulars regarding the
instances of dowry demand or harassment and was
more or less based on the suspicion/presumption of
the witness. This statement was given by PW-1
before SDM (PW-8) on 23.12.2010 i.e. on the date
of death itself. On the next day, this witness was
again examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the
IO. However, even in that statement this witness did
not come up with any account of specific instance
of the demand of dowry or harassment caused by
the accused persons. It was for the first time that
this witness deposed before the Court that in the
marriage taken place on 30.05.2010, accused
Aftab and his mother accused Zareena along with
Farukh and Naushad had quarreled with them on
account of lesser dowry given in the marriage as
they were demanding a car. However, such
allegation made by PW-1 is not supported by other
PWs i.e. PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 did not make any
such allegation in his statement, rather he deposed
that at the time of engagement, there was no
demand from the accused persons. He furtherSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 6 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
deposed that the marriage was also solemnized
satisfactorily and ‘bidai’ was also performed
peacefully. PW-3 Sh. Umed Ali also did not make
any such allegation in his statement. Thus, it is well
apparent that such allegations were made by PW-1
artificially. Besides these three witnesses, there are
other PWs i.e. PW-13 and PW-20, who also
deposed that they had attended the marriage of
Aftab and Ruby and they did not witness any kind
of dispute and quarrel between the parties.
34. The next allegation made by PW-1 in her
testimony given before the Court was that after
marriage whenever Ruby came to her parental
house, she shared instances of harassment caused
by her husband Aftab, Zareena (mother-in-law)
and maternal uncles Farukh and Naushad with this
witness. PW-1 alleged that Ruby told her about
demand of car or money to purchase the car and
she also told her that accused persons used to beat
her for such reasons. However, PW-1 did not cite
any particular date when Ruby had visited her and
had shared such information of harassment caused
to her. Such statement of PW-1 has remained in the
nature of general and vague allegation and same is
the condition of PW-2 as well as PW-3. It is worth
to mention here that in this case only these three
witnesses have made certain allegations of demand
of dowry against the accused persons and they
were family members of deceased Ruby. It is
admitted case that no complaint whatsoever was
lodged either by Ruby or by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
3 in respect of any instance of beating to Ruby or
any instance of demand of dowry raised by accused
persons. These three witnesses alleged that Aftab
was given a motorcycle make and model Discover.
However, he demanded Pulsar and for thatSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 7 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
purpose, he was given Rs. 70,000/- by PW-1 and
PW-2 and Discover motorcycle was returned back.
They have also alleged about demand of car and
money in lieu of car. When PW-2 and PW-1 were
suggested that accused Aftab had already a car
with him at the time of his marriage, they denied
such suggestion. However, PW-3 in his cross-
examination admitted that they had visited the
house of Aftab before marriage and he had seen his
property/house, which was not having any garage
on the ground and accused Aftab used to park his
car outside his house. Probably, this witness was
no so smart as PW-2 and PW-1 were, to show
ignorance of such fact, in order to make a denial.
Such fact was also supported by PW-13 and PW-
20. Thus, once again the allegation raised by
prosecution comes under shadow of doubt, because
if accused already had a car with him, then it did
not make any sense for him to demand another car
from parents of the deceased. It is also worth
noting here that such kind of demand is always
forwarded with specifications regarding model and
make of particular car. However, none of these
witnesses have mentioned any particular model of
the car, which was ever demanded by the accused
persons. They have not cited any particular date,
when accused persons made such demand to them
or when such demand was allegedly made with
deceased Ruby or when deceased Ruby shared
information regarding such demand with them. The
only date mentioned pertains to 19/20.12.2010,
which has appeared in the testimony of PW-2. PW-
2 deposed that on this date, he was present at
Balrampur and her daughter Ruby had made a call
to him on 19/20.12.2010, thereby informing him
that her in-laws were not good persons and they
used to harass her and demand car and money andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 8 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
if their demand is not fulfilled, they would kill her
or leave her. According to this witness, Ruby also
asked him to talk to accused persons at the earliest.
However, admittedly this witness did not talk to
accused persons either directly or through
telephone thereafter. He gave the reasons that since
he was out of Delhi, therefore, he could not talk to
them. However, during his cross-examination, he
further deposed that he had instructed his wife i.e.
PW1 to visit matrimonial house of Ruby, but even
PW-1 could not go there. On the other hand, PW-1
did not mention about any such call received by her
from her husband i.e. PW-2 or any such
instructions given to her by PW-2. Apparently, in
absence of any whisper about such call, PW-1 did
not cite any specific reason not to visit matrimonial
house of Ruby, in order to have a talk with the
accused persons or to have a talk with Ruby
regarding her well being. Thus, I do find that these
witnesses have raised allegations in very casual
manner and such allegations cannot be relied
upon. If actually any such instance would have
taken place, thereby causing pain to Ruby by way
of her beating or threat to her life, as alleged by
PWs, then in normal course of action PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3 would have made contact with accused
persons on urgent basis and they would have also
involved the mediators, who were instrumental in
arranging this marriage. According to PW-1, the
marriage was arranged by one Mehrool, Farukh
and her father. Her father i.e. PW-3 claimed that
he was so told by Ruby itself about all the
tortures/harassment caused to her on account of
demand of dowry, but he also remained very silent
in respect of specific instances of such harassment
and the specific time period/occasion when such
information was shared with him. His statementSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 9 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
was also a very general and vague statement that
Ruby used to make complaint to him as well as to
her mother about demand of car being raised by
the accused persons. This witness did not state
about any particular step taken by him, even to talk
with the accused persons on any particular day
regarding such issues. Therefore, his testimony do
not inspire confidence. On the other hand, the
testimony of other PWs i.e. PW-13, PW-20 and for
that matter, DW-1 and DW-2, who claimed to be
residing with accused persons and deceased, did
not make any kind of allegation regarding any
harassment being caused to the deceased by the
accused persons. DW-2 claimed to be a middleman
to arrange this marriage and this fact was not
challenged successfully by the
prosecution/complainant. He deposed that there
was no demand from the side of accused persons at
the time of marriage.”
8. In addition, the prosecution examined PW-21 Mohd. Muqeem, who is
the tauji (paternal uncle) of the former wife of accused Aftab; PW-24 Sh.
Matloob, the cousin brother of the said former wife; and PW-25 Smt.
Gulshana, the ex-wife of accused Aftab. The ld. Trial Court, while
disbelieving and discarding their testimonies, dealt with the same as under:
“23. PW-21 Mohd. Muqeem, PW-24 Sh. Matloob
and PW-25 Smt. Gulshana were examined by the
prosecution to allege that accused Aftab was
married to PW-25, but both accused persons used
to torture PW-25 also on account of demand of
dowry. However, these witnesses do not have any
direct relevance to the facts of this case and their
testimony is at the most to show the past conduct of
the accused persons.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 10 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
9. The doctors who conducted the post-mortem were examined as PW-14
and PW-27, namely Dr. Arun Kumar and Dr. Juthika Debbarma. The cause of
death as per the post-mortem report, was suicide and in the cross-examination,
both these doctors have distinguished between suicide and strangulation in
their deposition as under:
“Dr. Arun Kumar S, Jr. Resident
Cause of death:-
Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.
However, the viscera has been preserved as
requested by the IO. The time since death was
about 3/4th of a day.
The detailed P.M. report is Ex.PW14/A which bears
my signatures at point A and signatures of Dr.
Juthika Debbarma are at point B.XXX
Dr. Juthika Debbarma
Court question: How do you make a distinction
between the case of strangulation and case of
hanging.
Ans. Firstly, in cases of hanging there is presence
of salivary stains from the mouth. Secondly, there
is difference in the situation of the ligature mark
and other internal findings of the neck. In cases of
hanging the ligature mark is oblique incomplete
and situated higher up on the neck and in cases of
strangulation usually the ligature mark is
horizontal, complete and situated either on the
thyroid cartilage or below that on the neck. On theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 11 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
internal findings in cases of hanging the
subcutaneous tissues are pale, dry and glistening
and there is no bruising in the soft tissues and
muscles of the neck. In cases of strangulation, the
subcutaneous tissue, soft tissues and muscles of the
neck show bruising and usually there is associated
fracture of the thyroid and hyoid bone.”
10. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, the ld. Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to
establish any specific, credible or proximate evidence of dowry demand or
cruelty “soon before death”, which is a sine qua non for attracting the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The ld. Trial
Court further held that the allegations were purely general in nature and did
not meet the threshold of proof required in criminal trials. Consequently, the
ld. Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid findings, acquitted the accused
persons vide the impugned judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
11. Mr Bahri, ld. APP appearing for the State has taken the Court through
the testimonies of PW-1, PW- 2, PW- 3, PW- 21 and PW- 25. It is his
submission that the facts which have emerged clearly establish that this is a
typical case of dowry death. He contends that even if the medical evidence
indicates suicide as the cause of death, the same would not dilute the
applicability of Section 304-B IPC, since the death occurred within seven
years of the marriage, thereby mandating the statutory presumption under
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 12 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
12. He further submits that the ld. Trial Court has completely erred in
holding that there were no particulars of demands of dowry. According to him,
the testimonies of PW-1, PW- 2 and PW-3 corroborate each other with respect
to the demand for a motorcycle, a car, and payment of cash. He also places
reliance on the testimony of PW-2 (father of the deceased), who deposed that
on 20th December, 2010, he received a telephonic call from his daughter
informing him about a renewed demand for dowry and money made once
again by the accused and his family members. This according to Mr. Bahri
constitutes a live link between the demand of dowry and the death of the
deceased, which occurred by way of suicide. It is, therefore, his submission
that the acquittal in this case is completely unjustified and untenable.
13. Mr. Bahri further reiterates the following facts:
i. The date of marriage is not disputed;
ii. The date of death is not disputed;
iii. Soon before the death, the PW-2 (Father) received a telephonic
call relating to the demand of dowry i.e. three days before the
suicide;
iv. The death occurred within Seven months of the marriage;
v. The past conduct of the accused is also tainted as it is evident
from the testimonies of PW-21 and PW-25.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
14. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Tarun, ld. Counsel appearing for both the
accused i.e., R-1 and R-2 submits that the presumption under Section 113-B
of the Indian Evidence Act though a deemed presumption is still a rebuttable
presumption. He contends that the plain language of the provision makes it
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 13 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
abundantly clear that there must exist cogent evidence to establish that the
death of the woman was caused by or was in connection with a demand for
dowry.
15. The ld. Counsel submits that the first and foremost fact operating in
favour of the accused is that the accused Aftab himself was present at the time
of the incident. He immediately informed the mother of the deceased and was
also responsible for taking the deceased to the hospital. This conduct,
according to the ld. counsel, is wholly inconsistent with any guilty mind and
clearly demonstrates bona fide conduct on the part of the accused in
discharging his marital obligations. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath v State of M.P., 2010(12) SCC
198.
16. The ld. Counsel further submits that the initial version of the
complainant merely casts a vague suspicion upon the accused and does not
disclose any prima facie offence. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon
the judgment of this Court in W.P.(Crl) 825/2001 dated 1.11.2004 titled Deepa
Bajwa v. State & Ors., wherein it has been held as under:
” After considering the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that a complaint, on the basis of
which the complainant seeks registration of an
F.I.R., must disclose essential ingredients of the
offence and in case a complaint lacks or is wanting
in any of the essential ingredients, the lacuna or
deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining
additional complaint or supplementary statement
and thereafter proceed to register the F.I.R. If such
a course is permitted, it would give undue latitude
as well as opportunity to unscrupulousSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 14 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
complainants to nail others by hook or by crook in
spite of the fact that their initial complaint does not
make out the offence complained of. Such a course
would be utter abuse of the process of law. First
version as disclosed in a complaint is always
important for adjudicating as to whether an
accused has committed or not an offence.”
17. He further places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Narendra Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171 to contend that
notwithstanding any statutory presumption, the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence, namely, the presumption of innocence, always
operates in favour of the accused.
18. He submits that the most important evidence is the medical testimony
of PW-14 and PW-27, both of whom have categorically opined that the cause
of death was suicide by hanging and not asphyxiation by any other means.
The distinction drawn by the medical experts between hanging and
strangulation, based on both external and internal findings, leaves no manner
of doubt that the deceased had committed suicide.
19. With regard to the testimonies of PW-21, PW-24 and PW-25, ld.
counsel submits, that the former wife of the accused was admittedly known
to the family of the deceased and has been deliberately introduced by the
prosecution only to portray the accused in an adverse light by referring to
alleged past conduct. It is contended that once the medical evidence
conclusively establishes the case as one of suicide by hanging, the burden
squarely shifts upon the prosecution to establish a proximate and live link
between the alleged dowry demand and the act of suicide. According to the
ld. counsel, no such nexus has been established on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 15 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
20. The Ld. Counsel further submits that even in the initial statement of
PW-1, recorded at digital page 272, it is clearly admitted that the accused
himself informed the mother of the deceased and took the deceased to the
hospital. The said statement merely expresses a suspicion regarding dowry
and does not disclose any specific allegation. However, subsequent
testimonies of the complainant are materially improved and embellished,
thereby revealing glaring contradictions between the first version and the later
deposition before the Court, which renders the prosecution case inherently
unreliable.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
21. We have considered the submissions advanced by the ld. counsels for
the parties and perused the material on record.
22. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the ld. Trial Court
committed any perversity or manifest error in acquitting the respondents of
the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and in not returning a
finding of guilt on the alternative charge under Section 302 IPC so as to
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under
Section 378 of the CrPC, particularly in the context of the statutory
presumption contained in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
23. It is well settled that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Though an appellate court has full power
to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded, interference is warranted only where the view taken by
the ld. trial court is perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unreasonable. If two
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 16 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the appellate court ought not to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court, as held by the Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, para 42.
24. In the present case, the medical evidence is clear and unequivocal. PW-
14 Dr. Arun Kumar and PW-27 Dr. Juthika Debbarma, who conducted the
post-mortem examination, have categorically opined that the cause of death
was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Both experts explained the
forensic distinctions between hanging and strangulation and stated that in
cases of hanging the ligature mark is oblique and situated high up on the neck,
with pale and glistening subcutaneous tissues and without bruising of the neck
muscles or fractures of the hyoid or thyroid cartilage. Several of these features
were present in the deceased, while some internal findings were not
classically consistent with a typical case of hanging. However, the final
medical opinion of both experts remains unequivocal in favour of suicide by
hanging. Any atypical internal findings were considered by the experts and
did not detract from their final opinion. There is thus no medical basis to
suspect homicidal strangulation, and the charge under Section 302 IPC was
rightly rejected by the ld. Trial Court. The relevant testimonies of PW-14 and
PW-27 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“PW-14
Dr. Arun Kumar S, Jr. Resident, Forensic
Medicine Department, GTB Hospital, Delhi.
ON SA.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 17 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
On 24.12.2010, I was posted as Jr. Resident in
Forensic Medicine Department, GTB Hospital. On
that day, at about 12.40 p.m., I alongwith Dr.
Juthika Debbarama had conducted the postmortem
upon the dead body of deceased Ruby vide P.M.
Report No.1748/2010. Dr. Juthika Debbarama has
now left the services of the hospital. General
Observation: Dead body of an adult female of
average built wearing pink coloured half sleeve
embroided kameez, green coloured half sleeve T
shirt, orange coloured brassier, brown coloured
salwar with pink patch on the hip area and a purple
and green coloured printed dupatta (synthetic)
were lying beside the body. All the clothes were
intact. The inner surface of the salwar was soiled
with fecal matter. Dried salivary stains were
present on the left angle of mouth. Eyes and mouth
were closed. Rigor mortis was presented well
developed stage. Postmortem staining was present
on the back and fixed. No signs of decomposition
seen.
(1) External Antemortem Injuries:
Reddish-brown colour, dry, hard, parchment like
ligature mark was present incomplete and
obliquely around the neck above the thyroid
cartilage. The neck circumference is 35 cm. In the
midline on the anterior aspect of the neck, the mark
was 3 cm in length and 1.5 cm wide, 3.5 cm below
chin and 14 cm above the suprasternal notch. It
was then absent for a distance of 10 cm on left side
of neck. It then reappears 6.5 cm below and 3 cm
behind the tip of mastoid process (left side) where
it was 1.5 cm wide and was continuous on the back
of the neck, in the midline. On the back of the neck,
the mark was 1.5 cm wide and 10 cm below the
occipital protuberance. On the back of neck, theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 18 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
ligature mark was faint. On right side the mark was
1.5 cm wide and 4.5 cm below the tip of right
mastoid process. Further the mark was absent for
a distance of 8 cm on the front of right side of neck.
(2) Internal examination:-
Head and neck:
Scalp: NAD, Skull: NAD, Brain: 1154 gms,
congested.
Neck: Extravasation of blood present in the soft
tissue and muscles of neck. Bruising present on
carotid sheath on left side. Hyoid bone and thyroid
cartilage were intact.
Chest: Ribcage: NAD, Lungs: left lung 330 gms and
right lung 476 gms, congested and edematous. Left
lung was adherent to the chest wall and pleura was
thickened. Multiple petechial haemorrhages present
on the right lung and inter lobar surface of left lung.
Heart: 202 gms, coronaries: NAD.
Abdomen & Ors.:
Stomach: Empty, walls congested. Intestines:
Distended with gases of decomposition and
contains fecal matter, walls congested. Liver: 1208
gms. Congested, Spleen: 177 grams, congested and
enlarged. Kidneys: left 167 gms, congested, right
missing from the anatomical site. Bladder: Empty
walls NAD, Uterus: Empty Bicornuate uterus, with
two separate cavity and cervical opening into the
vagina. Bilateral fallopian tubes were dilated and
filled with clean fluid. Ovaries on both the sidesSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 19 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
were thickened and multiple clear fluid filled cyst
seen on cutsection of ovaries.
(3) Viscera preserved for chemical analysis during
autopsy under the seal of JD, as requested by the
I0. The clothes of the deceased were also seized
and sealed in a parcel with the seal of JD. The said
pullandas and sample seal of JD were handed over
to the I0.
Cause of death:
Asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.
However, the viscera has been preserved as
requested by the IO. The time since death was
about 3/4th of a day.
The detailed P.M. report is Ex.PW14/A which bears
my signatures at point A and signatures of Dr.
Juthika Debbarma are at point B.Further examination in chief of the witness is
deferred
for want of FSL (viscera) report.”
XXX
PW-27: Dr. Juthika Debbarma, Assistant
Professor, Agartala Govt. Medical College,
Tripura.
On S.A.
On 24.12.2010, I was working as Sr. Demonstrator
at GTB
hospital. On that day, I along with Dr. Arun Kumar
S. conducted the post mortem examination on the
body of the deceased namely Ruby, aged 19
years, female, W/o. Aftab.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 20 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
On examination following external injuries were
found on the body of deceased Ruby :-
Reddish brown colour, dry, hard, parchment like
ligature mark was present incompletely and
obliquely around the neck, above the thyroid
cartilage. The neck circumference was 35 cm. In the
mid line, on the anterior aspect of the neck the mark
was 3cm in length and 1.5 cm wide, 3.5 cm below
chin and 14 cm above the suprasternal notch. It was
then 3.5 cm below chin and 14 cm above the
suprasternal notch. It was then absent for a distance
of 10 cm on left side of neck. It then reappeared 6.5
cm below and 3 cm behind the tip of left mastoid
process, where it was 1.5 cm wide and was
continuous on the back of the neck in the mid line.
On the back of the neck the mark was 1.5 cm wide
and 10 cm below the occipital protuberance. On the
back of the neck, the ligature mark was faint. On
right side the mark was 1.5 cm wide and 4.5 cm
below the tip of right mastoid process. Further, the
mark was absent for a distance of 8 cm on the front
of right side of neck.
Opinion: Cause of death in this case was asphyxia
as a result of antemortem hanging. However the
viscera was preserved as requested by the IO. I
handed over viscera to the IO. My PM report is
placed on the record, which bears my signature at
point B. This report is already exhibited as Ex.PW-
14/A.”7The clothes of the deceased were handed over to IO
by me. I had signed those clothes before handing
over to IO and I can identify the clothes of the
deceased with the help of my initials/signature.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 21 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
At this stage, Ct. Brijesh on behalf of MHC(M) has
produced one green coloured T-shirt and pink
coloured half sleeves Kurti, brown coloured Salwar,
orange coloured brassiere and one purple and green
coloured printed dupatta in unsealed condition.
Same is shown to the witness, who correctly
identified her signature on above said clothes. All
clothes are already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/Article-2.
The pullanda be sealed with seal of this Court i.e.
‘PP’.
XXXXXXXXXX by Sh. R.K. Tarun, ld. counsel for
both accused persons.
The PM report was prepared by me. It is not always
possible that in all cases of suicide by hanging, the
cause of death remains as asphyxia. Vol. the other
reasons may be due to fracture dislocation of
cervical vertebra. It is correct that this is not a case
of strangulation.
Court question : How do you make a distinction
between the case of strangulation and case of
hanging.
Ans. Firstly, in cases of hanging there is presence
of salivary stains from the mouth. Secondly, there
is difference in the situation of the ligature mark
and other internal findings of the neck. In cases of
hanging the ligature mark is oblique incomplete
and situated higher up on the neck and in cases of
strangulation usually the ligature mark is
horizontal, complete and situated either on the
thyroid cartilage or below that on the neck. On the
internal findings in cases of hanging the
subcutaneous tissues are pale, dry and glistening
and there is no bruising in the soft tissues andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 22 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
muscles of the neck. In cases of strangulation, the
subcutaneous tissue, soft tissues and muscles of the
neck show bruising and usually there is associated
fracture of the thyroid and hyoid bone.
In this case, the tongue was inside the mouth and
mouth was closed.”
25. In the absence of forensic evidence, the prosecution based its case on
Section 304-B IPC read with the presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act. Section 304-B IPC deals with dowry death, which reads as
follows:
“304B. 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 purposes 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.”
26. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 23 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
“113B. Presumption as to dowry death. —When
the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this section,
“dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in
section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860).]”
27. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the statutory presumption
of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is not to be applied
mechanically, but only upon proof of the foundational facts contemplated by
the statute. In Karan Singh v. State of Haryana 2025 INSC 133, the Supreme
Court has held as under:
“8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of
the appellant’s wife occurred within seven years of
the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
reads thus:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-
When the question is whether a person
has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before
her death such woman had been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such
person had caused the dowry death.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 24 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
Explanation.-For the purposes of this
section, “dowry death” shall have the
same meaning as in Section 304-B of
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply
when it is established that soon before her death,
the woman has been 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
appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with any demand of dowry soon before
her death. Unless these facts are proved, the
presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act cannot be invoked.”
28. Similarly, in M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P. (2007) 12 SCC 443, the
Supreme Court has authoritatively held as under:
“5. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that
there must be material to show that soon before
her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the
possibility of a natural or accidental death so as
to bring it within the purview of the ‘death
occurring otherwise than in normal
circumstances’. The expression ‘soon before’ is
very relevant where Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed
into service. The prosecution is obliged to show
that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty
or harassment and only in that case presumption
operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in
by the prosecution. ‘Soon before’ is a relativeSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 25 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
term and it would depend upon the circumstances
of each case and no straitjacket formula can be
laid down as to what would constitute a period of
soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous
to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the
importance of a proximity test both for the proof of
an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act. The expression ‘soon before her death’ used
in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section
113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea
of proximity test. No definite period has been
indicated and the expression ‘soon before’ is not
defined. A reference to the expression ‘soon
before’ used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the
Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court
may presume that a man who is in the possession
of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who
has received the goods knowing them to be stolen,
unless he can account for his possession. The
determination of the period which can come within
the term ‘soon before’ is left to be determined by
the courts, depending upon facts and
circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to
indicate that the expression ‘soon before’ would
normally imply that the interval should not be
much between the cruelty or harassment concerned
and the death in question. There must be existence
of a proximate and live link between the effect of
cruelty based on dowry demand and the death
concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is
remote in time and has become stale enough not to
disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman
concerned, it would be of no consequence.”
29. In the present case, although the death occurred within seven months
of marriage and was an unnatural death, the prosecution has failed to establish
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 26 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
the foundational facts necessary to trigger the statutory presumption. The
testimony of PW-1, the mother of the deceased, when examined in its earliest
form on 23.12.2010 before the SDM on the date of death, contains general
allegations without particulars or incidents of any demand of dowry or acts of
harassment. The said statement dated 23.12.2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“म कसाना प ी ी रज़वान पाशा िनवासी म. नं. 895,
गली नं. 1, लोनी गोकलपुरी िद ी, आज िदनां क
23/12/2010, रात 11.30 बजे , SDM सीलमपुर के सामने
बयान करती ँ िक मेरी लड़की बी उ 19 वष की
शादी िदनां क 31/05/2010 को आफ़ताब पु अरशद
अली िनवासी मकान नं. 320, गली नं. 16, पुराना
मु फाबाद के साथ ई थी। आज शाम करीब 5 बजे मेरे
दामाद आफ़ताब ने बताया िक बी की तिबयत खराब
है और म उसे अ ताल ले जा रहा ँ और आप आ
जाओ। म तु र अपने पड़ोस के लड़के रा ल के साथ
आई तो आफ़ताब मेरी बेटी बी के साथ यमुना िवहार
म एक अ ताल म खड़ा था जहाँ डॉ र ने उसे GTB
Hospital ले जाने को कहा। उसे वह GTB Hospital ले
गया, जहाँ डॉ रों ने उसे दे खने के बाद मृत घोिषत कर
िदया।
मेरा दामाद आफ़ताब, उसकी मां ज़रीना व मामा फा ख
नौशाद उसे ब त तं ग करते थे। आफ़ताब व उसकी माँ
दहे ज के िलए बी को ब त तं ग करते थे। मने शादी पर
Motor Cycle दी थी पर ु वह कार और पैसे की मां ग
करते थे जो मेरी है िसयत म नहीं था। मुझे पूरा शक है िक
मेरी बेटी की मौत के िलए उपरो सभी ससुराल वाले
िज़ ेदार ह। बयान सुन िलया ठीक है । यह बयान म अपने
होश-ओ-हवास म िबना िकसी दबाव के दे रही ँ ।”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 27 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
30. Even the statement of PW-1 recorded before the court on 21.01.2012,
though containing expanded allegations regarding demand of a car,
harassment, beatings, denial of food and payment of Rs. 70,000/-, does not
disclose any specific incident, date or proximate act of cruelty relatable to the
period immediately preceding the death. The allegations remain general and
unparticularised in material respects and are unsupported by independent
corroboration, thereby limiting their evidentiary weight for establishing
cruelty “soon before death”. The relevant statement is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“Deceased Ruby was my daughter. She was
married with accused Aftab on 30.05.2010. In the
marriage, accused Aftab, his maternal uncles
Farukhi and Naushad and his mother Zarina had
quarreled with us on account of less dowry given
in the marriage as they were demanding car. After
marriage, when my daughter came to my house,
she told me that her husband, mother in law and
abovesaid maternal uncles used to harass her and
demand dowry and ask her to bring car or money
to purchase the car from us. They also used to beat
her for the same. My daughter Ruby had also made
complaint to me that she was not being given food.
I had given motorcycle make ‘Discover’ in the
marriage of my daughter to accused Aftab but he
was not satisfied with the motorcycle but accused
Aftab had demanded the motorcycle make
‘Pulsur’. Hence, I gave him cash Rs. 70,000/- to
purchase the motorcycle make Pulsur and he
returned back motorcycle make Discover to us. The
all said accused persons i.e. Aftab, husband of my
daughter, Zarina, mother in law of my daughter
and Naushad and Farukh had killed my daughterSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 28 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
as they were not satisfied with the dowry articles
given in the marriage.
On 23.12.2010, I received a telephonic message
from Aftab that Ruby is ill and he called me to come
to his house. Therefore, I alongwith Rahul who is
residing in my neighborhood left for matrimonial
house of my daughter at Mustafabad on the
motorcycle of Rahul. Aftab met us on the way
sitting in TSR near Yamuna Vihar near the nursing
home whose name I do not remember and I found
that my daughter Ruby was lying in the TSR on the
lap of one lady and the Aftab. My daughter was in
unconscious condition and on seeing her, I started
weeping. In the meantime, public persons gathered
there and they advise us to take her to GTB
hospital. Therefore, we took my daughter to GTB
hospital where after examining her, doctor
declared her brought dead. Rahul had informed my
family members and relatives and they reached at
GTB hospital. Accused Aftab and his maternal
uncles Naushad and Farukh tried to run away but
my relatives and family members apprehended the
accused Aftab whereas Naushad and Farukh ran
away. We informed the police and police of PS
Gokalpuri reached there and we alongwith
accused Aftab were taken to PS Gokalpuri. Police
officials had called SDM concerned. Accordingly,
SDM reached at PS Gokalpuri and in a separate
room he made inquiries from me and recorded my
statement Ex. PW1/A which bears my signatures at
point A. I narrated entire facts to the SDM. I was
crying before the SDM.
On the next day, postmortem on the dead body of my
daughter Ruby was conducted. I had identified her
dead body at Mortury, GTB hospital and my
statement in this regard was recorded by IO whichSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 29 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
is Ex. PW1/B which bears my signatures at point A.
After the postmortem, I received dead body of my
daughter for last rites vide Ex. PW1/C.All the four accused persons i.e. Aftab, Zarina,
Naushad and Farukh had killed my daughter Ruby
as we could not fulfill their demand of car and for
the same, they used to harass and give beatings to
my daughter. Accused persons Aftab and Zarina
are present in the court today.
Accused Farukh had given me threat to on my
mobile phone from his mobile phone to withdraw
the case otherwise they will kill my another
daughter in the same way. I had noted the said
mobile number of Farukh and gave the same to the
IO of this case. Now I do not remember the said
mobile number.
Accused Aftab was already married with Gulshana
and this fact was concealed from us. We met with
Gulshana who told us that accused Aftab
alongwith his both the abovesaid maternal uncles
had also harassed her for illegal demands of
dowry. The brother and uncle of Gulshana had also
told this fact to me. Gulshana had also given me
CD and photographs of her marriage with accused
which I had handed over to IO of this case.”
31. A comparative reading of the two statements of PW-1 indicates
significant elaboration in the later version which was absent in the earliest
account recorded by the SDM on 23.12.2010. While the initial statement
contains general allegations of harassment and dowry-related demands, it
does not disclose any specific incidents, particulars or proximate acts of
cruelty. In contrast, the subsequent statement under Section 161 CrPC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 30 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
introduces detailed assertions relating to beatings, denial of food, payment of
Rs. 70,000/-, threats by co-accused and the alleged prior marriage of the
accused. These constitute material improvements over the contemporaneous
version and, in the absence of independent corroboration, diminish the
evidentiary weight of the later narrative. Viewed cumulatively, although
allegations of dowry-related harassment are brought on record, the evidence
suffers from material improvements, lack of particulars and absence of proof
of any proximate act of cruelty preceding the death. The prosecution has
therefore failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to attract the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. In the absence of such
presumption, and the evidence being insufficient to independently sustain
guilt, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
32. Sh. Rizwan (PW-2) i.e. the father of the deceased similarly made
general and omnibus allegations without disclosing dates, occasions or
specific acts. The relevant statement of PW-2 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Deceased Ruby was my daughter. She was
married with accused Aftab on 30.05.2010.
According to my position, I had given motorcycle
make Discover and other dowry articles in the
marriage of my daughter to the accused persons.
The accused Aftab had returned the motorcycle by
stating that it was not a motorcycle of his choice
and he demanded the motorcycle make Pulsur.
Hence, I gave Rs. 70,000/- to him to purchase the
motorcycle make Pulsur and he returned back the
motorcycle make Discover to me.
On 19/20.12.2010, I received telephone call from
my daughter at Balrampur, where I was present forSignature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 31 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
the job work. She told me that her in-laws are not
good persons and that accused Aftab-her husband,
Zarina – her mother in law and Naushad and
Farukh-maternal uncles used to harass her and
demand car and money from her. She also told me
that if their demand is not fulfilled, they will kill her
or leave (ghar se nikal denge) her. She called me
at earliest to speak with the accused persons. I
could not come back early due to financial problem
and on 23.12.2010, I received a telephone call from
Rahul my neighbor informing that my daughter
had already died and was at GTB hospital. On next
day, I came back to my residence, and by that time
my daughter was brought at my residence after
postmortem was conducted on her body at the
hospital. My wife Ruksana, one Smt. Munni-my
neighbor and Rahul-my neighbor told me that in-
laws of my daughter had killed her. The accused
Aftab had telephonically informed my wife on
phone that my daughter was ill and my wife should
reach there at her matrimonial home at earliest.
My wife accompanying Rahul reached near
Yamuna Vihar where they saw my daughter
motionless in a TSR and accused Aftab and one
lady were sitting in the said TSR from there my
daughter was taken to GTB hospital where doctor
declared my daughter brought dead.”
33. The alleged telephone call said to have been received by PW-2 three
days prior to the death is not reflected in any contemporaneous document,
including the earliest statement recorded before the SDM or in any prior
version of PW-2 and was rightly treated with circumspection by the ld. Trial
Court. Even assuming the telephonic call of 19/20.12.2010, the same lacks
corroboration, was never mentioned in the earliest version, and does not by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 32 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
itself establish cruelty of such intensity as to constitute a proximate cause for
suicide.
34. In State v. Naresh & Ors. 2014:DHC:760-DB, this Court cautioned
that vague and general allegations, without particulars of dowry demand and
cruelty, are insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:
“25. It is trite that general and vague allegations
of dowry demands and beatings given to the
deceased without detailing specific instances,
vague and inconsistent statements of interested
witnesses such as parents, brothers and sisters of
the deceased, bald statements made by prosecution
witnesses which fall short of evidence to prove that
the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty
and harassment to which she was subjected just
prior to her death, and improved versions of
statements made by prosecution witnesses for the
first time in Court disclosing things not disclosed
during investigation, are liable to be viewed with
suspicion and the presumption of dowry death
cannot be raised therefrom, and the accused
cannot be convicted on the strength of such
statements [see Jagdish & Ors. vs. State, 2010
(28.5.2005) JCC 943; Sunil Bajaj vs. State of
M.P., AIR 2001 SC 3020; Nepal Singh vs. State
of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 2913 and Durga
Prashad & Anr. vs. State of M.P., 2010 (3) JCC
1852].”
35. The complete absence of any contemporaneous complaint, message, or
grievance by the deceased to her parents, relatives, or any authority prior to
her death is a highly relevant circumstance. Where cruelty is of such gravity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 33 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
as to drive a woman to suicide, some reflection of it would ordinarily surface
in the form of a complaint or communication. The silence of the deceased and
her family until after the death is a relevant circumstance which lends support
to the finding of the ld. Trial Court that the possibility of the subsequent
allegations being an afterthought cannot be ruled out. In such a case, a mere
speculation that there could have been demands of dowry would not be
sufficient to convict the accused.
36. The progressive embellishment in the testimony of PW-1 to PW-3,
moving from vague suspicion in their earliest statements to specific
allegations of dowry demand during trial, strikes at the root of the prosecution
case. Improvements of such nature, going to the core of the statutory
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, render the evidence unsafe to rely upon.
37. Equally important is the absence of a proximate and live link between
any alleged demand and the death. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2003) 8 SCC 80 and M. Srinivasulu (supra), the Supreme Court has
explained that the expression “soon before her death” requires that the cruelty
or harassment must not be too remote in time and must have a direct nexus
with the death. In the present case, there is no contemporaneous complaint,
no independent corroboration and no specific incident close in time to the
death which would suggest that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on
account of dowry demands. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that the
husband himself took the deceased to the hospital and informed her family;
such conduct, though not conclusive of innocence, is inconsistent with the
theory of culpable dowry-related harassment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 34 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
38. Apart from the above deficiencies in establishing dowry-linked cruelty,
the reliance placed by the prosecution on the testimony of PW-21 and PW-25
regarding alleged conduct of the accused in a previous marriage also does not
advance its case. At best, it appears to disclose some prior matrimonial
discord involving the accused in an earlier relationship, but such past conduct,
unrelated to the deceased and unconnected in time, place or circumstance with
her death, cannot substitute for proof of the statutory ingredients of Sections
498-A and 304-B IPC. The law requires proof that the deceased herself was
subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry soon
before her death. Evidence of alleged behaviour in a previous marriage,
howsoever discreditable it may appear, does not establish a proximate or live
link between any dowry-related cruelty and the death of the deceased. To rely
upon such remote and collateral evidence would amount to permitting
conviction on the basis of character or propensity, which would not be
permissible in criminal law. The ld. Trial Court was therefore correct in
holding that the testimony of PW-21 and PW-25 was legally irrelevant for
establishing the offence of dowry death in the present case.
39. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, the view taken by the ld.
Trial Court that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC is a plausible and a legally sustainable view.
It cannot be said that the findings suffer from perversity or that material
evidence has been ignored or misread.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 35 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
CONCLUSION:
40. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not arise, and the acquittal of the
respondents does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal dated 15th December,
2024 is hereby affirmed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The personal bonds and surety furnished by the respondents, if any, shall stand
discharged.
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
PRATIBHA M. SINGH,
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2026/k
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI CRL.A. 561/2016 Page 36 of 36
Signing Date:17.02.2026
17:04:32
