Naresh Pal And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Naresh Pal And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2025

Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh

Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130966-DB
 
Reserved 
 
Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3689 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Naresh Pal And 3 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellants :- Vijaya Shankar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
with 
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3692 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Som Pal
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar,Rajesh Kumar Verma,Vijaya Shankar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
 

Hon’ble Madan Pal Singh,J.

(Delivered by Hon’ble Madan Pal Singh,J.)

1. These two criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 624 of 2011 (State Vs. Som Pal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1501 of 2010, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:

(i). Under Sections 304-B/34 IPC the appellants namely Naresh Pal, Kunwar Pal, Smt. Ramwati and Sita Ram have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years, under Section 498-A/34 IPC for two years imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days additional simple imprisonment each and under Section 4 of D.P. Act, two years each simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine seven days simple imprisonment each.

(ii) Under Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. the appellant Som Pal has sentenced to undergo Rigorous life imprisonment and under Section 498-A/34 IPC three years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, fifteen days simple imprisonment and under Section 4 of D.P. Act two years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, seven days simple imprisonment.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeals may be summarised as under:

(i) As per the prosecution story, the informant Ram Bharose (P.W.-1), resident of village Basantpur, Police Station- Siraulli, District- Bareilly, has submitted a Written Report alleging therein that he married his daughter Kesarvati to the accused-appellant Sompal, resident of village -Phulasi, Police Station- Aonla, District- Bareilly according to Hindu rites and customs about one and half year ago and had given a lot of dowry. After the marriage, Sompal, Nareshpal, Kuwarpal, Smt. Ramvarti and Sitaram started demanding fifty thousand rupees, a Colour T.V. and a Motorcycle as additional dowry. When the informant expressed his inability to fulfil their additional demand, they all used to torture his daughter- Kesarvati on daily basis. Several times the deceased complained about this to the informant, thereafter informant went to his daughter’s matrimonial house and tried to convince them but they did not agree and kept demanding dowry. On 14.12.2010 at around 4 a.m. in the morning, his daughter had been killed by her husband along with his family members. This information was received by the informant by one unknown person on call around 7 a.m. On that, informant went to the matrimonial house of his daughter, where he saw the dead body of his daughter lying. There was a mark on the neck and throat was swollen. It seemed that the in-laws of his daughter killed his daughter by strangulation.

(ii). On the basis of Written Report submitted by the informant, a case was registered as Case Crime No. 1501 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, against the accused Sompal, Nareshpal, Kuwarpal, Smt. Ramvarti and Sitaram. Chik report was made as Ex. Ka-5, of which entry was also made in GD which was marked as Ex. Ka-6. Investigation was carried out by Investigation Officer, Aonla. The Panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased was prepared by Nayab Tehsildar. It is Ex. Ka-2. Other relevant papers such as specimen seal, challan, photo, letter of CMO and letter to R.I., have been marked as Ex. Ka-7 to Ex. Ka-11. The dead body was sent for postmortem which was done by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Yadav on 14.12.2010 at 4:40 p.m. It is Ex. Ka-6.

(iii). During the course of investigation, the I.O. inspected the spot and prepared Site Plan. It is marked Ex. Ka-12. He recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses. He prepared the fard of taking possession of broken bangles of the deceased. That recovery memo is Ex. Ka-3. After completing the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against accused persons, namely, Sompal, Naresh Pal, Kunwar Pal, Sita Ram and Ramwati under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

(iv). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.09.2012. The charges were framed against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

(v). That the prosecution, to prove its case has examined as P.W.1-Ram Bharose (Informant), P.W.2-Smt. Mharani (mother of the deceased), P.W.3-Ladaiti Devi (aunt of the deceased/”tai”), P.W.4-Ram Saran (brother of the deceased), P.W.5- Narayan Das (uncle of the deceased), P.W.6-Budh Sen (sworn brother of the decased), P.W.7- S.I. Dinesh Kumar and P.W.8- Dr. Sudhir Kumar Yadav, P.W.9- S.I. Hardwari Lal, P.W.10- Prakash Swaroop Pandey(Additional Superintendent of Police). The defence had also produced witnesses to prove its case as D.W.1- Satendar Singh, D.W.2- Ram Bharose, D.W.3- Bhajan Das.

3. Before evaluating the evidence on record, it is apposite to have a glance of evidence adduced by prosecution which is as under:-

4. P.W.-1, Ram Bharose (informant of the case) stated in his examination-in-chief that his daughter Kesarvati was married to Sompal, about three and half years ago. After the marriage, Kunwar Pal, Naresh Pal (brothers-in-law), Ramvati (mother-in-law) and Sita Ram (father-in-law) used to demand a colour T.V., a motorcycle and fifty thousand in cash as a additional dowry from his daughter. Whenever his daughter came home, she used to complain about being beaten up by all the family members for repeatedly demand of colour T.V., motorcycle and fifty thousand rupees cash. The informant used to convince his daughter and send her to her matrimonial house and also he went to her daughter’s matrimonial house and tried to convince the in-laws of his daughter but they kept on demanding dowry and torturing his daughter. About two years ago on 14th December, at 7:00 am in the morning, the informant got an information about the death of his daughter over a phone call, on which he went to his daughter’s matrimonial house where the dead body of his daughter was lying.

5. P.W.-2, Smt. Maharani in her examination-in-chief has stated that her daughter- Kesarvati was married to Sompal about one and half year ago before her death. After the marriage, Sompal (husband of the deceased), Kunwar Pal, Naresh Pal (brothers-in-law), Ramvati (mother-in-law) and Sita Ram (father-in-law) used to demand a coloured T.V., a motorcycle and fifty thousand cash as additional dowry from her daughter. Whenever her daughter came back to her parental home, she complained about being beaten up by her in-laws for demand of colour T.V., motorcycle and fifty thousand rupees cash. On that she used to convince her daughter and send her to matrimonial house. She further stated that her daughter died in her matrimonial house about one and half year ago. Some villager had informed her husband about the death of her daughter over a phone call, on which, she reached her daughter’s matrimonial house where the dead body of her daughter was lying and no member of her in-laws was present there. Further, she stated that her daughter was murdered by her in-laws due to non-fulfilment of demand of additional dowry.

6. P.W.-3, Smt. Ladati Devi (aunt of the deceased/ “Tai”), has stated in her examination-in-chief that the deceased was the daughter of her sister-in-law who was married to Sompal one and half year ago according to Hindu rituals and customs. In the marriage, according to their status, they had given a lot of dowry. After the marriage, the deceased used to visit her parental house. She further stated that deceased visited her parental home twenty days prior to her death and complained about her in-laws’ demand of additional dowry and threatened her if she brought a colour T.V., motorcycle and fifty thousand rupees cash then only she could stay in her matrimonial house. On refusal, they all used to beat the deceased. She further stated that, her brother-in-law and sister-in-law had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased to convince them but they did not agree and killed the deceased by administering some poisonous substance.

7. P.W.-4, Ram Saran (brother of the deceased) has stated in his examination-in-chief that his sister was married to Sompal about one and half year ago. His family had given dowry in the marriage which includes wrist watch, bicycle, bed, utensils, Rs. 40000/- cash and gold articles to his sister. From the second day of marriage, Sompal started harassing his sister and asked for Rs. 50000/- cash, a colour T.V., and a motorcycle and used to say that if she does not bring those items, they will oust her from matrimonial house. When his sister came to her parental house, she used to complain about the same. He convinced his sister and sent her back to her matrimonial house, where her in-laws still tortured her and lastly killed her by administering some poisonous substance.

8. P.W.-5, Narayan Das (uncle of the deceased) has also reiterated the same version as unfolded in the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief. Specifically, he stated that just after ‘doosri vidai’ accused had started demanding additional dowry from the deceased. He further stated that on the information received about the death of the deceased, he along with his family went to the deceased’s matrimonial house where her dead body was lying and no one was present from the family of her in-laws house.

9. P.W.-6, Budh Sen, (sworn brother of the deceased) has stated in his examination-in-chief that deceased was his sworn sister. Their families lived in the same neighbourhood. The “Chauthi Vidai” of the deceased was done twenty days before her death. She came to her parental house and also visited his house where the deceased told him about the demand of additional dowry and harassment by her in-laws. On dowry being denied, her in-laws did not provide food and water to the deceased.

10. P.W.-7, S.I. Dinesh Kumar was examined and stated that on 14.12.2010, he was posted as Head Muharrir at Police Station- Aonla. He prepared the chik FIR and mentioned the same in Case Dairy which are Ex. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5 respectively.

11. P.W.-8, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Yadav, who examined the dead body of the deceased has stated that on 14.12.2010, he was posted in District Hospital, Bareilly. He conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on the same day at 4.50 pm and on external examination he found that rigour mortis was present all over the body. He reported that the face, eyes and nails of the deceased were congested and liquid like blood/ serum was present in her nose. There was no saliva outside the mouth of the deceased. He found no injuries on the body of the deceased. After autopsy examination, he reported that there are congestion in head, brain membrane, brain, lungs, lungs membrane, trachea. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. Therefore, the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.

12. P.W.-9, Sub-Inspector Hardwari Lal was examined and he stated that on 14.12.2010, he was posted at Police Station- Aonla, Bareilly. He prepared the Inquest Report of the body of the deceased along with Nayab Tehsildar- Virendra Pal Singh which was marked as Ex.Ka- 2. On the instruction of Nayab Tehsildar he also prepared the draft seal, Challan lash, photo lash and letter to C.M.O., R.I. which were Exts. Ka-12, Ka-13, Ka-14,Ka-15/1 and Ka-15/2 respectively. He also proved the above documents along with Exts. Ka-7, Ka-8, Ka-9, Ka-10 and Ka-11. He also ensured to get the dead body of the deceased sent to the mortuary for autopsy examination.

13. P.W.-10- Prakash Swaroop Additional Superintendent of Police was examined next. He stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared Naksha Nazri as Ex. Ka 12.

13.A. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence also led evidence.

14. D.W.-1- Satendar Pal (neighbour) was examined first. He stated that the deceased lived separately with her husband and there was no demand of any kind of dowry. The deceased was sick and used to get medicines from the village and else where. He further stated that on 14.12.2010, she must have taken some medicine due to which she died. Sita Ram (Father in-law of the deceased) informed the parents of the deceased in front of him. On reaching, the parents of the deceased demanded money and dowry articles from the husband Sompal, failing which, a false case was instituted against the accused persons.

15. D.W-2, Ram Bharose (neighbour) was examined and he also reiterated the same version as stated by D.W.-1.

16. D.W.-3- Bhagwan Das was examined and stated that, at the time of incident he was the Pradhan of the village. He further stated that the deceased was residing separately with her husband Sompal and that there was no demand of dowry. He further stated that the deceased had been suffering from an illness for which she used to procure medicines from the village. On the date of the incident, i.e., 14.12.2010, the deceased might have consumed some medicine which led to her untimely death. After that Sita Ram, the father-in-law of the deceased, duly informed the parents of the deceased about her death in his presence.

17. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are as under:-

(I) The fact that the death of deceased is unnatural and occurred within seven years of her marriage is fairly conceded, but prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC i.e. the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.

(II) He further argued that even after one and half year of marriage, the deceased could not be blessed with any child due to this reason, she was mentally upset and died by suicide herself by consuming Aluminium Phosphide.

(III) He next argued that after the death of the deceased, parents of the deceased were demanding money from the appellant Sompal and his family members, failing which, a false case has been registered against the husband Sompal and his entire family members.

(IV) He next argued that the appellant Sita Ram (father-in-law of the deceased) and Ramwati (mother-in-law of the deceased) were living separately and the appellants Naresh Pal and Kunwar Pal were already married and they cannot be the beneficiary of the demand of dowry, as alleged by the prosecution.

18. On the other hand, Virendra Kumar Pal, learned A.G.A. argued that the death of the deceased had taken place after one and half year of her marriage under unnatural circumstances and there was a demand of additional dowry by the appellants. These facts have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

19. It has been further argued that, married women could not have died by suicide without any reason unless tortured by the husband and her in-laws.

20. Before appreciating the evidence on record in reference to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, it is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 498-A and Section 304-B. It reads as under:-

(a) “498-A:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

304-B. Dowry death:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

21. Keeping in view the above provisions, following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C.:

a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;

b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;

c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry.

22. So far as the first ingredient of Section 304B IPC as mentioned above is concerned, a perusal of the postmortem report reflects that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and kept for chemical analysis. F.S.L. Report is on record as Ext. Ka-14. In that, Aluminium Phosphide was found in the body of the deceased. Moreover the fact regarding unnatural death has not been challenged by the defence in any manner, Thus, it is clear that the deceased died by consuming Aluminium Phosphide. The death cannot be said to be a natural death.

23. Now the question that arises for consideration is, whether the deceased had consumed Aluminium Phosphide herself or the same was administered to her by force, in other words whether the death of the deceased was suicidal or homicidal. In this regard, we find, as per the postmortem report there is no ante-mortem injury found on the body of deceased. More so this pesticide has heavy foul smell so it can not be administered secretly by any one else. As such, absence of sign of forceful administration of this pesticide leads to the conclusion that, in consuming Aluminium Phosphide, no external force was applied. Thus, we are of the view that death of the deceased was suicidal.

24. So far as the second ingredient of Section 304-B I.P.C. as to whether the deceased died within seven years of her marriage is concerned, the informant has specifically stated that the marriage of his daughter has been solemnised with the appellant Sompal one and half year prior to her death. All witnesses of fact also deposed the same version in relation to the time and death of the deceased. Moreover, the date and period of marriage of the deceased was not challenged by the appellants in cross- examination, even no suggestion has been given to any of witness of fact. However in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they had admitted only the fact of marriage but no specific denial has been made by the appellants regarding the time of marriage of deceased. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the death of the deceased had taken place within a period of seven years of marriage.

25. As to the third ingredient of the offence under section 304-B I.P.C. i.e., soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, is concerned, we find that P.W.-1 in his statement made general allegations against all the appellants for demanding Rs. 50,000/-, Colour T.V. and a motorcycle but no date, time, month has been disclosed by this witness, whether the alleged demand was made by the appellants from the deceased or this witness or any other family members. Likewise, P.W.-2 who is mother of the deceased also did not disclose any date, time and place when the dowry was demanded by the appellants either to the deceased or to this witness. Though this witness deposed that, after one and a half year of marriage, deceased had told her that she was being harassed by her in- laws for dowry, upon which she (P.W.-2) along with her husband went to their daughter’s matrimonial home and tried to make them understand. After that, neither she went to the matrimonial house of the deceased nor did the deceased come to the parental home. The above testimony indicates that there is no evidence of consistent demand of dowry within six months preceding the death of deceased, and particularly, there was absolutely, no such demand prior to the death of the deceased. Even if, for the sake of the argument the allegations regarding demand of dowry, as deposed by this witness, is taken as true which was told by the deceased to him, neither this witness and any members of her family had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased nor the deceased came to her parental house till her death, after the first demand which is alleged have been made after one year of the marriage of the deceased. This fact clearly goes to show that there was no demand for dowry, soon before her death, and any act of appellants, prior to six months of her death, cannot be considered as immediate reason for committing suicide, as there appears no proximate relation between the death of the deceased and alleged cruelty meted out to her.

26. Expression given in Section 304 IPC “soon before death” has not been defined in either Indian Penal Code or Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse facts and circumstances leading to the death of victim and decide if there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry and act of cruelty or harassment and death as held in the case of Bansi Lal Vs. State of Haryana (2011)11 SCC 359.

27. In the fact and circumstances of present case, in our view a demand of dowry within one year of her marriage that too only once, cannot be considered a proximate connection between death of deceased and harassment on account of demand of dowry. Moreover there was no evidence in relation to any Panchayat, complaints to any authority, made by the deceased or her parents regarding demand of dowry made by the appellants is on record.

28. Now, we come to the evidence of P.W.-3 who is the aunt (Tai) of the deceased. She also stated the same version regarding demand of dowry as narrated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e. 50,000/-, Colour T.V. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that the deceased told her about the additional demand of dowry and cruelty meted out by her in-laws, for the first time, when her “Chauthi Vidai” was performed. She further stated that the deceased had come to her parental house before 20 days of her death.

29. Upon perusal of the testimony of the mother and father of the deceased i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, no such evidence is available regarding the fact that the deceased had come to her parental home prior 20 days of her death and told about the ill treatment and harassment meted out to her in connection with additional demand of dowry. If any problem or harassment had been faced by the deceased, certainly the same would have been told by the deceased to her mother and father, first. Since they have not deposed in their testimonies that the deceased had come to them 20 days before her death and told about the additional demand for dowry and harassment, hence it cannot be believed that the deceased would have told to her aunt (Tai) about the additional demand of dowry and torture and not to her own parents. Moreover, the deceased had not come to her parental house for the last six months before her death, as per the deposition of P.W. 2 (mother of deceased). It appears that since P.Ws.1 and 2 have not made any allegations in relation to additional demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the deceased “soon before her death”, this witness has tried to fill up this lacuna by saying that the deceased had told her about the additional demand of dowry when she was going to her matrimonial home fourth time which is 20 days prior to her death. Even then, no specific allegation against any of the appellants has been made by this witness and only general allegations of additional demand of dowry like Rs. 50,000/-, Colour T.V. and Motorcycle has been levelled against all the appellants. More so, the deceased also did not tell her regarding any specific allegations against any of the appellants. As such, we do not find the testimony of this witness to be reliable.

30. So far as the testimony of P.W.-4 is concerned, he is the real brother of the deceased. He also deposed that her sister told him about ill-treatment and additional demand of dowry made by the appellants, in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he does not remember that when she told him about the additional demand of dowry and he did not remember how many days before the death of his sister, she told him about the demand of dowry made by the appellants. He also admitted in his cross-examination that his sister was not blessed with any child, however, he denied any illness and any treatment being given by her in-laws. None of the witness has deposed in their testimony that the appellants has ever demanded any dowry, from them or from the deceased in front of them. The testimony of this witness is also having no credence as he does not even know when his sister told or made any complained to him regarding demand of dowry by the appellants.

31. Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.-6 Budh Sen, who is not the family member of the deceased, he is a sworn brother of the deceased and resident of the same mohalla, where the parental house of the deceased is situated. This witness also repeated the same version by making allegations against all the appellants by saying that when the deceased came back to her parental house, she told him that her husband Som Pal and his family members namely Naresh Pal, Kunwar Pal, Ramwati and Sita Ram used to torture her and demanded Rs.50,000/-, Colour T.V., one Motorcycle as an additional dowry. But when this witness was cross-examined and was confronted with his previous statement recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it did not find place in the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer. This witness also deposed before the Court that the deceased told him that her in-laws used to give her bad treatment and did not provide food and threatened her to oust her from the house, if she did not fulfil their demands. While this witness was confronted to his previous statement, he admitted that this statement also does not find place in his previous statement recorded by Investigation Officer. As such, there is material improvement in the testimony of this witness and the statement made before the trial court first time does not help the prosecution in any manner and lacks credibility.

32. From the entire evidence adduced through the witnesses of fact, there is a complete lack of essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC i.e. the deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment soon before her death.

33. Apart from this, the appellants Sita Ram and Ramwati, are living separately from his youngest son, as admitted by P.W.-1 in his cross-examination, and the appellants Naresh Pal and Kunwar Pal are already married and living separately with their family. They cannot be said to be beneficiary of the alleged demand of dowry which is alleged to have been levelled against them. If they had an intention to demand any additional dowry they would have demanded from their own wives and not from the deceased or her parents.

34. It is the admitted case of the prosecution, even after one and half year of the marriage, the deceased could not be blessed with any child. Brother of the deceased has specifically stated in his cross-examination (at page no. 20) that ” meri bahan ko koi bachcha nahi tha, bachcha paida hi nahi hua tha”. In the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595, the Supreme Court has observed that a women may died by suicide due to various reason, as such, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment of love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on. Thus in view of Mangat Ram (Supra), the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased committed suicide due to not having child or some other reasons.

35. So far as the application of presumption under section 114-B of Indian evidence act is concerned, it may be applicable only when the prosecution has established essential ingredient, i.e. soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, which is completely lacking in the present case. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, we are of the view that prosecution could not succeed to prove the charge against the appellants under Section 304-B/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

36. Now we come to the allegation made against the appellants under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC. For the purpose of this section, statement of her parents, who had been examined as witnesses of fact, cannot be considered, as the testimony of these witnesses falls under the category of hearsay evidence which have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Statement of dead person would fall within the purview of Section 32 (2) of Indian Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the same can be admitted in evidence. In order to make the statement of dead person admissible in law, the statement must be as to cause of her death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in cases in which the cause of death comes into question. The testimony of all the witnesses of fact cannot be connected with any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. When we are dealing with an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. dis-juncted from the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the question of death of the deceased is not an issue for consideration and on that premise also Section 32 (2) of the Evidence Act will not come into play as observed by Supreme Court in the case of Bhairon Singh Vs. State Madhya Pradesh (2009) 12 S.C.C. 80.

37. Thus, in view of above case law, qua the offence under section 498-A I.P.C, as a simplicitor, in such cases death cannot be an issue for consideration. Before coming to such issue, we may record that in the case in hand all the witnesses who came before the court only deposed that she would tell them about the ill treatment and harassment meted out to her by the appellants, which has no relevance about her death and any circumstance of transaction of money in lieu of additional demand of dowry, which resulted in her death. Accordingly, on the basis of testimony of the witnesses of facts, the charge against the appellants under Section 498-A IPC is not liable to be proved.

38. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. While recording conviction against the appellants, the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and erroneously recorded the finding of conviction, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

39. In view of the above reasons, the present appeals are allowed Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.2018, is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants namely Sita Ram, Smt. Ramwati, Naresh Pal and Kunwar Pal are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. The appellant Som Pal is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. All the appellants are directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within one month from today.

40. Copy of this judgement along with original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

 
Order Date :-5.8.2025
 
Akbar
 
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)       (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)