Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Kumar Raut on 20 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
ASJ-02 :SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Session Case No.269/2021
State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors.
FIR No: 126/2021
PS : Jaitpur
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 126/2021
Date of Institution : 22.07.2021
Offence complained of : U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 01.04.2021
Name of the complainant : Smt. Anju
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Raut
R/o H.No.2/22, Roshan Garden Part-II,
Kakrola Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi 110043
Name of the accused : (1) Krishan Kumar Raut
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
(2) Ram Kumar Raut
S/o Late Sh. Kusheshwar Raut
(3) Kundan Kumar Raut
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
(4) Phuleshwari Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
All R/o H.No.D-2/85, Hari Nagar
Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi
(5) Sunita
W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 1 of 114
R/o H.No.A-75, Ground Floor, Dayal
Bagh, Near Lakkarpur, Faridabad,
Haryana
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Judgment Reserved on : 07.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.05.2026
Decision : All accused persons
stands acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut, Kundan
Kumar Raut, Phuleshwari Devi and Sunita faced trial for offences,
punishable u/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution story, as per chargesheet is that on 01.04.2021, statement
of complainant Anju was recorded by the concerned SDM, in the
statement, Smt. Anju (mother of deceased Soni) stated that:-
“व्यान दिनाक 01/04/2021 में अंजू पत्नि श्री राम अवतार राउत, पता
2/22 रोशन गार्डन पार्ट-2 ककरोला रोड नजफगढ़ दिल्ली 110043
उसे 64 वर्ष में ये व्यान करती हूँ कि मेरे चार बच्चे है जिसमे तीन
लड़की और लड़का और में ये ब्यान करती हूँ कि मेरी दूसरी पुत्ररी
जिसका नाम सोनी जिसकी उम्र 28 साल थी जिसकी शादी 9 मार्च
2018 को जैतपुर निवासी श्री राम कु मार राउत के पुत्र श्री कृ ष्ण कु मार
राउत से हुआ था। जो कि मकान न० D-2/85, हरी नगर एक्सन
जैतपुर दिल्ली-110044 में रहते है मेरे व्यान के अनुसार मरी पुत्री और
दामाद से शादी के दो तीन महीने के बाद से दहेज लेने का झगडा चल
रहा था और मेरी पुत्री ने शादी के एक साल बाद एक बच्ची को जन्म
दिया जिसका (प्राची ) नाम है अभी होली के दिन मेरी पुत्री और दामाद
मेरे निवास स्थान नजफगढ आये हुए थे और दामाद होली के दिन हीFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 2 of 114
शाम को अपने घर जैतपुर चला गया और मेरी पुत्री ने शाम को जाते
समय बताया की मुझे लग रहा है कि ये लोग मुझे मार देगे फिर मैंने
अपनी पुत्री को 30/03/2021 को शाम 8.30 बजे बात हुई और
बतलाया की में अपने घर जैतपुर पहुँच गयी हूँ दिनाक 31/03/2021
को समय 2.30 पर मेरी पुत्री से विडियो कॉल पर बात हुई तब तक
सब ठीक था फिर मेरे बेटे (शिवम) ने उसी रात 8.41 से 8.50 Pm
तक अपनी बहन (सोनी) से बात की उस वक्त भी सब नार्मल था फिर
उसी रात मेरे बेटे के मोबाइल पर फोन 11.30 बजे आया जिसमे श्री
कृ ष्ण (दामाद) से बात हुई और उन्होने बताया की आप लोग पुरे
परिवार के साथ होली फै मली अस्पताल जल्द पहुँचे क्योकि आपकी
पुत्री सोनी खतम हो गयी है और में थे व्यान करती हूँ कि मेरी पुत्री की
मृत्यु नहीं बल्कि साजिस के तहत दहेज उत्पीडन के कारण रामकु मार
राउत फु लेशवरी देवी सुनीता कृ ष्ण कु मार राउत और कु न्दन कु मार
राउत ने मिलकर मेरी पुत्री की हत्या कर दी है और इसे फाँसी का नाम
दे दिया अत: श्री मान जी से नम् निवेदन है कि मेरी पुत्री के ससुराल
वालो पर सक्त से सक्त कार्यवाही करे । इनका व्यवहार बहुत ही गलत
रहा मेरी पुत्री के साथ वदिदात में मैं कार्यवाही चाहती हूँ। मेने अपना
ब्यान पढा व सुना जो कि सत्य है और मैं यह ब्यान विना किसी दबाव
के दे रही हूँ”
3. On the aforesaid statement of Smt. Anju mother of deceased Soni,
FIR was registered on 01.04.2021, U/s 498A/304B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. During investigation, the mobile phone of deceased Soni
was seized and the dead body of the deceased was sent for
postmortem. Exhibits were collected and sent for FSL. Accused
persons were interrogated and their statements were recorded. IO
during investigation also collected one multicolour chunni which was
used as ligature material was also seized. Site plan was prepared and
scene of crime was got inspected. Statement of witnesses/family
members of deceased were also recorded. The postmortem report of
deceased no.480/2021 reveals that “The cause of death to the best of
my knowledge and belief is asphyxia due to ligature compression of
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 3 of 114
neck. Any subsequent opinion regarding the case can be obtained by
the IO, after submitting the circumstantial and investigative findings.”
Bank account statement of accused Krishan Kumar Raut was also
obtained and it was found that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was
credited in his account on 19.02.2018 by a cheque which belong to the
sister of the deceased namely Meena and another amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was credited on 21.02.2018 from the bank account of
father of deceased namely Ram Avtar and another amount of
Rs.50,000/- on 17.02.2018 from the bank account of father of the
deceased.
4. The CDR/CAF record pertaining to mobile phone of deceased, the
mother of the deceased and all the accused persons as well as father of
deceased was also collected. Further, on 31.03.2021, there are three
continuous incoming calls on the mobile phone of deceased from the
mobile number of mother of deceased at 15:03 pm and thereafter,
from accused Sunita to the deceased at 08:17 pm and third call from
the brother of the deceased at 08:41 pm.
5. Further, on 311.03.2021, the location of mobile phone of accused
Kundan Kumar Raut at 14:55 to 22:21 pm is at Greater Noida and he
was not present at the time of the incident at his house at Hari Nagar
Ashram. Further, there is an incoming call made by accused Krishan
Kumar Raut to his brother accused Kundan Kumar Raut at 22:14 for
29 seconds and an outgoing call from accused Kundan Kumar Raut to
accused Krishan Kumar Raut at 22:24 for 91 seconds.
6. FSL report pertaining to inspection of scene of crime was also
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 4 of 114
collected which stated “on preliminary examination of the above said
room, no biological clues were observed at the scene of crime. On the
basis of dust disturbances found on the fan, the possibility of hanging
could not be ruled out.”
7. From the investigation, IO ascertained that on the day of incident
accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut, Kuleshwari Devi,
deceased Soni and her minor daughter Prachi were present at home at
the date and time of incident.
8. Further, accused Krishan Kumar Raut had brought the deceased Soni
to Holy Family Hospital by cab at 11:05 pm and the doctor had
mentioned on alleged history “found in unconscious state today at
09:30 pm at home with dupatta around neck. Patient was lying down
at first floor, noticed by her husband. Brought to casualty and having
oblique ligature mark around the neck.”
9. Supplementary chargesheet qua the viscera report was also filed. In
the postmortem report Ex.A23, upon the queries asked by the IO,
Q.1. Whether the ligature compression of neck of deceased Soni is
due to strangulation or hanging?
Q.2 Whether the ligature compression of neck of deceased Soni is
antemortem, or otherwise?
Opinion for Query no.1 and 2 :- “After perusal of submitted
documents, we are of the considered opinion that cause of death in
this case is asphyxia due to ligature compression of neck in this case
could be due to antemortem hanging. The investigating officer is
advised to corroborate with circumstantial evidences”.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 5 of 114
10. After filing of the chargesheet, Court took cognizance of the offences
against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were
concluded. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the
contents of chargesheet, accused persons was charged with offences
punishable under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC on 23.11.2021 to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed
for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its case: –
Serial Name of the Crux of deposition
Number Witness
PW-1 Smt. Anju To prove the material essentials of the
(complainant – complaint filed by her. She tendered the
mother of following documents in evidence :-
deceased) a) Complaint/statement dated 01.04.2021
– Ex.PW1/A
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-2 Ram Avtar Raut To prove the material essentials of the
(father of the offences alleged. He tendered the
deceased) following documents in evidence :-
a) Statement regarding identification of
dead body of deceased Ex.PW2/A
b) Statement recorded by SDM
Ex.PW2/B
c) Dead body receipt Ex.PW2/C
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 6 of 114
d) Seizure memo of marriage card and
marriage photograph Ex.PW2/D
e) Marriage photograph of deceased and
accused/husband Ex.X (Colly)
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-3 Meena (sister of To prove the material essentials of the
the deceased) offences alleged.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-4 Ct. Om Prakash Witness joined the investigation with IO
and deposed regarding different stages of
investigation carried out with IO. He
tendered the following documents in her
evidence:
a) Seizure memo of sealed exhibits
handed over by doctor in hospital
Ex.PW4/A and request form for keeping
the dead body in mortuary Ex.PW4/B
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-5 Ct. Kamarjeet Witness joined the investigation with IO
and deposed regarding different stages of
investigation carried out with IO. He
tendered the following documents in her
evidence:
a) Seizure memo of mobile phone of
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 7 of 114
deceased Soni Ex.PW5/A
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-6 Shivam (brother of To prove the material essentials of the
deceased) offences alleged. He tender the following
documents:-
a) Statement recorded by SDM on
01.04.2021 Ex.PW6/A
b) Statement of identification of dead
body of deceased Ex.PW6/B
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-7 Ct. Tota Ram Witness joined the investigation with IO
and deposed regarding different stages of
investigation carried out with IO. He
tendered the following documents in her
evidence:
a) Arrest memo & personal search memo
of accused Ram Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/A
& Ex.PW7/B respectively
b) Arrest memo & personal search memo
of accused Krishan Kumar Raut,
Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively
c) Arrest memo & personal search memo
of accused Kundan Kumar Raut
Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F respectively
d) Disclosure statement of accused
Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 8 of 114
and Kundan Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/G to
Ex.PW7/I respectively
e) Seizure memo of mobile phone make
Lenovo of accused Kundan Kumar Raut
Ex.PW7/J
f) Seizure memo of mobile phone make
Samsung of accused Krishan Kumar
Raut Ex.PW7/K
g) Seizure memo of chunnia Ex.PW7/L
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-8 Deepshikha Witness deposed that she got issued sim
(witness pertaining number 7669572878 of Vodafone and
to ownership of given for use to accused Sunita who was
mobile number of her neighbour.
accused Sunita)
PW-9 SI (Retd.) Kanhiya To prove the various stages of
Lal investigation being carried out by the
witness.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav To prove the various stages of
investigation being carried out by the
witness. He tendered the following
documents in her evidence:
a) Endorsement on statement of father of
deceased Ex.PW10/A
b) Seizure memo of broken pieces of
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 9 of 114
bangle Ex.PW10/B
c) Site plan Ex.PW10/C
d) Arrest memo, personal search and
disclosure statement of accused
Phuleshwari Devi Ex.PW10/D to
Ex.PW10/F respectively
e) Seizure memo of list of dowry articles
Ex.PW10/G
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW11 Tarun Kumar Witness proved the personal loan
Bharti, Legal account statement of Ramavtar Raut
Officer HDFC Ex.PW11/A (Colly) alongwith certificate
Bank U/s 63 BSA Ex.PW11/B and substitute
power of attorney Ex.PW11/C (Colly).
PW-12 Pankaj, Alternate Witness proved the CAF and CDR
Nodal Officer alongwith location chart of mobile
Vodafone Idea no.7669572878 issued in the name of
Deepshikha for the period from
01.10.2020 to 01.04.2021 already
Ex.A10 (Colly) alongwith certificate u/s
65 B of Indian Evidence Act
PW-13 Binod Kumar Witness proved the bill of gold jewellery
which was in the name of deceased Soni
Ex.PW13/A
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-14 Inspt. Subhash Witness deposed that he had issued
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 10 of 114
Bhatt notice to Central Bank of India for
investigation of account no.1021733232
of Ramavtar Raut. He received
certificate copy of said account from the
concerned bank and he had also received
FSL report from FSL. Thereafter he
prepared and filed the supplementary
chargesheet before the concerned court.
12. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 13.02.2025 &
08.01.2026, the accused persons have admitted the genuineness of the
following documents: –
S. Documents Admitted
No.
1. FIR No. 126/2021, PS Jaitpur recorded by Ex. A
HC Devender Singh.
2. Scene of crime report preapred by ASI Ravi Ex.A1
Kumar who visited at spot alongwith Ct.
Baljeet.
3. Postmortem report of deceased Soni dated Ex.A2
01.04.2021.
4. DD No. 7A dated 01.04.2021 recorded by Ex.A3
HC Tulsi Ram.
5. DD No. 4A dated 01.04.2021 recorded by Ex.A4
HC Tulsi Ram.
6. MLC of deceased Soni prepared in the Holy Ex.A5
Family Hospital by Dr. Trupati Ranjan
Shukla.
7. Recording the statement of Smt. Anju, Ram Ex.A6
Avatar and Shivam by the then SDM, dated
(colly)
01.04.2021 and Endorsement by SDM Sh.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 11 of 114
Praveer Singh, SDM Sarita Vihar.
8. FSL Report dated 22.02.2022 prepared by Ex.A7
Dr. Monika Sahi.
9. FSL Report dated 31.08.2021 prepared by Ex.A8
Dr. Santosh Tripathi.
10. FSL Report and DNA Report dated Ex.A9 (colly).
27.01.2022 preapaed by Dr. Saravjeet
Singh.
11. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A10 (colly)
Evidence Act, of mobile no. 7669572878 from page no.
23 to 33
12. Statement of account submitted by the then Ex.A11 (colly)
Branch Manager peratining to the account of from page no.
Ram Avatar Raut. 47 to 54
13. Statement of account of Meena of Punjab Ex.A12
National Bank.
14. Statement of account of Krishna Kumar Ex.A13
Raut of Axis Bank.
15. Statement of account of Ram Avatar Raut of Ex.A14 (colly)
Central Bank of India. from page no.
74 to 78
16. FSL/ Crime Scene Visit Report dated Ex.A15
02.06.2021 by the FSL Team prepared by
Dr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, Sr. Scientific
Officer (CSMD), FSL.
17. Nodal Officer, JIO pertaining to CDR and Ex.A16
CAF of mobile no. 7011842463 alongwith (colly)
certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Evidence from page 129
Act. to 144
18. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A17
Evidence Act, of mobile no. 9560287061 (colly)
and 9717399384 of Bharti Airtel. from page 146
to 154.
19. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A18
Evidence Act, of mobile no. 9999102131, (colly)
7669572878, 9718470860, 9716983581 and from page 157
9899367258 of Vodafone. to 186.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 12 of 114
20. Sketch Site Plan prepared by Draftsman Ex.A19
Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain.
21. Statement of Ct. Arun, who deposited sealed Ex.A20
parcel in the FSL.
22. Statement of HC Man Singh, who deposited Ex.A21
sealed parcel in the FSL.
23. Statement of W/HC Sunita, who was the Ex.A22
witness of arrest of accused Phuleshwari
Devi and accused Sunita.
24. Subsequent opinion bearing no.480/2021 Ex. A23 (Colly)
prepared by Dr. Abhishek Varun, Senior
Resident AIIMS Delhi
13. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present
matter as follows:
PW-1 Smt. Anju (complainant/mother of the deceased) deposed that
she had three daughters and one son. Deceased Soni was her second
daughter. They knew family of accused persons for the last 20-25
years as they were residing at Jaitpur, Delhi. The marriage of her
daughter Soni was solemnized on 09.03.2018 with Krishan Kumar
Raut S/o Ram Kumar Raut as per Hindu Rights. It was arranged
marriage. The marriage was solemnized at her native place at District
Madhubani, Bihar. After the marriage of her daughter, she started
living with her in laws house with the family of her husband at
Jaitpur, Delhi. Her daughter Soni lived happily for three months with
her in laws but after three months of the marriage, mother in law of
her daughter namely Phuleshwari Devi and Nanad Sunita had started
demanding jewellary by saying that “apne maike se maang ke lao”.
All the accused persons namely Phuleshwari Devi, Sunita, RamFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 13 of 114
Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut started torturing to bring
jewellary from her parental home. After one year of the marriage, they
started demanding Rs.2 Lacs from her. Her daughter Soni usually told
her regarding the demand of dowry, but she did not tell anything to
other family members. Whenever her daughter Soni came to her
house. She told her regarding demand of dowry. She used to tell her
that not to tell regarding said fact to any of the family members ” wo
mujhe kasam dilati thi ki ghar me kisi ko nahi batana, me apne aap
samhal lungi”. On 16.04.2019, one baby girl was born out of the said
marriage of her daughter Soni at Safdarjung Hospital. She came to her
house when she was in a family way for about 7 months. She came to
her house because her in laws and other family members used to
torture her at her matrimonial home. Before one year of her death, the
above mentioned accused persons demanded Rs.5 Lacs. Whenever her
daughter came to her home, she used to tell her regarding the demand
of dowry. She told her that whenever accused had demanded dowry
from her she would say that “me kaha se laungi. Mere baap ki teen
betiya hai aur kamane wale sirf mere papa hai”. On the occasion of
Holi, Last year ie. 2021 her daughter came to her house with her elder
daughter Meena in her car and her son in law namely Krishan Kumar
Raut came on his motorcycle. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut had left
on the same day saying that “mere bhai ko naukri pe jana hai. Me nahi
ruk sakta”. Her daughter Soni left on the next day. Before leaving her
home, she disclosed her that “mummy mujhe lagta hai ki ye log mujhe
marna chahte hai”. By “Ye log, she mean above mentioned accused
persons”. Her daughter Soni told her that she was educated and she
told her that “kya mai tere papa se baat karu ki who tere sasur se baat
kare?, upon this, her daughter told her that “mai samhal lungi” herFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 14 of 114
daughter Soni told her that her mother in law had hit with soap on her
head. This fact was told by her daughter Soni prior to 7/8 days of her
death. Her both the daughter namely Soni and Meena had left from
her house on the next day of Holi in the year 2021. Soni called her
when she reached at her matrimonial home. On 31.03.2021 at about
02.30 pm her deceased daughter namely Soni made a video call on her
mobile phone. At that time, her grand-daughter namely Prachi was
doing childish activities and was disturbing their talk. Around
08.41pm, on 31.03.2021 her son made a call to her deceased daughter
Soni and he talked till 08.50pm. Whenever her daughter used to call
or they used to call her, her in-laws used to disturb by asking her to do
household activities, so that she could not talk to them. On 31.03.2021
also, when her daughter talking to son, she was asked by her husband
to prepare food. Thereafter, due to said reason her son disconnected
phone and came downstairs as he was talking on the roof of their
house with her daughter. Around 11.30pm accused Kishan called her
son telephonically and informed him that her daughter Soni has died
and he should come to Holy Family Hospital. Accused Kishan also
told her son Shivam do not tell the said fact. Her son Shivam did not
believe what he had heard and asked accused Kishan to not joke
around. His son called her daughter Soni on her mobile phone but she
did not pick her phone. Thereafter, her son Shivam and her husband
reached Holy Family Hospital. Thereafter, she went before the
concerned Magistrate along with her son and husband, where her
statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, her daughter
was taken to AIIMS hospital for identification of dead body of her
daughter. Her daughter used to tell her that her in-law used to harass
her by making comments “aurat toh ek khilona hai, jo hum bazar seFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 15 of 114
laate hai aur khel ke badal dete hai .” Her daughter always used to get
checked by her in-laws with regard to the persons, she used to talk on
phone as her in-laws always used to stand near her whenever she used
to make call anybody including them. Further, she used to tell her that
her in laws used to demand dowry from her and those in-laws
included her Devar namely Kundan, husband Krishan, mother in law
Fuleshwari Devi, Sasur Ram Kumar Raut and Nanad Sunita.
During examinational PW1 was asked following court questions:-
Court Question: Whenever your daughter Soni used to tell you that
she was harassed by her in-laws, what used to be your response?
Ans: I used to suggest her to share the said information with her father
and mother but my daughter used to avoid it by saying that she was
interested in continuing with her matrimonial life and does not want to
give tension to her father and brother. She used to prepare for various
exams and had appeared in Navodya Vidyalaya in one of the exam. I
do not know exactly as to in what exams she used to appear and
prepare.
Court Question: Did you give any dowry in the marriage of your
daughter Soni?
Ans: Yes. We had given Rs.2.5Lacs in cash and Rs.2.5Lacs through
cheque in favour of husband of my daughter Soni.
Court Question: After the marriage can you specify any specific
dowry demand made by accused persons? If yes, give details.
Ans: After the marriage accused persons did not demand any dowry
from me, my husband and my son.
Court Question: Can you specify the details of dowry demands which
your daughter used to tell you?
Ans: My daughter used to tell me that her father in law used to tell her
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 16 of 114
“beti dahej le jaati hai aur bahu dahej lekar aati hai”. My daughter was
asked by her inlaws that accused persons that she should bring Rs.5
Lacs from us as dowry so that in laws of my daughter can get
construction of their home done as their house below the ground level.
Court question: Did you ask in laws of your daughter about the reason
of death of your daughter?
Ans: I had not myself asked in laws of my deceased daughter but
husband had asked accused Kishan about the cause of death of my
daughter and in response to the same, accused Kishan had replied “Jo
sochna hai soch lo”.
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons
PW1 deposed that Smt. Phuleshwari Devi was mother in law of her
daughter namely Soni. She had met Smt. Phuleshwari Devi, for the
first time on 02.10.2017 when there was a function of Chaurasiya
Samaj. She lastly met her in Safdarjung Hospital when her daughter
Soni delivered baby girl on 16.04.2019. She had talked to Smt.
Phuleshwari Devi on 29.03.2019 when there was Holi Festival on
phone. Smt. Phuleshwari Devi had called me on phone for giving
wishes of Holi. She had met Smt. Sunita on the day when my
daughter had married. Subsequently, she never met Smt. Sunita. It
was correct that she knew that Smt. Sunita was married, at the time of
marriage of her daughter. She had come, prior to marriage of her
daughter, at her house for seeing her daughter for marriage purposes.
It was correct that she never went to the matrimonial house of her
daughter Soni. Kundan was brother in law (devar) of she daughter.
She had met him in Chaurasiya Samaj function in the year 2017. He
had come to her home on various occasions with her daughter after
marriage of her daughter. She could not tell when she had last metFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 17 of 114
him. She did not remember as to how many days prior to incident in
question, Kundan had come at her residence. She did not use to talk to
Kundan at length. She was acquainted with the in laws of her daughter
for the last 20/25 years due to Chaurasiya Samaj function where they
used to come. She did not call any of the accused persons to her house
prior to marriage of her daughter. She did not know what Mr. Ram
Kumar Raut, father in law of her daughter, was doing prior to
marriage of her daughter. She made inquiry prior to marriage and she
was told that the accused Krishan Kumar Raut studied upto B.A. She
was also told that accused Krishan was working in a Company. She
did not remember the name of the company her son in law was
working. Again said, later on she came to know that her son in law
was working in Samsung Company. It was correct that she did not
visit the house of accused persons for the talk of marriage of her
daughter Soni. She maintained/used mobile prior to marriage of her
daughter. She did not know how to operate whatsapp and SMS. She
knew how to make video call. Her mobile has whatsapp after the
marriage of her daughter Soni. Her daughter Soni used to send the
photographs of her daughter on her whatsapp number. It was correct
that her daughter never sent any whatsapp message on her mobile.
Whenever she inquired her daughter for anything on a call, she used
to tell her that she can not tell on phone. She was not sure whether any
message sent by her daughter was available on her phone as her phone
was already damaged. Her daughter Soni studied upto B.Com. She did
not remember whether she had completed her M.Com but she had
cleared first part of CA and left the studies. She could not tell when
her daughter appeared in CA entrance. She could not say whether her
daughter appeared in CA entrance in the year 2011. Her daughterFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 18 of 114
dropped the studies of CA by saying that she had two other younger
children and bearing the expenses for her studies would be overburden
and that her father is the only earning member. It was correct that her
daughter had taken the admission in IGNOU University for M.Com
Course in the year 2014. It was also correct that she stopped the study
of M.Com later on. She dropped her studies of M.Com because of
marriage of her elder daughter Meena. It was correct that after
marriage, her daughter told her that she joined the course of M.Com
from IGNOU university. It was correct that she completed her M.Com
in the year 2019. It was correct that her daughter completed her
studies of M.Com while staying in her matrimonial home. It was
correct that her son in law Krishan might have borne the expenses of
her M.Com as she was living in her matrimonial house. It was correct
that her daughter was also applying for government jobs. It was
correct that her daughter appeared in entrance examination for the
Post of Stenographer in Bihar Vidhansabha as well as for the post of
Teacher in Sarvodya Vidyalaya. She did not know whether her son in
law Krishan was also applying for the government job alongwith her
daughter. Her daughter Soni was also having her money. Her daughter
had no bank account, in her name, prior to her marriage. It was correct
that before marriage, her daughter used to give tutions. It was correct
that cheque of Rs. 2.5 Lac was given by them in the name of husband
of her daughter, prior to marriage of her daughter. It was wrong to
suggest that because her daughter was not having the bank account,
therefore, the amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs belongs to her daughter, was
given in the name of husband of her daughter. His daughter had
mobile phone in her name, prior to her marriage. She could not tell the
said mobile number of her daughter. She had not taken the saidFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 19 of 114
mobile number with her, after her marriage. She did not know
whether, husband of her daughter had purchased and had given a
mobile phone to her daughter, after marriage. Initially, after marriage
of her daughter, she used to talk to her from the mobile number of her
husband. Later on, her daughter got mobile phone in her name. She
had not given any mobile to her daughter after her marriage. She did
not know who had given the said mobile phone to her daughter. She
cannot affirm or deny the suggestion that her daughter received
mobile phone after her marriage, from her in-laws. It was correct that
she used to be in touch of my daughter through WhatsApp call/
message/ normal call on mobile phone, after her marriage. She never
received any WhatsApp message or normal message from her
daughter, vide which, she had told her about her in-laws harassing her
on account of dowry demand. It was correct that her daughter had
knowledge about surfing the internet. It was correct that one case of
her husband was pending, as on date, in Hon’ble High Court of Bihar.
It was correct that her husband used to ask her daughter about the
status of the said case online. It was correct that in the month of
October 2020, her daughter told her that she alongwith husband and
in-laws were going for a tour to Haridwar. She did not remember
whether her daughter had made WhatsApp video call from Badrinath
and had shown her site of Badrinath. It was correct that her daughter
came to her house to give prasad of Badrinath. After marriage, on first
Raksha Bandhan festival, her daughter was at her home. It was correct
that after Raksha Bandhan, they used to go by taking Kawad for
pilgrimage. During cross examination PW1 was asked is it correct that
you and your son stated on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan in the
year 2020, to your daughter “hum nahi chod sakte, wo khud le jayega,FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 20 of 114
jis per soni bahut gussa ho gyi thi, ki uske saamne uski pati ki ijjat
nahi kar rahe hain” to which she replied no. She did not remember
that whether her daughter visited her house in the month of January
2020.
During cross examination PW1 was asked following court questions.
“Court Q.1 : Who was elder, amongst your son and husband of
deceased ?
Ans : My son-in-law i.e. husband of deceased.
Court Q.2 : Whether your son used to address your son-in-law by
name ?
Ans : No. He had cordial relations with his brother-in-law and
used to respect him.”
On 31.03.2021, around 2.30 pm, when her daughter was present at her
matrimonial house, she made WhatsApp Call to her as her grand
daughter (daughter of her daughter) was insisting to talk to her.
During cross examination PW1 was asked is it correct that her
daughter left for matrimonial house on 31.03.2021 to which she
replied it was wrong. At the time of marriage of her daughter, she was
not having any regular bank account in her name. It was correct that
she had given Rs.2.5lacs to her daughter in the name of accused
Krishan Kumar Raut. It was correct that she had given said money as
her daughter was not having any bank account in her name and that
money belong to her daughter. She had told police that she had borne
all the educational expenses of her daughter. It was correct that she
daughter was having one mobile phone with her after her marriage.
She did not know the make of mobile phone, her daughter was
maintaining after her marriage. She did not know the make of her
mobile phone. Her statements were recorded before SDM and twice
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 21 of 114
by police. The statement recorded before SDM was read over to her
by the staff of SDM. The statement recorded by police outside the
office of SDM was not read over to her by anybody and she had also
not read it. The statement recorded by police in police station Jaitpur
was read over to her, by the son of her sister.
During cross examination PW-1 was asked following court
questions:-
“Court Q.1 In your testimony, recorded before this court, you have
deposed certain facts told by your daughter viz. 1.”main kahan se
laungi. Mere baap ki teen betiyan hai aur kamane wale sirf mere
papa hai” 2. “main Samhal lungi” 3. “aurat toh ek khilona hai, jo
hum bazar se laate hai, khelke badal dete hai”…..Those facts are not
mentioned in your previous statements. What is the reason?
Ans: I had told all the said facts before SDM and police. I do not
know why those facts are not mentioned in my previous statements
recorded before SDM and police.
Court Q.2 After initial three months of marriage of your daughter,
as per your testimony, accused persons started harassing her to bring
dowry. What did you do, to solve the situation?
Ans: I had met the middle man and he assured me with the
passage of time, issues in the marriage of my daughter will end.
Based on said assurance, I did not file any complaint and did not
meet accused persons, to solve the situation.
Court Q.3 How many times, your daughter told you that accused
persons were demanding dowry, specifically or approximately?
Ans: My daughter had told me more than once said fact of
dowry demand being raised by accused persons but I cannot
specifically or approximately tell the number of times, she had toldFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 22 of 114
me about the said fact.
Court Q.4 As per your testimony, about seven-eight days prior to
her death, she had told you that she was hit with soap on her head
by her mother in law. What did you do to solve the said issue?
Ans: I did not do anything. (Vol. That is my fault. I am
suffering for the said mistake today. My daughter always told me to
not interfere in her matrimonial home. She told me that she will
handle the situation, by herself.)”
She had told the fact regarding her daughter telling her, seven to
eight days prior to her death, about she being hit with a soap by her
mother-in-law, to the police. She did not know about the
educational qualification of father in law and mother in law of her
deceased daughter Soni. She did not know as to whether her
daughter used to book railway tickets or gas booking and online
shopping for purchasing articles for daily use in her matrimonial
home. She knew that her daughter used to go as a parent to the
college of her brother in law Kundan. She did not know as to
whether her daughter Soni used to accompany her husband, for
purchasing articles from market. It was correct that her daughter
was very sensitive. She had not filed any complaint regarding dowry
demands, made by in laws of her deceased daughter, after three
months of her marriage. She did not know how many times, her
daughter visited her house. Her daughter had come to her home as
she was finding it difficult to work in her matrimonial home. She
had talked to the Mediator, who had got the marriage of her
daughter conducted with accused Krishan Kumr Raut regarding the
fact that her daughter used to complaint about her being harassed by
her in laws. No meeting took place between us and in laws of her
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 23 of 114
deceased daughter, in the presence of mediator, as in laws of her
daughter refused to join any such meeting. She did not file any
complaint when in laws of her daughter refused to join such
meeting.
PW-2 Ram Autar Raut deposed that his daughter namely Soni (since
deceased) got married to accused Krishan Kumar on 09.03.2018 as
per Hindu rites and rituals at Bihar. His daughter living peacefully for
about 2 months after marriage. Thereafter, the father-in-law of his
daughter namely Ram Kumar Raut and her mother in law namely
Smt. Kuleshwari Devi and sister in law namely Sunita and husband
Krishan Kumar and dever Kundan Kumar started harassing his
daughter and asked her to bring dowry. In the marriage of his
daughter he had given her daughter gold ornaments almost around 65
grams. After marriage on the festival of badh savitri when his
daughter was wearing her jewellery which he had given her in her
marriage, accused Sunita told his daughter that the jewellery given in
marriage belonged to them, thereafter, they demanded his daughter to
bring more jewellery from him. Thereafter, accused Kundan Kumar
had to take admission in B. Tech and for the same they asked my
daughter Soni to bring Rs.2 Lakh from him so that admission of
accused Kundan Kumar could be done. Thereafter, they again
demanded Rs.5 Lakh from his daughter for re-construction of the
house since the same was in dilapidated condition. Thereafter his
daughter was pregnant and after six months of her pregnancy accused
persons had left his daughter with me at her parental home and she
remained with them. His daughter was blessed with a girl child on
16.04.2019. Thereafter, all accused persons had taken his daughter
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 24 of 114
back to the matrimonial home but soon after they all started torturing
and harassing his daughter Soni since she had given birth to a baby
girl. Thereafter, on the festival of Holi in the year 2021, his daughter
alongwith accused Krishan Kumar visited me in the parental home
alongwith the baby girl child. Thereafter, accused Krishan Kumar
went back and left his daughter with me. On 30.03.2021, when he
asked his daughter to go back to her matrimonial house, she informed
his wife (her mother) that if she would return back to her matrimonial
house, accused persons shall kill her since they were unhappy with the
jewellery given in the marriage and have been harassing her for the
same and also for the reason that the demand of accused persons of
Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs. 5 Lakhs was not fulfilled by his. However, he
convince his daughter after making her understand to go to her
matrimonial home and on 30.03.2021, she went back to the house of
the accused persons. On 31.03.2021, his wife received a video call
from his deceased daughter Soni. Thereafter, on the same night when
his son Shivam had given a call to his deceased daughter Soni to
inform her about his result, and was talking to him, accused Krishan
Kumar was heard by him from behind by saying ” khana nahi
banaogi”. At that time his son Shivam had spoken to his daughter
from 08:41 pm to 08:50 pm. On the same night at around 11:30 pm
accused Krishan Kumar gave a call on the phone of his son Shivam
and told him “aap sab log, holly family hospital aa jao, kyonki aap ki
beti soni khatam ho gayee hai”. Thereafter, he alongwith his son
Shivam reached at Holly Family Hospital. He was not allowed to meet
his daughter Soni since she had expired. Accused persons had not
informed the police and had not called the PCR van. His daughter was
not to brought by hospital by the ambulance but was brought in OLA
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 25 of 114
Cab which was booked by accused Kundan from Noida. However, in
the night he had made a call at 100 number to the police from the
mobile phone of his son. Police officials had reached at Holi Family
Hospital and had taken the body in their possession. On 01.04.2021,
the body of his daughter was taken to AIIMS hospital by police
officials. He had identified the dead body of his daughter and his
statement regarding identification of the dead body of his daughter
was Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, they were asked to appear before the
SDM by the police officials and their statement was recorded before
the SDM concerned. In the SDM office he was accompanied with his
wife and son. The postmortem of his daughter was also conducted.
His statement recorded before SDM was Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, dead
body of his daughter was handed over to them and cremation was
performed. The dead body receipt was Ex. PW2/C. To his belief his
daughter was killed by all the accused persons in connivance with
each other. He had seen the ligature mark on the neck of his daughter
which he believe she was killed by strangulation. He had handed over
the marriage card and colored photographs on photocopy paper of
marriage to the IO and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.
PW2/D and marriage card and photographs was Ex. X1 (Colly).
Police had inquired matter from me and also recorded my statement.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW2 deposed
that the cremation of his daughter was performed in his presence and
in the presence of accused persons. The jewellery articles worn by his
deceased daughter at the time of her death were handed over to them
by the police officials after her death. Sh. Laxman Rao was the
mediator in the marriage between his deceased daughter and accused
Krishan Kumar Raut. He did not inform to the mediator regarding the
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 26 of 114
fact that his deceased daughter was being harassed by the accused
persons for demand of dowry. He had handed over the police officials
the bills pertaining to the purchase of dowry articles given in marriage
of his daughter. Judicial record perused, the aforesaid bills for
purchase of jewellery articles were not available on record. He had
met accused Sunita who was the sister in law of his deceased daughter
several times after marriage of his daughter. He had met accused
Sunita on the occasion of one pooja ceremony performed in the house
of the accused persons and also on the retirement of accused Ram
Kumar. It was correct that the marriage of accused Sunita was
solemnized prior to the marriage of his daughter. It was correct that
accused Sunita was residing after her marriage in her matrimonial
home. He did not know if at the time of admission of accused Kundan
in college his deceased daughter had visited the college being the
parent/guardian of accused Kundan. His deceased daughter Sunita had
informed him and his wife regarding demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
admission of accused Kundan in college on the phone as well as when
she had visited them in parental home. He had informed regarding the
same to the mediator of marriage namely Laxman Rao when he had
met him regarding the demand of accused persons but he told him
later that the accused persons were not taking his calls. He had not
informed regarding demand of Rs.5 Lakh for the construction of
house by the accused persons from his deceased persons to the
mediator Laxman Rao because soon after the present incident of death
of his daughter had occurred. He had visited the house of accused
persons before his daughter getting married in their family and the
house of the accused was owned by them and was not a rented
accommodation. The house of the accused persons was old
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 27 of 114
construction. It was correct that he was employed at Bihar Bhawan,
Delhi at the time of marriage of my daughter. The matter has been
decided in his favour by a double bench. It was correct to check the
status of the aforesaid case of Bihar, he used to call his daughter to
seek her assistance. It was correct that his daughter had taken
admission for pursuing CA before her marriage. His daughter had
already completed her B.Com prior to her marriage. His daughter had
taken admission in IGNOU for pursuing M.Com. It was correct that
his daughter was preparing for government job. It was correct that his
daughter and accused Krishan Kumar had appeared for an exam
conducted by Bihar Government and had gone to Patna for the same.
Before marriage his daughter was having a bank account. However,
the same was closed by her just prior to her marriage. The name of his
younger daughter is Indu. His younger daughter was working in
AXIX Bank Ltd. He did not know whether the job of his younger
daughter was got on the recommendation of accused Krishan Kumar
Raut. He had not lodged any complaint against husband of his
daughter and in laws against harassment in the matrimonial house
prior to the present case. He visited to the matrimonial house of his
daughter after her marriage on the retirement of her father-in-law. He
had given the invoice of the jewellery which was purchased by him
for the marriage of my daughter, to the police. It was not completely
constructed. The matrimonial house was already constructed as
constructed but the same is down from the road level. There was no
birth celebration of the child of the deceased as there was lock down
period. There was no complaint lodged by his about threat which his
daughter told that “sasural wale maar denge”. They had tried to get
understand his daughter but thereafter next day, she had expired. He
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 28 of 114
had no time to contact the mediator of the marriage to explain about
the information given my daughter against the in-laws. It was correct
that his deceased daughter Soni was accompany with his elder
daughter namely Meena and she had dropped her at Jaitpur Bridge
where accused Krishan Kumar Raut had come to pick my deceased
daughter Soni. He did not know if after marriage his daughter had
opened two bank accounts in her name. He did not know if his
daughter used to make all her expenses after withdrawing money from
the aforesaid bank accounts. After two months of the marriage of his
deceased daughter she had narrated that she was being harassed by the
accused persons and she had shared the same with her mother who
told him regarding the same. They had not filed any complaint with
the police upon knowing the same, however, he had spoken regarding
the same to the mediator of marriage. Thereafter, mediator told him
that he had tried to contact the accused persons but the accused
persons were not taking his calls. It was correct that whenever my
daughter visited the parental home she would only stayed for one or
two days with them. It was correct that his daughter used to visit the
parental home and used to be dropped by her husband. He did not
know what mobile number his daughter was having at that time. His
statement was recorded once before SDM concerned and once before
the police officials. They had cordial relations with the accused
persons till the death of his daughter. The distance between the house
of accused Sunita and the matrimonial house of his daughter was very
less and she used to often visit the matrimonial house of his daughter.
He had not seen any quarrel between my daughter and accused Sunita.
PW-3 Meena deposed that she was the sister of the deceased namely
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 29 of 114
Soni. Her deceased sister Soni got married to accused Krishan Kumar
Raut on 09.03.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, her
deceased sister went to her matrimonial home which was situated at
Jaitpur and she started residing with the accused persons i.e. accused
Krishan Kumar Raut (husband of deceased), accused Ram Kumar
Raut (father-in-law), accused Phooleswari Devi (mother-in-law),
accused Kundan Kumar (Devar). Accused Sunita (sister-in-law) of the
deceased used to live separately as she was already married. Her
father in the marriage of her deceased sister had given her dowry as
per his own capacity. Her father had given a cheque amount of Rs. 2.5
Lacs to accused Krishan Kumar Raut and also given cash of Rs. 2.5 to
the accused persons at the time of marriage. Apart from said amount,
her father had also given to her deceased sister around 60-65 grams of
Gold, household articles, clothes including other articles. Her father
had also given a gold chain and gold ring to accused Krishan Kumar
Raut. In the beginning of the marriage of deceased, she was kept well
by the accused persons. However, she had less occasion to talk to the
deceased as she was already married and used to remain busy in my
matrimonial home. However, when she spoke to her sister almost after
six months of her marriage when they both were at their parental
home for the function of Rakhi that the accused persons used to
dislike her talking on phone and restricted her to talk. On the occasion
of Rakhi, her sister was wearing her gold articles given in her
marriage. At that time, she told her sister to be careful as she had
visited the parental home by wearing jewellary and it was not safe but
she said that she want to wear it as it was given in her marriage. At
that time, her sister also told her that accused Phooleshwari Devi and
accused Sunita used to claim their right on her jewellary and told her
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 30 of 114
sister that the jewellary did not belong to her and that her deceased
sister should hand over her jewellary to them. Her deceased sister
Soni also told her that the accused persons namely accused Krishan
Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Phooleshwari Devi, Kundan
Kumar and Sunita Devi were unhappy with the articles given in her
marriage and used to claim that her father had given insufficient
dowry in the marriage. Whenever, she had spoken to her deceased
sister, she had told her the aforesaid things. She hardly used to talk to
her. She had met her sister last on 29.03.2021 on the festival of Holi
as she had visited the parental home along-with her in her Car as she
had a small child and we had reached our parental home. Accused
Krishan Kumar Raut had also accompanied us on the same day while
he was on the bike. On 29.03.2021, accused Krishan Kumar Raut left
our parental home as they had some work. On 30.03.2021, she along-
with her deceased sister Soni came back and she dropped her at
Meethapur Chowk and thereafter, she was taken by accused Krishan
Kumar Raut. On 31.03.2021 at around 11.30 pm in the night, she
received a call from her younger brother Shivam who informed that
he had a received a call from accused Krishan Kumar Raut that her
sister Soni had expired. Upon hearing the same and since she was
residing in Faridabad, she immediately reached Holy Family Hospital.
In the hospital, she met accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar
Raut and Sunita. Her statement was recorded by the police. Her
deceased sister Soni could not have committed suicide and she had
suspicion on the accused persons that they have killed her sister. Her
sister was educated and could not have taken such an adverse step.
She was not suffering from any ailments and therefore could not have
died. Her sister used to be harassed by the accused persons for
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 31 of 114
demand of dowry and used to taunt her for demand of dowry and
therefore she was killed by accused persons.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW3 deposed
that they have four brother and sisters and now deceased Soni had
already expired. She was the eldest, thereafter was deceased Soni,
then her sister Indu and thereafter her younger brother namely
Shivam. Her date of birth was 10.02.1991. Her deceased sister Soni
was born on 13.11.1992. She was B.Ed. from Bihar, Graduation from
Delhi University and also have done Masters from IGNOU. It was
correct that she got married on 03.07.2014 and the same was
performed in Delhi. Her husband was a Mechanical Engineer and he
hails from Bihar. It was correct that they belong to Chaurasia
Community and even her husband belongs to the same community.
Accused persons also belong to Chaurasia Community. She was a
Teacher by profession and she was teaching at Patwal Public School,
Faridabad, Haryana since 2016. Her deceased sister Soni had
completed her Graduation and was pursuing her Masters. Her
deceased sister had also cleared her examination of CPT Course and
had also cleared one part of IPCC examination. It was correct that her
sister had completed her graduation in Commerce stream from Delhi
University. She was not sure if deceased was pursuing her Masters
from IGNOU. She did not know if her deceased sister had completed
her M.Com. She must have completed it after her marriage but she
was not knowing about the same as she hardly used to talk to her. She
was enquired about the present mater by the police. Her statement was
recorded by the police and she had narrated the aforesaid facts to the
police. Her statement was read over to her by the police. She had
informed the police in her statement that ” apart from said amount, my
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 32 of 114
father had also given to my deceased sister around 60-65 grams of
Gold, household articles, clothes including other articles. My father
had also given a gold chain and gold ring to accused Krishan Kumar
Raut.” During cross-examination statement of the witness recorded
u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the
aforesaid facts are not so recorded and the witness was confronted.
She had also informed the police in her statement “However, when I
spoke to my sister almost after six months of her marriage when we
both were at our parental home for the function of Rakhi that the
accused persons used to dislike her talking on phone and restricted her
to talk. On the occasion of Rakhi, my sister was wearing her gold
articles given in her marriage”. During cross-examination, the
statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was
read over to her wherein the aforesaid facts was not so recorded and
the witness was confronted. She had informed the police in her
statement that “at that time, I told my sister to be careful as she had
visited the parental home by wearing jewellary and it was not safe but
she said that she want to wear it as it was given in her marriage .”
During cross examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec.
161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the aforesaid
facts were not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had
told the police in her statement that “My deceased sister Soni also told
me that the accused persons namely accused Krishan Kumar Raut,
Ram Kumar Raut and Phooleshwari Devi, Kundan Kumar and Sunita
Devi were unhappy with the articles given in her marriage”. During
cross examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161
CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was readover to her wherein the aforesaid facts
were not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had told the
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 33 of 114
police in her statement that “My deceased sister Soni could not have
committed suicide”. During cross examination, the statement of the
witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her
wherein the aforesaid facts are not so recorded and the witness was
confronted. It was correct that he had two daughters namely Ishika
and Nidhi. It was correct that her daughter Nidhi’s birthday falls on
08th June. It was correct that first birthday of her daughter named
Nidhi was celebrated and she had invited all her family members. It
was correct that deceased Soni along-with her husband accused
Krishan Kumar Raut had also attended the birthday celebration of my
daughter Nidhi. It was correct that deceased Soni had accompanied
her in-laws to Badrinath in October 2020. She did not know if
deceased Soni had also visited Rishikesh prior to Badrinath. She did
not know if deceased Soni and accused Krishan Kumar Raut had
visited Bihar to appear for examination in Bihar Legislative Assembly
(Secretariat). Her sister was having a phone prior to her marriage. She
did not remember the mobile number of deceased sister today. She did
not remember the make of the mobile phone which she had prior to
her marriage. She did not know if accused had gifted deceased Soni a
Redmi mobile phone in June 2018 after her marriage with him. He
may have given but she did not know. She was not sure if deceased
had any bank account in her name prior to her marriage.
PW-4 Ct. Om Prakash deposed that on the intervene night of
31.03.2021/01.04.2021, he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am
alongwith SI Kanhiya Lal. SI Kanhiya Lal received an information
vide DD No.4A. Thereafter he alongwith SI Kanhiya Lal went to
Holy Family Hospital and SI Kanhiya Lal collected the MLC of
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 34 of 114
deceased Soni W/o Krishan Kumar Raut and doctor advised on the
MLC as patient brought dead. The husband of the deceased namely
Krishan Kumar Raut and his father Ram Kumar and other persons he
did not remember their name. SI Kanhiya Lal prepared a paper
regarding preservation of dead body of deceased in the mortuary of
AIIMS Hospital, Delhi. He preserved the dead body of deceased in
the mortuary at about 3 am and he was present at the mortuary for
safety of the dead body of deceased. On 01.4.2021 at about 03:00 pm
SI Kanhiya Lal reached at Mortuary who got conducted the
postmortem of deceased Soni. After postmortem the sealed exhibits
collected by SI Kanhiya Lal from doctor concerned and seized int his
case vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The above said sealed parcel
were handed over to him by SI Kanhiya Lal and as per direction he
had deposited the same in the malkhana. His statement was recorded
by the IO. He had also signed the request to keep the dead body in the
mortuary which was Ex.PW4/B.
PW-5 Ct. Karamjeet deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted as
Ct. at PS Jaitpur. On that day, he had joined the investigation with
SI Kanhiya Lal and reached his beat no.H.No.D-2/85 Hari Nagar
Extn. SI Kanhiya Lal informed to crime team to reach at spot. At
about 2:20 am, crime team reached at spot and inspected the place
of occurrence and photograph of place of incident was taken by the
crime team member. One mobile phone was found in the room on
the double bed of deceased Soni and the same mobile phone was
seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The make of the
mobile phone was MI. Thereafter, they came back to the police
station and IO had deposit the above said mobile phone in the
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 35 of 114
malkhana. During examination MHC(M) had produced one
transparent plastic box having doctor tape and particulars of the case
written on the doctor take of the above said container and one
mobile phone was taken out from the said container and the said
mobile phone make MI was shown to the witness. Witness correctly
identify the mobile phone which was seized by the IO at the spot.
Above said mobile phone was Ex.MOI.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW5
deposed that the mother in law of the deceased was present in the
house at the time the proceeding were carried on by the crime team
and the seizure of the mobile phone.
PW-6 Shivam deposed that he was the brother of deceased Soni. His
sister Soni (deceased) got married to accused Krishan Kumar Raut on
09.03.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, his sister
residing in her matrimonial house situated at Hari Nagar Extn. Jaitpur,
Delhi. For about 2 months after marriage, his sister was kept well by
accused persons. However, after two months of marriage, the family
of the accused persons started demanding more dowry from his sister
upon saying that the dowry brought by her is insufficient. All accused
persons used to demand dowry from his sister as they were unhappy
with the articles given in marriage. After marriage, when his sister
visited them, after almost 2-3 months of her marriage, when she
visited the parental home, she informed us regarding the aforesaid
demands of accused persons. When they asked her that if she wanted
him and his father to speak to the accused persons, she said that she
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 36 of 114
will handle it on her own. At that time, he was pursuing his B.Tech.
On 29.03.2021, for the festival of Holi his deceased sister Soni
alongwith her husband namely accused Krishan Kumar Raut visited
the parental home/their home and drop his sister and left. Thereafter,
on 30.03.2021, his elder sister namely Meena alongwith her husband
Om Prakash who were already at their home for the festival of Holi,
alongwith his sister in their car went to drop his deceased sister Soni
to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, his sister reached back her
matrimonial home. In the afternoon of 31.03.2021, his deceased sister
even made a video call to his mother alongwith her small daughter
Prachi. Around 8:41 pm to 8:50 pm, his deceased sister spoke to me
on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, while talking to her, he heard accused
Krishan Kumar Raut asking his sister to serve dinner and at that time
he found everything was fine. His sister did not disclose him anything
disturbing. After talking to her he kept the phone. On the same night
at around 11:30 pm, he received the call from accused Krishan Kumar
Raut that he missed the same but soon thereafter, he called back. At
that time, he was informed by accused Krishan Kumar Raut who told
him that his sister has expired and that he should reach Holly Family
Hospital. He tried to ask the accused Krishan Kumar Raut regarding
the reason for the incident but he did not disclose anything to me but
ask him to reach Holly Family Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith his
father reached at Holly Family Hospital and upon reaching he was
informed by hospital staff that the same seems to be a police case and
upon hearing the same he made a call at 100 number. When he saw
the dead body of deceased he realized that there were ligature mark on
her neck. Later, the dead body of deceased / his sister Soni was taken
to AIIMS Hospital for postmortem. On their way to hospital, while in
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 37 of 114
the ambulance he and his father asked accused Krishan Kumar Raut
but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Postmortem of deceased
was conducted on the next day. Prior to that, he had got his statement
recorded before the SDM concerned on 01.04.2021 and the same was
Ex.PW6/A. He had identified the body of deceased and the statement
of identification of dead body was Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, the body of
his sister was cremated. To his knowledge, the deceased Soni was
tortured by all accused persons after her marriage for purpose of
demand of dowry and due to the same she was killed by accused
persons. To his knowledge, his sister could not have commit suicide
as she was educated and a strong person. On 05.04.2021, he had
handed over the marriage card and colored photograph of marriage
nine colored print out of his sister to the IO and the same was seized
vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B. The marriage certificate and
marriage photograph are already admitted and Ex.X1 (Colly). Prior to
the marriage they had given Rs.2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs.2.5 Lakh by
way of cheque to the family of the accused persons i.e. Ram Kumar
Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut. They have also given proof regarding
the aforesaid payment to the IO. They had also furnished details of
jewellery articles given to his sister in her marriage with the accused
Krishan Kumar Raut.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW6 deposed
that at the time of marriage of his sister, he was doing B.Tech. From
NSIT Dwarka, Delhi. They have been living at the aforesaid address
from 2001 onward. Since, 2000 they have been staying in Delhi. The
age difference between him and his deceased sister Soni was about 6
years. Meena was his eldest sister and thereafter his sister Soni
(deceased), then Indu and thereafter him. They all have studied in
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 38 of 114
Delhi. It was correct that his father was employed with Bihar
Government and was posted in Bihar Bhavan at Chanakya Puri, Delhi.
As per direction of police official they had reached at office of SDM
for recording their statement at Sarita Vihar, Delhi. They had reached
there in the morning but exact time he did not recollect. He did not
remember the exact time, but it was sometime in noon their statement
was recorded. After that they went to the AIIMS Hospital where the
postmortem was performed. The jewellery worn/found on the dead
body was handed over to his family by the police officials. They had
gone to the cremation ground which was in the area of Jaitpur, Delhi.
Since his mother was little unwell and under shock, their statement
was again recorded by police in the police station. They again visited
at police station 2-3 times to hand over the documents asked by the
police but he was not sure if his statement was recorded by the police.
It was correct that the statement which the police had recorded after 2-
3 days of the incident was signed by him. At this stage, the statement
Ex.PW6/C has been shown to the witness and the witness confirm that
the said statement was recorded by the police. He did not remember if
he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A because he was
not in his senses due to shock that “For about 2 months after marriage,
my sister was kept well by accused persons. However, after two
months of marriage, the family of the accused persons started
demanding more dowry from my sister upon saying that the dowry
brought by her is insufficient”. He did not remember if he had stated
to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A because he was not in his
senses due to shock that “All accused persons used to demand dowry
from my sister as they were unhappy with the articles given in
marriage. After marriage, when my sister visited us, after almost 2-3
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 39 of 114
months of her marriage, when she visited the parental home, she
informed us regarding the aforesaid demands of accused persons.
When we asked her that if she wanted me and my father to speak to
the accused persons, she said that she will handle it on her own.” In
his statement to the SDM he told him that ” Thereafter, while talking
to her, I heard accused Krishan Kumar Raut asking my sister to serve
dinner and at that time I found everything was fine. My sister did not
disclose me anything disturbing.” but it is not so recorded in the
statement Ex.PW6/A. In his statement Ex.PW6/A to the SDM, he did
not remember if he told that “When I saw the dead body of deceased I
realized that there were ligature mark on her neck.” In his statement
Ex.PW6/A to the SDM, he did not tell that ” On our way to hospital,
while in the ambulance I and my father asked accused Krishan Kumar
Raut but he did not give any satisfactory answer.” He did not
remember if he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A
because he was not in his senses due to shock that ” Prior to the
marriage we had given Rs.2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs.2.5 Lakh by way
of cheque to the family of the accused persons i.e. Ram Kumar Raut
and Krishan Kumar Raut.” It was correct that after her marriage his
sister had resumed her studies. It was correct that his sister completed
her M.Com after her marriage. It was also correct that his sister was
preparing for competitive exams after her marriage. It was correct that
his sister also appeared in the examination conducted by Bihar
Secretariat after her marriage. The said examination had taken place
in Bihar. Accused krishan had accompanied his deceased sister to
Bihar but he was not aware if he had also given the said exam or not.
It was in his knowledge that after the marriage his deceased sister had
gone to Haridwar and Badrinath with her in-laws.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 40 of 114
PW-7 Ct. Tota Ram deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted as Ct
at PS Jaitpur. On that day, he had joined investigation of present case
alongwith IO Inspt. Vipin Yadav and Ct. Satyavir. They all proceeded
to the house of accused persons bearing H.No.D-2/85 Hari Nagar
Extn. Jaitpur, New Delhi. When they reached there, accused persons
namely Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Kundan Kumar
Raut were found present. IO interrogated them and arrested them and
also conducted their personal search. The arrest memo of accused
Ram Kumar Raut and his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/A and
Ex.PW7/B respectively. The arrest memo of accused Krishan Kumar
Raut and his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D
respectively. The arrest memo of accused Kundan Kumar Raut and
his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F respectively.
IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons namely
Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Kundan Kumar Raut vide
memo Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H and Ex.PW7/I. Accused Kundan Kumar
Raut was also produced his Lenovo Mobile Phone to the IO which
was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/J. Accused Krishan
Kumar Raut are also produced his Samsung Mobile Phone to the IO
which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/K. Accused
Krishan Kumar Raut has also produced one multi color chunni lying
on the double bed in a room which was used by his wife deceased
Soni for committing suicide. The said chunni was found torn from one
side. IO converted the same into a parcel and seal with the seal of
VKY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo now
Ex.PW7/L. During examination MHC(M) PS Jaitpur produced a
transparent container box sealed with the seal of VKY. The same was
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 41 of 114
opened and out of it one light blue/sea green color Samsung mobile
phone was taken out and was shown to witness who identify that the
same mobile phone handed over to IO by accused Krishan Kumar
Raut. The said mobile phone was Ex.PW7/MO1. The Lenovo mobile
phone belonging to accused Kundan Kumar Raut had already been
released to him on superdari and the identity of the same was not
disputed by the accused persons.
PW-8 Deepshikha deposed that he was postgraduate in Commerce.
He got issued mobile number 7669572878 in his name but he did not
use the same as he had other mobile number. In the year 2017-18, he
give the said SIM Number of Vodafone, to accused Sunita who was
his neighbour for use and she was using the said mobile number.
PW-9 SI (Retd.) Kanhiya Lal deposed that he did not remember the
exact month of incident but on 30th of 2021, he was posted as SI at PS
Jaitpur, Delhi. On that day, his duty hours from 8 pm to 8am. He
received no.DD No.4 at about 12:30 am regarding MLC and the
patient was brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct.
Om Prakash reached at Holly Family Hospital and collect MLC of
deceased namely Soni W/o Krishan Kumar Raut as she was declared
brought dead by the doctor. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut and his
father namely Ram Kumar Raut was also present there and he made
enquiry from them and they told him that isne (deceased Soni) ne fassi
lega li” and they further told him that the marriage was solemnized
between deceased Soni and accused Krishan Kumar Raut since three
year ago. Upon doubt, he give this information to SDM concerned
telephonically regarding this incident. The concerned SDM directed
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 42 of 114
him to bring the parents of patient deceased Soni and her brother to
his office. The dead body of deceased was shifted to AIIMS Trauma
Center and was preserved in mortuary of AIIMS Hospital. Ct. Ram
Kumar was directed to remain present at the hospital. Thereafter, he
alongwith Ct. Karamjit reached to the spot i.e. H.No.2/85, Hari Nagar
Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi and he saw that no chunni was hanged
with the ceiling fan. He called the crime team at the spot.
Accordingly, crime team reached at spot and they inspected the spot
and the photographer of crime team clicked the photographer of the
spot. One mobile phone make MI of deceased was lying on the spot
and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/A.
Thereafter, they came back to police station. The parents of the
deceased was also met me at Holy Family Hospital and he directed
them to came to the office of SDM tomorrow for recording their
statement. On the next day, parents of deceased Soni alongwith her
brother came to the police station and thereafter, he took them to the
office of SDM at Amar Colony, Delhi for recording their statement.
SDM recorded their statement. SDM handed over him one letter with
instruction for conducting the postmortem of the deceased Soni as per
law. He recorded the statement of father, mother and brother
regarding identification of dead body of deceased at mortuary.
Thereafter, the postmortem of deceased Soni got conducted. After
postmortem doctor handed over him six exhibits in sealed condition
alongwith four sample seal and he took the same through seizure
memo vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. After postmortem dead body of
deceased handed over to her parents and he recorded their statement
regarding the same which was already Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW2/A.
Thereafter, he went to PS and deposited the above exhibits in
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 43 of 114
malkhana and handed over all documents to the SHO. During
examination MHC(M) produced one transparent plastic box bearing
seals of Court and also having case particulars written on it. With the
permission of the Court the seals are broken containing one mobile
phone make Samsung was taken out and was shown to the witness
and after seeing the same witness stated that the said mobile phone is
not belong to deceased. Further MHC(M) produced another
transparent plastic box in unsealed condition and also having case
particulars written on it. The same was opened and found containing
one mobile phone make MI and after seeing the same witness stated
that the said mobile phone is belong to deceased and the same was
seized at the spot. The said mobile phone already Ex.MO1.
During cross examination PW-9 deposed that the investigation of this
case remained with me from the time DD No.4A was handed over to
him till the SDM had directed for registration of this case. His
statement was recorded by IO in this case only once on 02.04.2021.
The statement was read over to him. He had told to the IO regarding
the fact that upon doubt he gave this information to SDM. He had told
in his statement Ex.PW9/DA that “I saw that no chunni was hanged
with the ceiling fan”. He did not know the exact time but probably it
was around 2 O’ clock in the night when he had informed the crime
team about the incident. The crime team had reached the spot in his
presence. He did not remember if the crime team had taken his
signature on any of the document which they prepared at the spot.
Crime team remained at the spot for about 45 minutes. At the time of
inspecting the spot, the mother and brother of accused Krishan Kumar
Raut was present. However, he did not remember the name of brother
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 44 of 114
of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. The mobile phone of deceased
Ex.MO1 was seized by him. However, he did not remember whether
he had seized the same before arrival of crime, team or during their
presence of crime team or after the time when the crime team had left.
He did not seize the said mobile phone Ex.MO1 in cloth pulanda.
However, he seized the same in a plastic box. The plastic box was
procured from nearby market. He did not remember the shop from
which he had purchased the said plastic box. He did not obtain any
bill regarding purchase of said plastic box. He had sealed the said
plastic box with the material using ” lakh” and sealed with the seal of
KLS. The seal was handed over to Ct. Karamjeet after its use. He did
not remember whether statement of Ct. Karamjeet was recorded by
me or not. He did not put any specific mark on the mobile phone
Ex.MO1 before seizing the same. The slip was pasted on the said
mobile phone Ex.MO1 by him but the word “Soni deceased” was
written by Ct. Karamjeet. He did not mention the fact that the word
“Soni deceased” was written by Ct. Karamjeet on the slip was
mentioned in the seizure memo of the said mobile phone which is
Ex.PW5/A.
PW-10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted
as PS Jaitpur. On that day, the present case was marked to him for
further action. He made endorsement on the statement of father of
deceased Ex.PW10/A and the case was got registered. SI Kanhiya Lal
handed over him the exhibits i.e. viscera, clothes and hand swaps,
blood sample of the deceased in sealed condition alongwith seizure
memo’s. He fill up the particulars of the case on the seizure memo
which was already Ex.PW4/A. SI Kanhiya also handed over him one
mobile phone of deceased and he had also mentioned particular of this
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 45 of 114
on the said seizure memo. Thereafter, he alongwith other police
official went to the spot i.e. D2/85, Hari Nagar Extension Jaitpur,
Delhi where accused persons Krishan Kumar Raut, Kundan Kumar
Raut and Ram Kumar Raut were already present there. He
interrogated them and arrested them vide arrest memo already
Ex.PW7/A (Ram Kumar Raut), Ex.PW7/C (Krishan Kumar Raut) and
Ex.PW7/E (Kundan Kumar Raut) and he also conducted their
personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/F. He
also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide memo
Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H and Ex.PW7/I. He seized one multicolor
chunni from spot which was used in committing crime vide seal with
the seal of VKY vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/L. He also
seized one piece of bangle from the spot and sealed with the seal of
VKY vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He also seized the mobile
phone of accused persons namely Kundan Kumar and Krishan Kumar
vide seizure memo’s already Ex.PW7/J and Ex.PW7/K. He prepared
the site plan vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing. Thereafter, they came
back to police station alongwith above mentioned accused persons
and case property. The case property was deposited in the malkhana
of PS Jaitpur. Medical examination of accused persons got conducted
and thereafter they were sent to lock-up PS Jaitpur. On next day, all
three accused persons were produced before the court and they were
remanded for JC. During the investigation of this case, official of
crime team handed over him crime scene report, 18 photographs in a
pen drive and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. During
investigation he had recorded the statement of relative of deceased u/s
161 Cr.P.C. On 15.05.2021, he arrested accused Phuleshwari Devin
from her house in presence of lady constable vide arrest memo
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 46 of 114
Ex.PW10/D, and her personal search was got conducted by lady
constable vide memo Ex.PW10/E. Further, disclosure statement of
accused Phuleshwari was also got recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/F.
Medical examination of accused Phuleshwari got conducted and
thereafter she was produced before the court and remanded for JC.
During investigation, accused Sunita was also interrogated and her
interrogation report was prepared. He collected the certified copy of
bank statement of accused Krishan Kumar Raut and relative of
deceased which reflects transactions of money in the account of
Krishan Kumar Raut. During investigation, he had also collected
CDR, CAF and location charge of mobile numbers of accused persons
and relative of deceased for corroborating calls made by deceased to
her relatives. He sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini, Delhi for opinion.
During investigation the FSL team also inspected the scene of crime
and prepared report. He also collected the photographs and marriage
card of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. During the
investigation of this case he also seized the bills of dowry articles and
cash memos produced by father of deceased alongwith list of dowry
articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G. After completing of
investigation he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the
concerned court. The case property i.e. Samsung mobile phone of
accused Krishan Kumar Raut is already Ex.MO1. During examination
MHC(M) produced one yellow color parcel no.6 bearing seals of DR
MS FSL DELHI and also having case particulars written on it. With
the permission of the Court the seals are broken and the case property
i.e. chunni multicolor was taken out and same was shown to the
witness and after seeing the same witness has correctly identify the
same and further stated that the same was recovered from the spot.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 47 of 114
The said chunni multicolor was Ex.MO2. During examination
MHC(M) produced one white color envelope having seal of VKY and
also having case particulars written on it. With the permission of the
Court the seals was broken and the case property i.e. two pieces of
bangle was taken out and same was shown to the witness and after
seeing the same witness has correctly identify the same and further
stated that the same was recovered from the spot. The said chunni
multicolor was Ex.MO3.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-10
deposed that he had taken over the investigation as per direction of the
SHO on 01.04.2021. The case was registered after he prepared the
rukka. It was correct that the case was registered on the statement of
mother of the deceased namely Anju. It was correct that the spot was
situated in residential area. He had made enquiries from the
neighbourhood of the accused persons but no neighbour had joined
the investigation. He did not note down the name of said neighbour.
He had mentioned the said fact in my case diary. During cross
examination PW10 was asked whether can he refer to his case diary
and inform about the fact that he had made enquiry from the
neighbourhood and that none of them came forward to join the
investigation to which after seeing the case diary witness replied that
the fact of the case was mentioned in the case diary. However, he did
not mention in the case diary regarding the fact that neighbour had
jointed the investigation. The family members of the deceased had
not visited the spot in his presence on 01.04.2021. At the time of
seizing of case property i.e. chunni and pieces of bangles, he asked the
neighbour to join the investigation but none had joined the
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 48 of 114
investigation. He did not serve any notice to them for joining the
investigation. He might have seized and prepared the seizure memo of
case properties i.e. chunni and pieces of bangles before arrest of
accused persons. He obtained the signature on the seizure memo of
case property i.e. chunni of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. He
prepared separate seizure memo regarding the chunni and one piece of
bangle. He did not obtain the signature of any of accused persons on
the document i.e. Ex.PW10/B. He did not remember whether he had
made any investigation about the educational qualification of
deceased Soni. He did not make any investigation regarding the fact
that who was the mediator of marriage of deceased and accused
Krishan Kumar Raut. As far as he remember, no previous complaints
was received in the police station Jaitpur before the present incident.
He did not remember whether he had enquired from the family of the
deceased regarding the fact that they had filed any other complaint
prior to said incident. He had verified the bills which was handed over
to me by the father of deceased. He did not mention the said fact in
the main chargesheet which he had filed before the Court. He was not
aware about the terms psychological autopsy. He heard this word first
time. It was correct that from time to time we do refresher courses as
to how the investigation is to be carried out.
PW-11 Tarun Kumar Bharti, Legal Officer HDFC Branch Back
Office, Moti Nagar deposed that he was summon witness in this case.
He was posted as above. He had brought the certified copy of personal
loan statement of account no.52537382 of Ramavtar Rawat from
30.11.2017 to 07.12.2021 alongwith certificate u/s 63 of BSA r/w
Section 2 (A) of Banker Book of Evidence of above mentioned
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 49 of 114
statement. The said statement is now Ex.PW11/A (Colly) (running
into 6 pages). Certificate of 63 of BSA is now Ex.PW11/B. He had
also brought the substitute power of attorney which is now
Ex.PW11/C (Colly) (OS&R).
PW-12 Pankaj Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed
that he was summon witness in this case. He was posted as above. The
mobile bearing no.7669572878 was issued in the name of
Deepshikha. The CAF & CDR alongwith location chart of
Deepshikha alongwith her ID proof, aadhar card, from dated
01.10.2020 to 01.04.2021 already exhibited as Ex.A10 (Colly). The
above mentioned document was shown to the witness and after seeing
the same witness correctly identify signature of Mr. Ajeet Singh who
was working as Alternative Nodal Officer of above mentioned office.
He identifying the signature of Mr. Ajeet being official capacity. The
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act of above mentioned
document already Ex.A10 (Colly).
PW-13 Binod Kumar deposed that he was summon witness in this
case. On dated 03.02.2018, he was working as proprietor of Vandana
Jewellers situated at opposite B-8 Vasant Kunj near GD Goinka
Public School, Delhi. He had issued bill/receipt in the name of Soni of
gold jewellery which was purchased from above mentioned shop. The
said bill was Ex.PW13/A. The total amount of bill was Rs.2,09,000/-.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW13
deposed that he had written the details of the jewellery items as well
as name and address of customer in his own handwriting in
Ex.PW13/A.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 50 of 114
PW-14 Inspt. Subhash Bhatt deposed that on dated 25.02.2025, he
was posted as Inspt. At PS Jaitpur. The case was marked to him for
further investigation and during further investigation of this case, he
issued notice to the Central Bank of India for investigation of account
of accused Ramavtar Raut and he received certified copy of account
no.1021733232. Thereafter, FSL report was received from FSL and
the same was marked to him for further investigation. He had gone
through the same and prepared the supplementary chargesheet and
filed before the concerned court.
14. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution evidence was closed
and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CR.P.C.
15. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to
accused persons separately which they denied. They claimed that
prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses, they were falsely
implicated in this case and they were innocent. They have never
committed any offence and have never dealt with the deceased with
any wrong manner. There was no complaint whatsoever against them
or their family members. Accused persons did not opt to lead DE.
16. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments. After hearing
final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
17. Accused persons in this case were charged with Section
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 51 of 114
498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS.
18. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the
present case has been filed to falsely implicate the accused persons in
the present matter. It has been argued that the deceased Soni
solemonized marriage with accused Krishan Kumar Raut on
09.03.2018 and thereafter, resided peacefully in the matrimonial
house alongwith other co-accused persons. It has been argued that
since the deceased Soni had solemnized the marriage with the accused
Krishan Kumar Raut and thereafter lived peacefully with all accused
persons. It has been argued that no offence under Section 304B IPC is
made out against the accused persons as the ingredients of Section
304B have not been proved by the prosecution. It has been argued that
the conditions as required under Section 304B are cumulative, the
failure to establish any one of them is fatal to the entire charge. It has
been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish ingredient (1)
cruelty or harassment ‘soon before death’ and ingredient (iv) that such
cruelty was in connection with a demand for dowry. Further, in the
absence of the foundational proof, the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
19. Ld. Counsel for accused persons relied upon the judgment in
the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta, (2025) 3 SCC
433 wherein it has been held that “even if one of the ingredients of
304B is absent, the presumption under Section 113B would not be
available to the prosecution and the onus would not shift to the
defence.”
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 52 of 114
20. Ld. Counsel for accused persons relied upon the judgment in
the case of Shoor Singh And Another vs. State of Uttara Khand,
(2025) 2 SCC 815 wherein it has been held that:-
“Once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death
have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
would not be available to the prosecution-
21. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Baijnath &
Ors. vs. State of M.P., 2017(1) SCC 101 wherein it has been held that
“Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or
relatives of the husband is the sine qua non to prove
guilt under Section 3048. Unnatural death in
matrimonial home within 7 years is not ipso facto
sufficient to convict.”
22. It has further been argued that the prosecution has failed to
prove any dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued
that the mother of the deceased, Smt. Anju (PW-1), is the most
important prosecution witness. She was the person to whom,
according to the prosecution, the deceased regularly confided her
grievances. Yet, when the Court put a direct question to PW-1 asking
whether after the marriage, the accused persons demanded any
specific dowry, she stated “After the marriage, accused persons did
not demand any dowry from me, my husband and my son.”. It has
further been argued that this is a categorical, unequivocal admission
from the prosecution’s own witness. It directly and irrecoverably
demolishes the prosecution’s case of post-marital dowry demand. A
prosecution case built upon the premise of persistent dowry
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 53 of 114
harassment after marriage cannot survive an admission by the
complainant’s own mother that the accused persons never made any
dowry demand from them after the marriage. It has been argued that
PW-1 admitted in her testimony during Court’s question that several
critical statements attributed to her daughter- including the phrases
‘main kahan se laungi, mere baap ki teen betiyan hain’, ‘main samhal
lungi, and ‘aurat toh ek khilona hai” were not mentioned in her earlier
statements recorded before the SDM and the police, and she could
offer no explanation for these omissions.
23. It has further been argued that PW-2, the father of the deceased,
admitted in cross-examination that he never lodged any complaint
against the husband and in-laws of his daughter for harassment prior
to the present case, despite allegedly knowing of harassment for
approximately three years since the marriage in March 2018.
24. It has been argued that it is wholly improbable that a
government employee posted at Bihar Bhawan, Delhi who knew that
his daughter was being threatened with death, would take no legal
action whatsoever for three years. Furthermore, PW-2 admitted that
he did not inform the mediator Laxman Rao about the demand of Rs.5
Lakh for construction of the house which was allegedly the most
recent dowry demand before death.
25. It has been argued that the prosecution has not produced a
single independent witness not a neighbour, friend, community
member, marriage mediator Laxman Rao, to corroborate the alleged
dowry demands. In a case where the marriage was performed in Bihar
before the community and where both families belonged to the
Chaurasia community (which has community functions and
networks), the total absence of any third-party corroboration is not a
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 54 of 114
gap but it is the evidence itself PW-2 himself admitted.
26. It has also been argued that a fundamental internal
inconsistency runs through the prosecution’s case on the quantum of
cash allegedly given at the time of marriage. The prosecution
witnesses have given three completely different figures and there are
contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and which
shall be mentioned below:-
“PW-1 (mother): Stated before the Court that Rs. 2.5
Lacs was given in cash and Rs. 2.5 Lacs through cheque
in favour of the husband
PW-2 (father) In examination-in-chief, stated he gave
gold ornaments of about 65 grams. In cross-
examination, stated the cheque of Rs. 2.5 Lac was given
before marriage and it belongs to the daughter
PW-3 (sister): Stated that the father gave a cheque of Rs.
2.5 Lacs to accused Krishan Kumar Raut AND also
gave cash of Rs. 2.5 Lacs to the accused persons at the
time of marriage.
PW-6 (brother) Stated Rs. 2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs. 2.5
Lakh by way of cheque were given prior to marriage to
Ram Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut”
27. The inconsistency on a foundational fact whether cash was
given, and to whom across the four core prosecution witnesses is
telling. When PW-1 was confronted with this in cross-examination,
she admitted that the cheque in the name of the accused was given
because her daughter did not have a bank account and the money
belonged to her daughter. This explanation that money given to the
accused was actually the daughter’s own money directly undermines
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 55 of 114
the prosecution’s characterisation of the same amount as ‘dowry given
under demand.
28. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any
cruelty for harassment “soon before death” is established. It has been
argued that the deceased had her last Interaction on 31.03.2021 with
her brother which has been mentioned by all the witnesses. PW-6
Shivam (brother of the deceased) “While talking to her, I heard
accused Krishan Kumar Raut asking my sister to serve dinner and at
that time I found everything was fine. My sister did not disclose me
anything disturbing.”
29. It has been argued that the aforesaid testimony of PW6 relates
to the last known telephone interaction with the deceased on
31.03.2021. PW-6 was speaking to his sister on the phone for
approximately 9 minutes (8:41 pm to 8:50 pm). The brother’s own
testimony that he ‘found everything was fine’ and that his sister ‘did
not disclose anything disturbing’ directly negates the prosecution’s
claim that deceased Soni was being subjected to cruelty in the hours
immediately preceding her death.
30. It has been argued that the testimony of family of the deceased
recorded before the court that there is an improvement in their
statements, for which they have been confronted. Further, there is
contradiction in the statement of all the witnesses. It has been argued
that from the cross examination of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6, it can
be made out that the deceased was kept well in the matrimonial house,
as she perused her studies after her marriage, used to often meet her
parental family for attending functions and rituals, accompanied the
accused persons for travels to religious places, was perusing studies
for appearing government exams and was giving freedom to pursue
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 56 of 114
her dreams.
31. It has been argued that a woman who is being systemically
tortured for dowry does not typically complete a post-graduation
degree while living in the matrimonial home, travel to religious
pilgrimage sites with her in-laws, attend family functions with her
husband, and appear jointly with her husband for competitive
examinations. The picture that emerges from the defence’s cross-
examination of the prosecution’s own witnesses is of a largely normal
matrimonial life, not of the unrelenting harassment that Section 304B
requires.
32. It has been argued that the IO did not conduct the investigation
fairly. Further, from the medical record and the postmortem report, it
has been established that the death of the deceased was caused due to
asphyxia and due to antemortem hanging. It has been argued that it
has no where been opined that the deceased was subjected to any
cruelty prior to her death or that accused persons had killed the
deceased. The post-mortem of deceased Soni was conducted at AIIMS
Hospital. The prosecution has not placed on record any post-mortem
report finding of ligature marks on the neck, or any finding of
strangulation, or any finding consistent with the manner of death
alleged. In the absence of forensic proof establishing the manner of
death and linking it to any act of the accused, the prosecution cannot
sustain a charge of dowry death.
33. It has been argued that Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act –
presumption cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act creates a statutory
presumption of dowry death against the husband and relatives.
However, this presumption is not absolute, it is contingent upon the
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 57 of 114
prosecution first establishing all foundational ingredients of Section
304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Where the foundational facts are
not established, the presumption cannot bridge the evidentiary deficit
34. It has been argued that none of the witnesses deposed that there
was any dowry demand and all the witnesses have stated that they
have given dowry or articles in marriage and have not alleged that
there was any demand at the time of marriage. It has been argued that
eve subsequent allegation of demand of dowry are exaggerated and
have not been substantiated.
35. It has been argued that in the absence of proof of even one
foundational ingredient, the presumption under Section 113B cannot
be pressed into service. This is not a case where the presumption can
fill the gaps, the gaps are so fundamental that invoking the
presumption would amount to convicting the accused on suspicion,
which the law prohibits.
36. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that it has been held in “Apart
from general allegations in the same tone with parrot like similarity,
allegations founded on confidential communication by the deceased to
her parents and not supported by any other quarter, cannot form the
basis for conviction under Section 304B.” Baijnath vs. State of M.P.,
2017(1) SCC 101.
37. “The accused must be afforded the benefit of the doubt
wherever it arises. A person accused of an offence is presumed
innocent until proved guilty.” as held in Kali Ram vs. State of H.P.,
1973 SCC (Crl.) 1048.
38. “Significant omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements and
belatedly introduced allegations amount to contradictions and
afterthoughts Absent specific, proximate acts of cruelty or harassment
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 58 of 114
and reliable contemporaneous evidence of dowry demand, the
ingredients of Section 304-B and 498-A are not proved beyond
reasonable doubt.” as held in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025
SCC Online SC 214.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR STATE
39. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for
State that in the present matter, deceased Soni had committed suicide
as she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of
dowry by the accused persons soon before her death and that the
deceased had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage
with accused no.1 and the same is corroborated by the witnesses
examined by the prosecution and that all the family members of the
deceased has stated that accused persons used to demand Rs.5 Lakhs
from the deceased as dowry which can be termed as the deceased had
died unnatural death. It has been argued that all accused persons are
liable to be convicted for the offences charged in the present matter.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF VICTIM/FAMILY OF DECEASED
40. It has been argued it is trite law that for the burden of proof under
both S. 304B IPC and S. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifts to
the accused to be discharged by them once the ingredients of S. 304B
IPC have been established by the prosecution. It has been argued that
it is the case of the complainant that the said burden has been shifted
on the accused by the prosecution establishing that the ingredients of a
dowry death under S.304B IPC to be shifted on the accused and be
discharged by the accused, however the accused have failed to
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 59 of 114
discharge the same. Ld. Counsel for complainant placed reliance in
the case of Sher Singh v State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 724 para 16.
41. It has further been argued that the prosecution has proved the
ingredients u/s 304B IPC. It is submitted that the factum of marriage
has not been disputed and further the death of the deceased had taken
place in the night of 31.03.2021 has also not been disputed. The death
of the deceased was unnatural, allegedly by hanging. The issue of
demand for dowry has also been proved by the witnesses examined by
the prosecution has they all have supported the case of prosecution. It
has also been argued that undisputed fact that the parents of the
deceased had paid dowry by way of bank transfer to the tune of Rs.2.5
Lakhs, cash to the tune of 2.5 Lakhs and gold ornaments and the same
has been proved even during the cross examination of the witnesses.
It has been argued that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated
their testimonies and the same prove the guilt of accused persons
beyond reasonable doubts. It has further been argued that the sole
defence of the Accused persons is that the prosecution has failed to
establish the ingredients of S.304B and accordingly, the accused
deserve to be acquitted. In particular stating that no “demand” or
cruelty has ever been established. It is submitted that based on the
above the accused have failed to discharge the burden on them to
prove that they are innocent. It has been argued that the death of the
deceased had taken place in suspicious circumstances. The
circumstances of the death of deceased also raises a question mark on
the conduct of the accused persons. Not only does the investigating
officer state in his opinion in the chargesheet that the crime scene was
tampered with or seemed suspicious, the accused persons on finding
the deceased hanging, neither called the police; or an ambulance or
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 60 of 114
the parents of the deceased. The deceased persons got one of the co
accused to book a cab and took the deceased in the cab. An ambulance
support could have saved the deceased as she was declared brought
dead. The PCR call was only made by the hospital where the deceased
was taken. The chargesheet also mentions the said tampering at page
32 of the file at point 9 where it is stated that one piece of broken
bangle is recovered by FSL but no the other part of the bangle which
suggests that crime scene was tampered.
THE LAW
42. I am firstly dealing with the offences of Section 498A IPC. Here, I
must mention relevant law with respect to Section 498A IPC.
43. Section 498A IPC mandates that a husband or relative of the husband
of a woman, who subjects a woman to cruelty, shall be punished with
a term which may extent to three years and fine. Explanation to the
said provision gives meaning to “cruelty” in following manner.
a) any willful 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 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.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 61 of 114
44. Cruelty, therefore, can be either mental or physical. It is difficult to
strait jacket the term cruelty by means of a definition because cruelty
is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one may not constitute
cruelty for another person. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case
law titled as G.V. Siddara Ramesh Versus Statement of Karnatka
(2010) 3SCC 152.
45. Further, Section 498A IPC was added with a view to punishing
husband and his relatives, who harass or tortured the wife to coerce
her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper
technical view would be counter productive and would act against the
interest of women and against the object for which provision was
added. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled as B.S. Joshi
Versus State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386.
46. After considering above provision and interpretation of the same by
Hon’ble Apex Court, I find that above provision was made by
legislature, to safeguard the interest of a married woman who is
subjected to mental or physical cruelty by her husband or relatives of
husband. The said cruelty could lead that woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health, which can be either
physical or mental. That cruelty also could be based on harassment
done to her for getting dowry from her. Based on said understanding
of law, I am proceeding further and appreciating facts and evidence of
this case.
47. Further, Section 304B IPC states as below
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 62 of 114
Section 304B, IPC, 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 S.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.”
48. The necessity for insertion of the aforesaid provision was keeping in
view the impediment in the pre-existing laws in securing evidence to
prove dowry related deaths. The legislature thought it wise to insert a
provision relating to presumption of dowry death (Section 113 B of
Indian Evidence Death, 1872) on proof of certain essentials. The three
ingredients for establishing the offence U/s 304B IPC are
a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused.
b) that the deceased died
c) that the death is under unnatural circumstances.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 63 of 114
49. Therefore, once there is harassment for the payment of dowry and
unnatural death occurred within seven years after the marriage, the
presumption of dowry death is inherent. Further, it has also been
stated that the death of a woman is either by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise then under normal circumstances, and should be within
seven years of marriage and it should also be shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or
relative of her husband and such harassment or cruelty should pertain
to demand of dowry.
50. The aforesaid offence shall apply whenever the occurrence of death is
preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in-laws for dowry
and death occurs in unnatural circumstances. The intention behind the
section is to fasten guilt on the husband or in-laws though they did not
infact caused the death.
51. As to the origin of dowry or dos primarily was a contribution by the
wife’s family or by the wife herself intended to assist the husband in
bearing the expenses of conjugal household. The genesis of dowry
was understood as a social set up and soon dowry became a social evil
in the society. It is an offence brutal and barbaric. It is generally
committed inside the house and more often with the circumstance to
given an impression that it was a suicidal death. Often the perpetrator
of crime attempt to cover up such offence by giving it a color of
suicide. However, section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act raises
presumption of cruelty as defined U/s 498A IPC against the husband
or his relative if the wife commits suicide within a period fo seven
years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, the section provides
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 64 of 114
that such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death
and shall be punished with imprisonment for maximum of seven years
but which may extent to life imprisonment. Importantly, section 304B
of the IPC does not categorized death as homicidal, or suicidal or
accidental. This is because the death caused by burns can, in a given
case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The aforesaid provision
was inserted with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry
deaths in India. Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act says that when
the question is whether a person has committed a 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 dowry death. Therefore, the death by suicidal
hanging also is encompassed by the section. For the purposes of this
section “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the
dowry prohibition act 1961. “Dowry” means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, a) by
one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or b) by the
parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either
party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time,
after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties,
but does not include dower or in the case of persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law applies.
52. Further, Section 304B and Section 498A are not mutually exclusive.
The provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that ” cruelty”
is a common essential to both the section and that has to be proved.
The explanation of section 498A gives the meaning of cruelty. InFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 65 of 114
Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of
cruelty but having regard to the common back ground to these
offences, the meaning of “cruelty of harassment” will be the same as
given in explanation to Section 498A under which ” cruelty” by itself
amounts to an offence and its punishable. U/s 304B it is the dowry
death that is punishable and such death should be occurred within
seven years of marriage. However, no such period is mentioned in
section 498A and the husband or his relatives would be liable for
subjecting the woman to cruelty and time after the marriage.
53. To attract the provision of section 304B of the IPC one of the main
ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that
“soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment
“in connection with demand of dowry”. The expression “soon before
her death” cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. It must
be understood in their plain language and with reference to their
meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to
human behaviour and therefore cannot be given such a narrower
meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of the provision of the
act. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by
employing the words soon before her death” is to emphasize the idea
that her death should, in all probability, has been the aftermath of such
cruelty or harassment. In other words there should be a reasonable, if
not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty or
harassment inflicted upon her. However, the said expression would
normally imply that the inverter should not be much between the
concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. If the
alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has became stale
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 66 of 114
enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned,
it would be of no consequence. Further, it has been held in ” Rajinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 2015 Crl. J. 1934 that “soon before” is not
synonymous with “immediately before”.
54. The word “dowry demand”, demand neither conceived nor would
conceived of any agreement. Section 304B refers to demand of dowry,
it refers to demand of property of valuable security as referred to the
definition fo dowry under the act.
55. SECTION 306 IPC STATES THAT :-
306 Abetment of Suicide – If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
56. Therefore, to constitute an offence U/s 306 IPC it is required
that (1) the deceased committed suicide, (2) the accused instigated or
abetted for committing suicide (committing suicide by itself is a crime);
(3) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is
necessary.
57. In Ramesh Kumar & State of Chhatisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 it was
held that
“where the accused by his acts or by a continued
course of conduct creates such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option but to commit
suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred, In other
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 67 of 114
words, in order to prove that the accused abetted
commission of suicide by a person, it has to be
established that –
1. the accused kept on irritating of annoying the
deceased by words , deeds or wilful omission or
conduct which may even be a willful silence until the
deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by
his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to
make the deceased move forward more quickly in a
forward direction, and
2. that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge
or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while
acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly
presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of
instigation.”
58. It may be mentioned that there is a marked difference between
“intimidatory statement” and “instigatory statement”. “Intimidatory”
statements may give rise to two types of consequences, (a) either the
person to whom such statements are made may be frightened and may be
on receiving end he may be angry enough to retaliate whereas (b)
instigatory statement falls within the category of goading, provoking etc.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained.
59. The word “suicide” in itself is nowhere mentioned in the Indian Penal
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 68 of 114
Code, 1860. However, “sui” means “self” and “cide” means “killing”,
thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing
suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means
employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. Abetment
of suicide is punishable under this section and attempt to commit
suicide, under section 309. It is an act or an instance of taking one’s
own life voluntarily and intentionally. Every act of self-destruction is
suicide, provided it be intentional act of a party knowing the probable
consequences of what he is doing. Suicide no doubt is self murder.
But one committing suicide places himself or herself beyond the reach
of the law, and necessarily beyond the reach of any punishment too.
But it does not follow that it is not forbidden by of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide.
60. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under
section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea it to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
61. In the case of M Mohan Vs. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626 the Apex Court
held that “there should be some live link, or a proximate link between
the act of the accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live
link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or
intentionally aided the commission of suicide”. Conviction for
abetment merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased is
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 69 of 114
not sustainable.
62. As per Section 107 IPC abetment means, “a person abets the doing of
a thing when he or she, inter alia, instigates any person to do that
thing. The other modes of abetment besides instigation are conspiracy
and intentional aid. The word “instigation” literally means to goad or
urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. It is
something more than co-operation. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted
the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of
suicide. Instigation to commit suicide means goading, provoking
inciting, urging or encouraging to commit suicide. Mere reprimanding
does not amount to instigation, a woman may attempt to commit
suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial
difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or
chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment.
63. The law settled by the judgment of Apex Court in the case titled as
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
Crl. Appeal No. 742/2020 decided on 27.11.2020 by Hon’ble Apex
Court, it has been held that :-
(ii) The spouse of the informant had not received
payment for the work which was carried out by him,
as a result of which he was under mental pressure
and that he committed suicide by hanging on 5 May
2018. It has been submitted that on the face of it,FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 70 of 114
there is no basis in the FIR to even remotely
implicate the appellant in the alleged offences
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
There is not even an indication of a
personal interaction or connection between the
appellant and the deceased. Furthermore, a civil suit
regarding the disputed debt between their companies
is pending.
The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
and Section 482 of the CrPC is in support of two
distinct reliefs. The first relief is for a writ of habeas
corpus. This relief has been claimed on the basis that
the arrest and consequent detention of the appellant
was due to a reinvestigation which was commenced
after placing reliance on the letter dated 26 May 2020
of the Home Department of the Government of
Maharashtra to the Director General of Police. The
submission is that once the CJM accepted the report
submitted by the Investigating Officer and issued an
A’ summary on 16 April 2019, it was not open to the
Investigating Officer to commence a reinvestigation
without judicial sanction.
Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a
reference to Section 306 of the IPC is necessary.
Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits
suicide ―whoever abets the commission of such
suicide‖ shall be punished with imprisonment
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 71 of 114
extending up to 10 years17. Section 107 is comprised
within Chapter V of the IPC, which is titled ―Of
Abetment‖. Section 107 provides:
“107. Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the
doing of a thing, who– First.–Instigates any person
to do that thing; or Secondly.–Engages with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.–
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
306. Abetment of suicide.–If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
PART I cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing.”
64. In Amalendu Pal vs State of West Bengal22, Justice
Mukundakam Sharma, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court and
having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:
PART I ―12…It is also to be borne in mind that in
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 72 of 114
cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof
of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of
harassment without there being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.‖ The Court noted that before a person may
be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they
―must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide‖.
Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra),
―literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring
about by persuasion to do anything‖. In S S Chheena vs
Vijay Kumar Mahajan23, a two judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari,
observed:
―25. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of
the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the
legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea
to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicideFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 73 of 114
seeing no option and that act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.‖
48 Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat24 was
specifically a case which arose in the context of a
petition under Section 482 of the CrPC where the High
Court had dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR
registered for offences under Sections
306 and 294(B) of the IPC. In that case, the FIR was
registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased
who was working as a driver with the accused. The
driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later
found to be dead on having committed suicide. A
suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of
which indicated that the driver had not been given a
fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had
other complaints including the deduction of 15 days’
wages from his salary. The suicide note named the
accused-appellant. In the decision of a two judge
Bench of this Court, delivered by Justice V S Sirpurkar,
the test laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) was applied
and the Court held:
―10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing
in this suicide note or the FIR which would even
distantly be viewed as an offence much less
under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in
the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be
suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In suchFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 74 of 114
matters there must be an allegation that the accused had
instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly,
had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy
and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any
act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic
examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we
find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the
nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests
some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased
which he himself describes as depression. In the so-
called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused
ever intended that the driver under him should commit
suicide or should end his life and did anything in that
behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed
the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not
to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the
car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused
intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide
because of this.‖ Dealing with the provisions of Section
306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the
meaning of Section 107, the Court observed:
PART I ―12. In order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of
the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. The intention of the accused to aid or toFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 75 of 114
instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a
must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC.
We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of
there being any material for offence under Section
306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide
note.‖ The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a
state of anguish of the deceased and ―cannot be
depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part
of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide‖.
Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition
under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was
quashed.”
In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us
(Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J) in the decision of the
Constitution Bench in Common Cause (supra), the
provisions of Section 107 were explained with the
following observations:
―458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting
must have intentionally aided the commission of the
crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or
intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It
presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the
context of the present discussion) facilitates another to
end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence
expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC.‖
50 More recently in M Arjunan vs State (represented by
its Inspector of Police)25, a two judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through Justice R.Banumathi,FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 76 of 114
elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC in the following
observations:
―7. The essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of
suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the
accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.‖
51 Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court
in Ude Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana, a two judge
Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari, expounded on the ingredients of Section
306 of the IPC, and the factors to be considered in
determining whether a case falls within the ken of the
aforesaid provision, in the following terms:
―38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a suicide,
particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of
suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted
and complex attributes of human behaviour andFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 77 of 114
responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for
abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for
cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Whether a person has abetted in the commission of
suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.
39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has
abetted commission of suicide by another, the
consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and
reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite
or encourage to do an act. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected
to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit
suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of
abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the
accused by his acts and by his continuous course of
conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased
perceiving no other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four-corners of SectionFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 78 of 114
306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim,
which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide,
the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with reference to the
actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and
deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of
abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds
until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular
case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each
case is required to be examined on its own facts, while
taking note of all the surrounding factors having
bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and
the deceased.‖ Similarly, in Rajesh vs State of Haryana,
a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through
Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows:
―9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to
bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC,
there must be a case of suicide and in the commission
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 79 of 114
of the said offence, the person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section
306 IPC.‖ In a recent decision of this Court
in Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab, a three judge
Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice
Hrishikesh Roy, held thus:
―15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.
To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under
Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a
particular crime must be visible, to determine the
culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be
something on record to establish or show that the
appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of
that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.‖
52 In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs State of
Maharashtra and Ors., a two judge Bench of this Court,
speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, dealt with an
appeal against the rejection of an application
under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing an FIR
registered under Sections 306 and 506 read
with Section 34 of the IPC. A person serving in the
office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad
had committed suicide on 8 August 2017. His wifeFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 80 of 114
made a complaint to the police that her husband was
suffering from mental torture as his superiors were
getting heavy work done from her husband. This
resulted in him having to work from 10 AM to 10 PM
and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific
allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped
the deceased’s salary for one month and was
threatening the deceased that his increment would be
stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide
note, and the only material on record was in the form of
assertions made by the deceased’s wife in her report to
the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on
record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home
the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of
the IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by
the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary
for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or
guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the
appellant were quashed.
53 On the other hand, we must also notice the decision
in Praveen Pradhan (supra) where a two judge Bench of
this Court, speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan,
dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an
application under Section 482 of the CrPC by the High
Court for quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating
an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The suicide
note which was left behind by the deceased showed, as
this Court observed, that the appellant perpetuallyFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 81 of 114
humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased,
who was compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at
the workplace, which hurt his self- respect
tremendously.‖ The Court noted that the appellant
always scolded the deceased and tried to always force
the deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed:
―19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the
light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the
instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual
feature, rather remained a matter of persistent
harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having
an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing
that she also had another paramour; and therefore,
cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in
the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer
and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation
and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal
demands made by the appellant, upon non- fulfilment
of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the
appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also
been forced to work continuously for long durations in
the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even
entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment,
coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that,
―had there been any other person in his place, he
would have certainly committed suicide‖ is what makes
the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the presentFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 82 of 114
case, we do not think it is a case which requires any
interference by this Court as regards the impugned
judgment and order [Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 420 of 2006, decided on 5-1-2012
(Utt)] of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed accordingly.‖ The contents of the FIR
therefore indicated that the deceased had been subjected
to harassment persistently and continuously and this
was coupled by words used by the accused which led to
the commission of suicide.
54 In Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao
Bhagat, this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit,
reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of the High
Court which had quashed criminal proceedings in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482. This was
a case where the FIR was registered pursuant to the
information received from the appellant. The FIR stated
that the son and daughter-in-law of the appellant were
teachers in Zila Parishad School. The respondent used
to call the daughter-in-law of the appellant on the phone
and used to harass her. Moreover, despite the efforts of
the son of the appellant, the respondent did not desist
from doing so. This Court noted:
12. We now consider the facts of the present case.
There are definite allegations that the first respondent
would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her
mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are
supported by the statements of the mother and the wife
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 83 of 114
of the victim recorded during investigation. The record
shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an
altercation between the victim and the first respondent.
In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the
suicide note made definite allegation against first
respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering
into question whether the first respondent had the
requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the
commission of suicide. At this juncture when the
investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet,
if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to
have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite
mental element or intention on part of the respondent.‖
The above observations of the Court clearly indicated
that there was a specific allegation in the FIR bearing
on the imputation that the respondent had actively
facilitated the commission of suicide by continuously
harassing the spouse of the victim and in failing to
rectify his conduct despite the efforts of the victim. 55
Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert
briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case.
The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a
company carrying on the business of architecture,
interior design and engineering consultancy. According
to the informant, her husband was over the previous
two years having pressure as he did not receive the
money of work carried out by him‖. The FIR recites that
the deceased had called at the office of the appellant
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 84 of 114
and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money.
Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that
the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his
money is stuck and following owners of respective
companies are not paying our legitimate dues‖. Prima
facie, on the application of the test which has been laid
down by this Court in a consistent line of authority
which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the
appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide
within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. These
observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage
since the High Court is still to take up the petition for
quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to
notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie
evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction
when seized of a petition under Section 482 of the
CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the
jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be
exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not
meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with
reference to the contents of the particular FIR before
the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a
prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible
for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and
the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of
the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position
where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for
regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 85 of 114
clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is
entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section
482 albeit at the interim stage. 56 The petition before
the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the
Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While
dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing
the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether
prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been
made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have
carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in
this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients
of the offence have not prima facie been established. As
a consequence of its failure to perform its function
under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself
from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to
consider the appellant’s application for bail. In
considering such an application under Article 226, the
High Court must be circumspect in exercising its
powers on the basis of the facts of each case. However,
the High Court should not foreclose itself from the
exercise of the power when a citizen has been
arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess
of state power.”
65. Also it has been held in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs.
State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police Criminal Appeal
No.551/2012 dated 29.11.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India wherein it has been held that:
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 86 of 114
20. Abetment has been defined under Section
107 IPC and it reads as under:
“107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person
to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.”
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision
lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a
thing, is a person who instigates any person to do
that thing. Therefore, ‘instigation’ to do a particular
thing is necessary for charging a person with
abetment.
22. ‘Instigation’ is to provoke, incite or encourage a
person to do an act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that
abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
particular thing and without the positive act on part
of the accused there would be no instigation. It has
also been observed that to convict a person for
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there
has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 87 of 114
to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a
direct act leading to the commission of suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh2, a
three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of
suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger
uttered- ‘You are free to do whatever you wish and
go wherever you like’. Thereafter, the wife
committed suicide. The Court, after examining the
meaning of instigation which is an essential element
for abetment of suicide, observed that such words,
uttered out of emotion, do not constitute mens rea
and do not amount to intentionally inciting the other
party to actually do an act which may result in the
commission of self-killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide,
which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her,
the Courts have always held that discord and
differences in domestic life are quite common in
society and that the commission of such an offence
largely depends upon the mental state of the victim.
Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the
part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not
possible to convict him for an offence under Section
306 IPC.
26. The salient features constituting an offence
under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court
in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police3 and it was observed as
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 88 of 114
under:
“43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with
the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and
“goading”. The Court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing
of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability
pattern is different from the others. Each person has
his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts
and circumstances. 44. Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally
aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order
to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has
to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the
disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this
act must have been intended to push the disease in
two such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 89 of 114
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this
Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of
West Bengal and have been again repeated
in Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police & Anr.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that
broken relationships and heart breaks are part of
everyday life and that breaking-up of the
relationship would not constitute any instigation or
abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to
constitute ‘Instigation’ it must be shown that the
accused had by his acts and omissions or by
continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide.
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has
in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to
commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of
the deceased had simply refused to marry her which
is not a positive act on his part with any intention to
abet the crime of suicide.
66. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the
judgment in the case of Neeraj Kumar Vs. Suraj Prakash &
Ors. Cr P No.515/2001
15. The basic charge against the respondent nos.1 to
4 is under Section 498A read with 34 IPC. The
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 90 of 114
testimony of PW1 Smt. Jaimala, PW2 Neeraj Kumar
and PW8 Sanjay, as discussed above, shows that
various improvements were made in their statements
in the Court. There are also material contradictions in
the testimony of these witnesses. Perusal of
examination in chief of these witnesses shows that no
specific time, date, month or event has been
mentioned with regard to cruelty and harassment
made against the deceased Sangeeta on account of
dowry and the allegations levelled are general in
nature.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the
consistent law to establish the offence under Section
498A IPC in Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by
Pub. Prosecutor 2013 STPL 198 SC. It was held that
the prosecution is required to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by the accused. It was observed
from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in
particular PW1 and PW4 that they have made general
allegations of harassment by the appellant towards
the deceased and have not brought in evidence any
specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant
on the deceased. The onus was on the prosecution to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient
of Section 498A IPC. Relevant portions from the
judgment read as under :
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 91 of 114
“In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the
offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the
prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and
PW4, we find that they have made general
allegations of harassment by the appellant towards
the deceased and have not brought in evidence any
specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant
on the deceased…..
In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the
appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on
the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected
to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand
of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient
of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of
offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as
the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to
cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section
498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act
that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined
in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove
besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty
caused by the accused to the deceased soon beforeFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 92 of 114
her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of
harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences
under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made
out by the prosecution.”
17. As per the ratio of the law settled down by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Vipin Jaiswal’s case (supra),
in the absence of specific allegations like date, time
and incident i.e. too by witnesses PW1, PW2 and
PW8 who were not found reliable and trustworthy,
the prosecution had failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased was meted out
with cruelty and harassment by the respondent nos.1
to 4 for or in connection with demand of dowry.
18. From the evidence mentioned above and the law
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vipin
Jaiswal (supra), the allegations levelled against the
respondent nos.1 to 4 are general in nature and the
evidence led does not inspire the confidence of the
Court to hold the guilt of the respondent nos.1 to 4
under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
19. The contention made by the counsel for the
petitioner is that Section 113B of the Evidence Act
has been added to give aid to reach into the logical
end while deciding the matter under Section
304B IPC and the aid of Section 113B of the
Evidence Act has not been used in the present case
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 93 of 114
by the learned trial Court. The presumption in the
dowry death case is to be drawn on the fulfilment of
the ingredients mentioned in Section 304B IPC read
with Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
20. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as
under :
“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 has 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.”
The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence
Act can be drawn only where the ingredients
of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled.
21. In the present case, the trial Court has framed the
charge under Section 498A read with 34 IPC along
with Section 304B read with 34 IPC against
respondent nos.1 to 4 for causing dowry death of the
deceased.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in case
of Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of
Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388 has categorically mentioned
the ingredients for the application of Section
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 94 of 114
304B IPC which are as under:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns
or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have been occurred within
seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death.
23. As death of the deceased is concerned, according
to post mortem report Ex.PW5/A prepared by PW5
Dr. K.K. Banerjee and the deposition of doctor, the
cause of death was shock as a result of deep
superficial ante mortem burns covering 100% of
body surface which were likely to be produced by
flame. The observation made by the doctor is that the
deceased was having 100% body surface burns all
over the body. The report and opinion of the doctor
proves that the death of the deceased was not under
normal circumstances and was due to the bodily
injuries which fulfil the first ingredient for the
commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 95 of 114
24. The second ingredient that the death of the
deceased had taken place within seven years of her
marriage with the respondent no.1 is established from
the evidence, as marriage had taken place on
02.05.1990 and death took place on 10.06.1995 i.e.
within five years of marriage.
25. The next and the most important ingredients
required to be proved from the evidence are that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on
account of demand of dowry by her husband or any
relative of her husband. The prosecution has
produced PW1, PW2 and PW8 to prove these
ingredients. PW1 happened to be mother of the
deceased and PW2 & PW8 happened to be brothers
of the deceased. The detailed discussion to this effect
has already been made in the foregoing paragraphs
while discussing the charge for offence under Section
498A IPC. In other words, to establish the offence
of Section 304B IPC, it is necessary to prove the
charges under Section 498A IPC. The evidence
discussed above is not sufficient to hold the
respondent nos.1 to 4 guilty for the offence
under Section 498A IPC, the basic requirement to
prove the offence under Section 304B IPC.
67. Reliance is placed on the judgment State Vs. Vikas Sharma (2012)
188 DLT 773
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 96 of 114
5. This Court further notices that the couple had
been engaged for 9 months. If, in fact, there had
been any reason for the accused to make a
demand for dowry, he would have done at any
time before the marriage. Furthermore, the
absence of clarity as to the time when the
demand was made and more crucially the
silence of the deceased’s nearest relatives i.e.
PW-4 (deceased’s brother) and PW-5 (deceased’s
mother) about this demand for a car, completely
knocks out the prosecution allegations with
regard to dowry demand. The allegations with
regard to cruelty also lack in material
particulars. Applying the well settled standards
in examining petitions for grant of leave of
appeal i.e. existence of substantial or compelling
reasons, occasioning failure of justice, this Court
is of the opinion that no such elements exist in
the prosecution case wanting a second review in
the appeal. The petition being unmerited is
therefore, dismissed.
68. Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment State Vs.
Anoop Singh & Ors. Crl.P. No.425 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011
“For bringing the case within four corners of
Section 304B of the Code the cruelty or
harassment has to be meted out to a woman soon
before her death. The expression “soon before
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 97 of 114
death” has not been defined in Section 304 IPC
or Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The
expression is a relative term which requires to be
considered under facts and circumstances of
each case and no straight jacket formula can be
laid down by fixing any time limit. In some
cases it can be a few days, a few weeks and in
some cases may a couple of months. Yet there
must be proximity between death and the cruelty
in connection with the demand for dowry.”
69. Further in case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. The Inspt. Of Police,
Kancheepuran District & Anr. CA 4269/2024
14. What turns out primarily from the sequence of
events, statements and the suicide note is that from
11.11.2013 until the actual date of suicide i.e.
09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever
either in person or by phone or any other means
between the deceased or his relatives and his wife
or any of the other accused which would indicate
continuous harassment or torture or any sort of
pressure at the hands of the accused Appellants on
the deceased. Therefore, there is no proximity of
any harassment or instigation prior to the incident
of suicide having taken place. Otherwise also the
contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any
active or direct act which can be said to have led
the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 98 of 114
option but to push the deceased into a position that
he committed suicide. From the suicide note, no
abetment can be said to have been established that
the accused instigated the deceased or there being
any persistent cruelty or harassment which would
make out an offence of abetment of suicide.
Merely on the Criminal Appeal No(s). 4268-4269
of 2024 Page 8 of 12 basis of the allegations of
harassment and that too a month ago with in
between there being no contact of any sort on the
part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence
which can be said to have led or compelled the
deceased to have committed suicide, the offence
has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be
presumed, but must be ostensibly present and
visible, which is missing in the present case. It
involves a mental process of instigating a person
and without a positive act on the part of the
Appellants which can be said to either to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the
offence cannot be said to have been present.
15. Section 306 requires a person having
committed suicide as a first requirement but for
abetment of such commission, which is essential,
the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC.
The requirement of abetment under Section 107
IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by
himself or with other person in any conspiracy for
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 99 of 114
doing such thing or act or a legal omission in
pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly
intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission
of doing that thing. In large number of judgments
of this Court it stands established that the essential
ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC
are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to
aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is
highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive
language would not by itself constitute abetment of
suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that
the accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State
represented by its inspector of Police)”
70. Further in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of
Bengal 2010 1 SCC 707
“13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC
which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court
in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13
SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
before a person can be said to be abetting the commission
of offence under Section 306 IPC.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 100 of 114
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has
observed that the courts should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If
it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society
to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of
M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797, this Court gave a clear
exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
follows in para 6:
“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)
engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally
aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a
crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke,
incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any
thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy orFIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 101 of 114
intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of abetment and there is no
provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the
offender is to be punished with the punishment provided
for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means
the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for
the abetment of which a person is charged with the
abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.”
[See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of
Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52]
15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also
assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to
put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof
of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without their being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section
306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of suicide must have played
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 102 of 114
an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain
act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the
act of abetment by the person charged with the said
offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section
306 IPC.
17. The expression `abetment’ has been defined
under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide
when a person instigates any person to do that thing as
stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in
clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section
109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed
pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the
offender is to be punished with the punishment provided
for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however,
clearly stated before us that it would be a case where
clause `thirdly’ of Section 107 IPC only would be
attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide
is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC.”
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
71. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the
prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of
the witnesses. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 103 of 114
Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
“While appreciating the evidence of a witness,
approach must be whether the evidence of the
witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is formed then
undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize
the evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation
of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of
behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here
and there from the evidence, attaching importance to
some technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going to the root of the matter, would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a
whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those
inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or
pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the
former case, the defence may be justified in seeking
advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In
the latter, however no such benefit may be available
to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of
evidence in criminal cases.”
72. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record,
has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor
discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while
appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether
shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and
if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 104 of 114
discarded.
73. As per the prosecution story, the present FIR has been registered upon
the statement made by the mother of the deceased to the concerned
SDM on 01.04.2021. The fact which is relevant to the present matter
is that there is no suicide note left by the deceased. The present matter
revolves around the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the
family members of the deceased.
74. In the present matter, the mother of the deceased has been examined
as PW1, who had stated in her complaint that the deceased Soni got
married with accused Krishan Kumar Raut on 09.03.2018 and after
three months of the marriage, she was informed by the deceased that
there were quarrels in the matrimonial home of her deceased daughter
and the accused persons demanded dowry. Further, on the occasion of
Holi on 29.03.2021, her deceased daughter had come to parental
home, but accused Krishan Kumar Raut left in the evening.
Subsequently, on the evening of 30.03.2021, her daughter left the
parental home and while leaving she told her family members
“mujhey lag reha hai ki yeh log mujhey maar dengey”. On
31.03.2021, around 02:30 pm her deceased daughter gave her a video
call and was talking to her. On the same day, in the night around
08:41 pm, the brother of the deceased had spoken to the deceased and
everything was normal. However, on the same day, around 11:30 pm
in the night, they received a call from accused Krishan Kumar Raut
regarding death of the deceased and upon the same they reached
hospital and found that her daughter had died. She apprehended that
her daughter had been killed and thereafter got the FIR registered.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 105 of 114
75. However, the aforesaid witness PW1 Smt. Anju in her testimony
before the Court categorically mentioned that after marriage of her
daughter, she was lived happily for three months in the matrimonial
home. Subsequently, accused Phuleshwari Devi being the mother in
law and other accused persons namely Sunita, Ram Kumr Raut and
Krishan Kumar Raut started torturing the deceased to bring jewellery
from her parental home. After one year of the marriage the accused
persons demanded Rs.2 Lakh. However, the aforesaid facts mentioned
in the testimony before the court does not find mention in the
complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further alleged that the accused persons
demanded Rs.5 Lakh however, the said narration does not find
mention in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW1 also failed to mention the
reason for the aforesaid demand and further has alleged in her
statement before the Court that her deceased daughter often used to
tell regarding the behaviour of the accused persons, whenever she
used to visit at her parental home and that all the accused persons ill-
treated her, however, even the aforesaid fact does not find mention in
her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
76. The aforesaid witness PW1 during cross examination on behalf of
accused persons and also upon being asked the court questions stated
that after the marriage accused persons did not make any dowry
demand from her or her family members. The aforesaid fact infers that
the demands if any, were made to the deceased daughter of PW1.
Therefore, it was required for the witnesses to prove that the demand
of dowry from the deceased amounted to cruelty and for the same
reason the deceased committed suicide. However, during the cross
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 106 of 114
examination PW1 categorically stated that she had met accused
Phuleshwari Devi upon the birth of the child of the deceased Soni and
thereafter, had not met her. Further that she had never met accused
Sunita after the marriage of her deceased daughter. She also admitted
that she never visited the matrimonial house of her deceased daughter
Soni. For the accused Kundan PW1 stated that he would accompany
the deceased to the parental home on several occasions but she did not
remember when he last met him. She admitted that she was known to
the family of accused persons for about 25 years as they belong to the
same community. She also admitted that she was in regularly touched
with her deceased daughter through whatsapp messages and phone
calls. She also admitted that her deceased daughter after marriage was
pursuing her studying and also attempted to appear in Government
jobs and all the expenses for the education were borne by accused
Krishan Kumar Raut. She also admitted that her daughter used to have
money for her expenditure and also visited religious places with her
inlaws / accused persons. The aforesaid witness also admitted that her
daughter was not having any personal bank account and therefore, the
amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs which was given to her daughter was
transferred to the bank account of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. The
complainant upon being asked, stated that she had no message to
show that the deceased was unhappy in her matrimonial home or that
she was being ill-treated. In the court question the witness also stated
that they had never filed any complaint against the accused persons
regarding any harassment prior to the death of the deceased. She
admitted that her daughter was extremely sensitive. With the aforesaid
testimony of PW1 it is made out that the deceased lived in
matrimonial home with accused persons and was treated comfortably
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 107 of 114
since she was allowed to peruse her studies, visit at her parental home,
appear for exams and even went to visit religious places with all
accused persons and from the aforesaid testimony it cannot be stated
that the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry or was abetted to
commit suicide.
77. Further, in the present matter PW2 Ram Avtar Raut was the father of
the deceased who deposed that her daughter was married on
09.03.2018 with accused Krishan Kumar Raut and thereafter her
daughter lived happily only for a period of two months. The aforesaid
fact is contradictory to the statement of PW1, who has stated that the
deceased was kept well in the matrimonial home for three months.
78. PW2 further stated that all the accused persons harassed his daughter
and demanded dowry, he also mention that he had given sufficient
dowry to his daughter, but subsequently, the accused persons
demanded dowry. PW2 stated that it was accused Kundan Kumar who
demanded Rs.2 Lakh from his deceased daughter to take admission in
B.Tech. However, the aforesaid fact does not find mention in the
testimony of PW1 and hence, is not corroborated. PW2 further alleged
in his testimony before the court that the accused persons demanded
Rs.5 Lakhs for reconstruction of their house, which was in dilapidated
condition however, even the aforesaid allegation does not find
mention in the testimony of PW1. PW2 also mention that upon the
birth of the girl child, the deceased was ill-treated, the aforesaid fact
also does not find mention in the testimony of PW1 and is not
corroborated. PW2 also stated that all the facts regarding demand of
dowry from his deceased daughter, was disclosed by the deceased to
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 108 of 114
PW1 and it was PW1 who had stated that his deceased daughter did
not want PW1 and PW2 to take any action as she was confident to
handle the same. PW2 has stated that since the jewellery demands, the
demand of Rs.2 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh was not fulfilled the deceased
was harassed and thereafter she was killed by accused persons on
31.03.2021.
79. During cross examination PW2 has stated that the cremation of his
daughter was performed in the presence of all accused persons and all
jewellery articles worn by deceased were handed over to them. He
also stated that the mediator of the marriage namely Sh. Laxman Rao
was informed regarding the conduct of accused persons that they were
harassing the deceased and demanding dowry, but no action was taken
against the accused persons, as they did not even take the call of the
mediator. However, the aforesaid person namely Laxman Rao was
never examined by the prosecution to substantiate the aforesaid fact.
Even during cross examination of PW2 he has categorically stated that
the marriage of accused Sunita was performed prior to the marriage of
his deceased daughter and she used to reside in her matrimonial home.
PW2 admitted during his cross examination that the house of accused
persons was already constructed and they were living in their own
house at the time when the marriage of his daughter was solemnized.
PW2 also admitted that her daughter was perusing higher studies and
was preparing for government jobs, after her marriage. He admitted
that he had never filed any complaint against the accused persons
regarding any harassment in the matrimonial house. He further
admitted that even on the day when his daughter was leaving the
parental home and informed them “sasural wale maar dengey”, no
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 109 of 114
complaint was filed by him. Though PW1 has stated that the fact
regarding demand of dowry was narrated to her, PW2 has stated that
the demands made by the accused persons were told to him by the
deceased. There are several contradictions as discussed above in the
testimony of PW1 and PW2 which do not inspire confident.
80. PW3 Meena was sister of the deceased Soni who had stated that she
was married prior to the deceased and was not regularly in touch with
her and would meet her in the parental home on festivals. She had met
the deceased on the festival of Holi on 29.03.2021 and thereafter on
30.03.2021 brought the deceased to Meethapur Chowk from where
the deceased was taken to her matrimonial home by accused Krishan
Kumar Raut. Further, on 31.03.2021, she was informed by her brother
that the deceased had committed suicide but she had suspicion that the
accused persons had killed her as her sister/deceased was highly
educated.
81. During cross examination PW3 stated that her deceased sister had
completed her study after marriage and several aspect of marriage was
confronted to the witness and therefore, the testimony of PW3 did not
inspire confidence.
82. PW6 Shivam is the brother of the deceased who last spoken to the
deceased before her death. The aforesaid witness stated that on
31.03.2021, he had given a call to deceased at around 8:41 pm and
continued to speak with her till 8:50 pm. During the aforesaid
conversation he heard the accused Krishan Kumar Raut, asking the
deceased to serve food and he found that every thing was fine. His
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 110 of 114
sister did not disclose to him anything disturbing. However, in the
night at around 11:30 pm, he came to know from accused Krishan
Kumar Raut that his sister had expired and they should reach Holy
Family Hospital. However, the aforesaid witness alleged that all
accused persons harassed her sister for the purpose of dowry and that
she was killed by all accused persons and since his sister/deceased
was educated, she could not have committed suicide.
83. During cross examination even aforesaid witness PW6 was confronted
on several aspects of his deposition before the court which were not
part of his statement before the investigating officer. Even the
aforesaid witness upon being asked deposed that after marriage her
sister continued the studies and completed her M.Com. Further, that
his deceased sister was preparing for competitive examination and for
the same she had visited Bihar and for the aforesaid exam accused
Krishan Kumar Raut also accompanied with her. The aforesaid
testimony of witness also establishes that the deceased lived in the
matrimonial home alongwith accused persons and was allowed to live
peacefully. Even the aforesaid witness was unable to prove regarding
any complaint filed against accused persons prior to present incident.
84. PW4 Ct. Om Prakash, PW5 Karamjit, PW7 Ct. Tota Ram, PW9 SI
Kanhiya Lal and PW10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav and PW14 Inspt. Subhash
Bhatt were the formal witnesses being the the IO and police officials
of the present matter, deposed regarding the manner of investigation
conducted. PW12 being the nodal officer proved the CDR record of
accused Sunita, but the same did not show that there was any call
record or message to the deceased regarding any kind of harassment.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 111 of 114
85. The witnesses / family members of the deceased also were not able to
show that there were any communication with the family of the
deceased to ascertain that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.
86. Further, the FSL report pertaining to viscera also shows on chemical,
microscopic, TLC, and GC – HS examination, mineral assets, metallic
poisons ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids,
barbiturates, tranquilizers, and pesticides could not be detected in
Ex.1A, Ex.1B, Ex.1C & Ex.1D . Further, the postmortem report of the
deceased which was Ex.A23, has opined the cause of death as
asphyxia due to ligature compression of neck. Further, in the column
of injuries upon the dead body of the deceased it has been mentioned
“there was no other injury/struggle mark present over the body”.
Further, there were no injuries found on head, chest, abdomen, or any
other part of the body.
87. Further the deceased did not leave any suicide note which could infer
that she was subjected to cruelty. All the other witnesses examined by
the prosecution did not deposed regarding any of the incident by
which it could be inferred that the deceased was subjected to any kind
of dowry demand and the averments made on behalf of the family
members of the deceased regarding demand of Rs.2 Lakh or Rs.5
Lakh is also vague and general in nature and does not inspire
confidence. The net result is that above mentioned prosecution
witnesses, who could have deposed about deceased Soni facing
cruelty or harassment at the hands of accused persons, did not depose
so, in their respective testimonies. It is also important to see that
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 112 of 114
accused Sunita and Kundan were not present when the alleged
incident occurred and the same has been verified by IO during
investigation. All the family members of deceased have also stated
that accused Sunita was married prior to marriage of deceased and
was living in her matrimonial house. Further, there are no specific
allegation against any of accused persons regarding allegation of
dowry demand and the same are vague and omnibus. The prosecution
thus failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and
harassment on account of dowry by her husband or her relatives.
Further, to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence under
Section 304B IPC it was required to be established that “soon before
her death”, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, “in
connection with demand of dowry” . Here in the present matter, the
expression soon before her death, subjecting the deceased to cruelty
does not stand proved as the family of deceased has categorically
stated that while the deceased had spoken to her mother in the after
noon, she was sounding fine and even when she spoke to her brother
at around 08:40 pm, she did not complain regarding any harassment.
Therefore, there is no reasonable nexus between the death of the
deceased and dowry related cruelty or harassment as alleged by the
family of the deceased. Therefore, there is no aspect of any offence
proved against the accused persons.
88. Rest of the prosecution witnesses were police officials who had done
different aspects of investigation. Their unrebutted testimonies, did
not prove the aspect of “cruelty” being faced by deceased Soni, during
her lifetime from accused persons. So, I discarded their testimonies.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 113 of 114
89. Prosecution thus, failed to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty, or
commission of abetment to suicide constituting the offence under
Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
90. So, prosecution in order to bring conviction of an accused u/sec. 306
IPC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused intended to
commit the said offence, by playing active role, thereby abetting
victim to commit suicide.
91. Accused persons, per contra, were able to raise defence of them being
falsely implicated in this case.
92. Thus, accused persons namely Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar
Raut, Phuleshwari Devi, Kundan Kumar Raut and Sunita are acquitted
of the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
Digitally signed
by Sheetal
Sheetal chaudhary
chaudhary Date:
Announced in open Court 2026.05.20
16:02:21 +0530
on : 20.05.2026 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 114 of 114
[ad_1]
Source link
