Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 & SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT) SOUTH WEST: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
(MORE THAN 5 YEARS OLD)
SC No. : 327/2019
State Vs. : Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. : 62/2019
PS : Dwarka South
U/s : 304B/498A/34 IPC
CNR No. : DLSW01-005714-2019
1. Date of commission of offence : from 10.03.2016 (date of
marriage) till 22.01.2019
2. Date of institution of the case : 24.04.2019
3. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 30.04.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. Mukesh Kumar
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : (1) Deepak
S/o Chhote Lal
R/o H. No. A-103, Qutub
Vihar Phase II, Goyla Dairy,
near Hanuman Mandir,
New Delhi.
(2) Chhote Lal
S/o Sh. Santokhi
R/o H. No. A-103, Qutub
Vihar Phase II, Goyla Dairy,
near Hanuman Mandir,
New Delhi.
(3) Kusum
W/o Chhote Lal
H. No. A-103, Qutub
SC No. 327/2019
State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 1 of 22
Vihar Phase II, Goyla Dairy,
near Hanuman Mandir,
New Delhi.
8. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
9. Date on which order was reserved : 02.07.2025
10. Final order : Acquitted
11. Date of final order : 07.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The investigation was set into motion on receiving DD No. 14PP Sector 1 Dwarka PS Dwarka South dated 22.01.2019 at about 5:15 pm regarding suicide of one Anjali. The said DD was marked to ASI Jagdish, who along with HC Deepak reached the spot i.e. RZ- C-31, ground floor, Mahavir Enclave, Sector 1, Dwarka, Delhi. He found deceased lying on the chair in the room. He saw that two chunnis were tied together on the fan of the said room which were half cut. One piece of the chunni was lying on the bed. He met Hemant (brother of deceased) there, who informed that his sister has committed suicide by hanging herself and he used the vegetable knife to cut the chunni and put his sister on the chair. ASI Jagdish found one suicide note on the bed along with one pen with cap of white and blue colour. He seized the chair, chunni, suicide note and pen. He also seized the register kept in that room and the knife by which the chunni was cut. SDM was called at the spot but the statements of parents could not be recorded.
SC No. 327/2019 FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 2 of 222. Crime team was called at the spot and the exhibits were lifted. Body of the deceased was shifted to DDU Hospital and MLC was prepared by the doctor. On the next day of the incident, statement of Mukesh Kumar (father of deceased) was recorded by the concerned SDM. The postmortem of the body of deceased was got conducted and FIR under 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered.
3. During the course of investigation, the site-plan was prepared and the suicide note along with admitted handwriting and signature of deceased Anjali was sent to FSL. Accused Deepak (husband of deceased), Chhote Lal (father-in-law of deceased) and Kusum (mother-in-law of deceased) were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed awaiting FSL result. After compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.PC, the file was committed to Sessions Courts. Thereafter, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed in respect of signature and handwriting of the deceased on the suicide note. Same matched with the admitted handwriting and signature of the deceased.
4. Charge for the offence under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC against accused Deepak, Chhote Lal and Kusum was framed on 06.09.2019 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Matter was listed for prosecution evidence. The prosecution cited 22 witnesses out of which 10 witnesses have been examined.
6. Joint statement of accused persons under Section 294 Cr.PC SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 3 of 22was also recorded on 07.02.2025 wherein they admitted the genuineness of documents i.e. FIR No. 62/2019, Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, MLC No. 574 of deceased Anjali of DDU Hospital, PM No. 176/2019 of deceased Anjali of DDU Hospital, Death report of deceased Anjali, DD No. 14 and FSL report No. SFSLDLH/4064/QD/430/19 dated 23.10.2019 as Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX6 and witnesses pertaining to these documents were dropped from the list of witnesses in the main charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet.
7. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 27.05.2025. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein all incriminating evidence against them were put to them but accused persons denied all the allegations levelled against them and also submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They did not led any defence evidence. DE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
9. PW-1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar : He deposed that :
"I have four children, two daughters and two sons namely Anjali, Anju, Praveen Kumar and Hemant Kumar. Anjali got married on 10.03.2016 with accused Deepak Kumar. For about one or one and a half years everything was normal at her matrimonial house. After that when the deceased was being called, her in-laws used to deny for the same. They used to give beatings to my daughter for dowry and she used to tell us about SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 4 of 22
the same over telephone. I even made a complaint to PS Chhawla and Jaffarpur but even while making complaint one thing was there in my mind that the relations should continue. My daughter has been beaten in my presence at my house and demand of dowry was also raised in my presence. When my daughter was pregnant, she was beaten in my presence in my house. When I alongwith my wife had visited the matrimonial house of my daughter, we found her in bad state of health. Even I was insulted by my son-in-law who is present in court (Correctly identified). I made a complaint in PS Jaffarpur where a compromise took place. On various occasions my daughter was refused to come to my house. When I brought her to my house after about six months of all these aforesaid incidents, thereafter I did not send her back to her matrimonial house. She was being harassed and was verbally abused by her in-laws and husband over telephone.
Once during summer season, when my daughter was having five-six months' pregnancy, she was beaten. After my daughter was blessed with a baby boy in the third year of the marriage, we brought her to our house when the baby was 2 months old. Thereafter, about 15-20 days accused Deepak came to our house to take her back but we refused to send her with him as he used to beat her and after that we told him to bring his parents if they want to take her back. After about 2-3 days, his parents came to our house and they reprimand Deepak in our presence and then I sent my daughter and the child with them.
After she went to her matrimonial house, accused Deepak and his parents used to torture her and also used to demand four wheeler vehicle from her. They also used to beat her. Thereafter, once I alongwith my wife went to the matrimonial house of my daughter where we found her in a very bad condition. Then Deepak and his mother i.e. accused Kusum abused us also. Thereafter, had to come back and then I told the said fact to my son Praveen on which he brought our daughter back. Then after about one month Deepak and his parents again came to our house and requested us to take my daughter back and then I sent my daughter with them. Thereafter, after about one month, my daughter called my son Praveen and told him that she was thrown out from her matrimonial house and she was ill and standing outside the house as the accused persons had beaten her an demanded dowry i.e. car.
Thereafter, Praveen went there and brought my daughter back to Chhawla and admitted her in hospital. Thereafter, on the same day, Deepak came in the hospital and forcibly got my daughter discharged. On this issue, an altercation had happened between Deepak and Praveen and then Deepak assaulted Praveen with helmet on his face due to which Praveen suffered injury on his eye and got stitches. Thereafter. I alongwith my wife reached at SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 5 of 22
PS Chhawla where the police met us and both Praveen and Deepak were in the PS where again compromise had happened and accused Deepak went to his house and we brought our daughter back to our house. The son of my daughter remained in the custody of accused persons and till today he is in their custody and they do not send him to our home. Once Praveen went to the matrimonial house of my daughter Anjali to meet her son but they did not allow him and they also refused to send him with Praveen. My daughter who was living with us, used to tell us that Deepak's mother was trying to get him remarried for the reason of dowry as they were demanding car, sofa set and dressing table.
Once when I went to the matrimonial house of Anjali without informing them as stated above, then accused Kusum demanded car, dressing table and sofa set from us. Again said accused Deepak also demanded the same from us. Kusum also told us that we are "bhookhe nange".
After about 4-5 months of coming back to our home, my daughter committed suicide and we informed the police. All three accused persons are present in the court today (correctly identified).
My statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate, the same is Ex.PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A on each page. We had handed over the photocopies of documents to the police i.e. marriage photograph, Aadhaar card, medical documents, educational documents of Anjali in the present case. The police had prepared the site plan at my instance where my daughter had committed suicide. I had also given the admitted handwriting of my daughter to the police. The same was seized by IO vide memo Ex.PW1/B, bearing my signature at point A. The documents are now exhibited as Ex.PW1/C (colly.). In the marriage of my daughter Anjali, I had given one gold ring, one gold chain, one tola gold ear ring, paajeb, clothes, fridge, LCD, double bed, washing machine, utensils, etc. I had not taken back the same because they were of no use for me as my daughter had expired and these articles were of no use for me.
After the death, I had identified the dead body of my daughter vide identification memo which is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, bearing my signatures at point A. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to us for cremation vide memo which is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/F, bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the document which I had given to the police pertaining to admitted handwriting of my daughter Anjali. (At this stage, the original documents having the stamp of document division or of RFSL are taken out from a transparent plastic envelope. These are four notebook pages having marking Al to A8 and one small piece of diary page having marking A9 and SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 6 of 22A10 and shown to the witness.) These were the same documents which I had handed over to the police and the same were seized by police vide already Ex.PW1/B. The said documents are now Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I, Ex.PW1/J & Ex.PW1/K respectively.
The child of my daughter Harsh is with the accused persons and I am concerned about his future."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
10. During cross examination, he retracted from his earlier statement and he was then cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions given to him.
11. PW-2 Meena : She deposed that :
"My husband is earning by ironing the clothes. I have two sons and two daughters including the deceased Anjali. Today, I am appearing in the court in respect of case of my daughter Anjali. I am illiterate. The marriage of my daughter Anjali was organised about 8 years ago with accused Deepak (who is present in the court, correctly identified by the witness). I do not remember the exact date when the marriage was solemnised as I am illiterate. His parents i.e. accused Chote Lal and Kusum are also present in the court. The marriage was organished in Delhi itself. The marriage was an arranged marriage. The marriage was organised as per our capacity and status. One gold ring, gold chain was also given in the marriage along with other household articles including clothes. My health is not proper for last about 20 years and now I cannot even walk properly. I also use wheelchair and my memory is also not good. As far as I remember, my daughter was keeping well in her matrimonial home and there used to be some differences between her and her husband as normally happens between husband and wife. About after three years of marriage, my daughter came to my house in order to see me. One day, I was in hospital and my daughter committed suicide in my home. I do not know the reason of the suicide. I do not want to say anything else."
12. Since PW-2 Meena did not disclose the facts truly, she was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During her cross SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 7 of 22examination, she denied all the suggestions given to him. She was then cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
13. PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar : He deposed that :
"I am working as driver since year 2016. I have one brother and sister. My sister Anjali got married to accused Deepak on 10.03.2016. Accused Deepak and his parents i.e. accused Chhote Lal and accused Kusum are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness. The marriage of my sister was solemnized in Delhi itself and it was an arrange marriage. The marriage was solemnized as per our financial status and capacity. My father was also working as a driver. The matrimonial life of my sister was going fine right from the very beginning. On 22.01.2019, I went to my duty at about 8:30 am and I received a call from my uncle (chacha) that my sister had hanged herself. I went to my sister's house. Thereafter my sister was shifted to DDU Hospital. I do not want to say anything else."
14. Since PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar did not disclose the facts truly, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions given to him.
15. PW-4 Sh. Hemant Kumar : He deposed that :
"I am 12th pass. My date of birth is 22.01.2003. In the year 2019, 1 was 16 years of age. My sister was married to Deepak and got into Hindu Rites and Ceremony. I was very young at that time. I came to know that my sister Anjali had expired. I do not know anything else.
Accused persons present in the court today. Correctly identified by the witness."
16. Since PW-4 Sh. Hemant Kumar did not disclose the facts truly, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions given to him.
17. PW-5 Sh. Puneet Kulshreshtha, Director Social Welfare, SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 8 of 22Women and Child Development : He deposed that :
"In the year 2019, I was posted as Executive Magistrate, Dwarka. On 22.01.2019, I received information from PS Dwarka South with regard to death of a married girl. Thereafter, I went to the spot i.e. RZ-C-31, Mahavir Enclave, Sector 1, Dwarka, Delhi. Crime team was called at the spot on my directions. Parents of the deceased namely Mukesh Kumar and Meena were called and their statements were recorded which is already Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/PX1. Statement of Mukesh Kumar is in my handwriting and bears my signatures at point B on each page. The statement of Meena Devi is also in my handwriting, however, the same does not bear my signature. The concerned SHO is directed to take action as per law on the basis of statements of Mukesh Kumar and Meena Devi. The concerned police official was deputed to got the postmortem of deceased conducted."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
18. PW-6 Insp. Adith Lily : She deposed that :
"On 23.01.2019, I was posted at PS Dwarka South as Inspector Investigation. On that day, the further investigation of the present case was marked to me by the SHO. ASI Jagdish was the first IO in the present case. I along with ASI Jagdish reached the spot i.e. RZ-C-31, Mahavir Vihar, Sector 1, Dwarka, Delhi. Site-plan was prepared at the instance of ASI Jagdish, same is Ex.PW6/A bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I recorded statements of witnesses i.e. complainant Mukesh, Meena, Hemant and Praveen. I recorded the statements of crime team personnels and ASI Jagdish.
On 25.01.2019, I along with ASI Jagdish, Const. Pritam and W/Const. Nimki went to the house of accused persons i.e. H. No. A-103, Goyla Dairy, Qutub vihar, Phase II, near Hanuman Chowk, New Delhi and accused Deepak, Chhote Lal and Kusum were taken to the PS where they were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D respectively, all bearing my signatures at point A. Personal search of accused persons were carried out vide memo Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G respectively, all bearing my signatures at point A. Disclosure statements of all accused persons were recorded. On 26.01.2019, accused persons were produced before the concerned court. On 28.01.2019, brother of deceased Praveen came to PS and handed over to me copy of marriage card and other documents, same were seized by me vide memo Ex.PW6/H bearing my signature at point A. On 30.01.2019, scaled site-plan of the parental house of the SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 9 of 22
deceased was got prepared by the concerned draftsman. On 04.02.2019, postmortem report of the deceased was got collected. On 08.02.2019, viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL. On 19.02.2019, I handed over the file of the present case to MHCR as I got transferred."
She was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
19. PW-7 Sh. Naresh Chand : He deposed that :
"I am presently working Superintendent, CBSE, Patparganj, Delhi since 1992. My office received a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC on 19.03.2019. Same is Mark A. I was not able to produce the relevant record i.e. the document containing hindi handwriting of deceased Anjali. Since the procedure adopted by CBSE is that the record is weeded out after two months of result. Due to the said reason, the record cannot be provided to the IO. Police met me and my statement was recorded by the police in this regard."
20. PW-8 Insp. Rakesh Kumar : He deposed that :
"On 22.01.2019, I was posted as Incharge, Crime Team. My duty timings were from 08:00 am to 08:00 am (next day). I received information from the control room vide DD No. 14pp that a lady had committed suicide at her parental house i.e. RZ- C-31, Mahavir Vihar, Sector 1, Dwarka, New Delhi. Thereafter, I along with Const. Anil (photographer), ASI Kulbhushan (fingerprint expert), Const. Jai Singh (Driver) went to the spot in a government vehicle, there we met IO/ASI Jagdish along with other police staff. I inspected the spot. The photographer clicked the photographs of the spot from all the angles in my presence.
Thereafter, I prepared the scene of crime report No. 94/19 and handed over the same to IO/ASI Jagdish. My report is Ex.PW8/A bearing my signature at point A. My statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded by the IO.
I can identify the photographs, if shown to me as the same were clicked in my presence.
At this stage, photographs of the spot are shown to the witness. After seeing the same, witness correctly identifies the same. The said 13 photographs are Ex.PW8/B (colly)."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
SC No. 327/2019 FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 10 of 2221. PW-9 Sh. Naresh Kumar : He deposed that :
"I am the maternal uncle of deceased Anjali. My niece Anjali (since deceased) was married to accused Deepak on 10.03.2016. I was not present at the spot at the time of incident. I had not given any statement to the police at any point of time with regard to the present case. I do not want to say anything else. I came to know that my niece had committed suicide at her parental house.
All the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
22. Since PW-9 Sh. Naresh Kumar did not disclose the facts truly, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. During his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions given to him.
23. PW-10 SI Jagdish : He deposed that :
"On 22.01.2019, I was posted at PS Dwarka South as ASI. On that day, my duty timings were 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. On receiving DD No. 14pp and I along with HC Deepak reached at the spot i.e. RZ-C-31, Mahavir Vihar, Sector 1, Dwarka, Delhi. I saw that a lady was lying dead in the room situated at the ground floor. I saw the fan of the said room on which two chunnis were tied together. The lady was lying on a revolving chair just adjacent to the bed. One piece of the read colour chunni was lying on the bed. Half eyes and half mouth of the deceased were open. I came to know that the name of deceased was Anjali. There, I met the brother of deceased namely Hemant, who informed that his sister had committed suicide by hanging herself on the fan and he had used a vegetable knife having red colour handle to cut the chunni and thereafter he put his sister on the chair. I also found out one suicide note on the bed. One pen without a cap of white and blue colour was also lying on the bed.
Thereafter, I seized the chair vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point A. I seized the pen vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B bearing my signature at point A. I seized the chunni vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C bearing my signature at point A. I also seized the suicide note of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D bearing my signature at point A. The copy of suicide note is Mark X. Then, I saw one register Delta Elephant Polo Sport which was kept in the said room, same was seized by me vide seizure memo is Ex.PW10/E bearing my signature at point A. I also SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 11 of 22
seized the knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/F bearing my signature at point A. Hemant told me that her sister Anjali had married to accused Deepak on 10.03.2016 and they were blessed with one baby boy, who was aged about 1 year at that time. He also informed me that her sister was having matrimonial dispute with accused Deepak and she was staying at her parental house since last 3-4 months. Thereafter, SDM and Tehsildar Puneet were called at the spot. Crime team was also called at the spot. Then, the body of the deceased was shifted to the DDU Hospital and MLC was prepared by the concerned doctor.
On the next day, statement of Mukesh Kumar and Meena Devi were got recorded in front of Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, I prepared the rukka on the basis of statement of Mukesh, same is Ex.PW10/G bearing my signature at point A. Thereafter, I went to the PS and got the FIR registered in the present case. Then, I went to the DDU Hospital and got the postmortem of deceased conducted. The exhibits were handed over to me vide memo Ex.PW10/H bearing my signature at point A. The case property was then deposited in malkhana. I also prepared the site-plan of the spot, same is Ex.PW10/I bearing my signature at point A. On 25.01.2019, I along with Insp. Adith Lily, Const. Pritam and W/Const. Nimki went to H.No. A-103, Goyla Dairy, Qutub Vihar, Phase II, New Delhi where accused Deepak, Chhote Lal and Kusum were arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D respectively, bearing my signatures at point A. I can identify the case property, if shown to me. (Identity of case property is not disputed by defence counsel.). All the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness."
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Arguments addressed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State
24. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had argued that the prosecution has duly proved that SDM has recorded the statement of father of the deceased on the basis of which, the FIR has been registered. He had argued that it has been proved that deceased died within three years of her marriage with the accused under unnatural circumstances. Ld. SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 12 of 22Addl. PP had further argued that the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised in order to hold the accused persons guilty. He had submitted that the accused be convicted for the offences under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for accused persons
25. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused had argued that none of the public witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who are father, mother and brothers respectively of the deceased, have supported the prosecution story. It has not been proved that the deceased had committed suicide in pursuance to the cruelty meted out to her by accused persons for or in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. Therefore, accused be acquitted for the offences under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
26. I have heard arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for accused.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
27. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465 .
28. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for the SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 13 of 22purposes of deciding this case are as follows:
"304-B. Dowry death-(l) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death," and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
*Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(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."
29. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines "dowry" as under :
"2. Definition of "dowry"-In this Act, "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 an other person.
At or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties, but does not include Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning as in in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code."
30. Section 113B of Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and reads:
"113-B Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 14 of 22
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
31. The legal position firmly established is that 'suicidal death' of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is covered by the expression "death of a woman is caused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances" as used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. (Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2000] 8 SCC 663).
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand" 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 has held that :
"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the presumption raised was discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted below:-
"32. This Court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of the Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 15 of 22
offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217:
2003 SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304-B of the Code, 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 the demand for dowry".
33. With reference to the legal position as referred to above, the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised against the accused relieving the prosecution from proving its case and putting the onus on the accused.
34. Section 304B IPC is attracted only when the woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is a matter of record that deceased Anjali died within nearly three years of her marriage with accused Deepak. The postmortem report has been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 Cr.PC and was exhibited as Ex.A-4 wherein following external injuries were found on her body:
"Dark reddish coloured ligature mark, 15cm in length, in the form of pressure abrasion was present obliquely on the front and both sides of neck. On the back of the neck ligature mark was merged with the hair line. In the front of the neck ligature mark was present 6cm below the chin, from sternum 12 cm and was 5cm wide. On the right side of neck, ligature mark was present 6cm below the mastoid process and was 2cm wide. On the left side of the neck, ligature mark was present 5cm below the mastoid process and was 3.5cm wide. The total neck circumference was 34cm."
35. FSL result was admitted by accused persons under Section 294 Cr.PC and was exhibited as Ex.A-7. Nothing was found in blood and SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 16 of 22viscera of the deceased when sent to FSL. Supplementary charge- sheet in respect of the same was filed. As per the prosecution case, Anjali died due to suicide. Therefore, it is proved that Anjali died under unnatural circumstances.
36. PW-5 Puneet Kulshreshtha, the then SDM had recorded the statement of father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of deceased and he exhibited the same as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/PX1. PW-1 Mukesh Kumar is the father of deceased Anjali. While giving his statement to the SDM, he had stated that he had two daughters and two sons including deceased Anjali. Anjali got married to accused Deepak on 10.03.2016. Everything went well till six months after the marriage. After one year of the marriage, accused Deepak started beating Anjali at the instance of his mother Kusum. About 7-8 months prior to the incident he along with his brother-in-law had visited the matrimonial house of Anjali. Accused Deepak gave her beatings in his presence and did not send her along with him to her parental home. Thereafter, Praveen i.e. brother of Anjali brought her back to the parental home. A son was born out of their wedlock and at that time her brother Praveen had forcefully brought her back to the parental home. Accused Deepak came to take her back but PW-1 refused to send her back without talking to accused Chote Lal and Kusum. After discussions, she was sent back to her matrimonial house and again she was harassed by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and her sister-in-law Roopwati. They used to torture her and made her starve. When the parents of Anjali were not able to talk to her, Mukesh Kumar along with his wife went to the matrimonial house of Anjali and found her severally ill. They were insulted and humiliated by accused Deepak and co-accused SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 17 of 22Kusum. They came back to their house and told the entire incident to their elder sons. Thereafter, Praveen (elder brother of Anjali) brought her back to the parental house. After one month, she was again taken back to the matrimonial house of the accused persons. After going there, Anjali called Praveen and told him that she was thrown out of her house and Praveen took her to the hospital but accused persons forcibly got her discharged from the hospital against the advise of the doctors. Due to this reason, accused Deepak and Praveen had a scuffle in which Praveen sustained eye injury. Anjali was brought back to the parental house. After 2 to 2-1/2 years of the marriage, accused Deepak had asked Anjali that her parents had not given her and asked her to walk out of the house. Accused Kusum also made the same demand in addition of the demand of dressing table and sofa set.
37. The careful reading of the testimony shows that there are allegations of beating Anjali by accused Deepak on several occasions at the instance of accused Kusum (mother-in-law). However, in none of those incidents it has been stated that torture occurred on account of or in connection of demand of dowry which is a sine qua non for invoking Section 498A and 304B IPC. There is only a single line in the entire complaint in respect of demand of car, dressing table and sofa set. No specific date was mentioned as to when the said demand was made and what happened as a consequence of the non-fulfillment of the said demand. Even otherwise a single instance of demand without being followed by any harassment or torture thereof is not sufficient to invoke the said sections. The complainant himself had stated that the marriage was performed very happily and everything was good. It is also stated by the complainant before SDM that SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 18 of 22whenever Mukesh used to ask to accused Deepak to drop Anjali at his house, he used to say that he will bring her along with him and will take her back with him. The reading of the complaint itself, on the basis of which FIR was registered, does not show any allegation of demand of dowry and harassment in consequence thereof. There was no reason for registration of FIR. A suicide note was found on the bed where Anjali was found hanging. The handwriting and signature on the suicide note has matched with the admitted handwriting and admitted signature of Anjali. The said FSL report has been admitted by the accused persons under Section 294 Cr.PC and has been exhibited as Ex.A-7. The contents of the suicide note are very relevant in order to examine whether the deceased took this extreme step as a consequence of harassment / torture meted out to her in connection of demand of dowry soon before her death. The suicide note is scanned and reproduced herein under.
SC No. 327/2019 FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 19 of 2238. The careful reading of the suicide note clearly indicates that she was not being harassed in connection with the demand of dowry. She had admitted that she used to talk to someone else which she had stopped but her mother-in-law was insisting accused Deepak to marry with somebody else. It was also stated therein that she was committing suicide on her own and no family member was involved in it. The suicide note is not found to be incriminating against any of the accused persons.
39. Now the deposition of PW-1 in the court has to be seen.
40. PW-1 Mukesh Kumar during examination-in-chief had stated that for 1 to 1-1/2 year everything was normal in the house of Anjali. He deposed that they used to give beatings to his daughter for dowry and she used to tell the same on the telephone. It may be noted for the purpose of record that no such allegation of beating was made by Mukesh in his complaint before SDM and the entire complaint was silent about informing her family members on telephone by the deceased about the beatings given to her. Witness has further stated that he had even made a complaint to PS Chhawla and PS Jafarpur Kalan but he did not pursue the same. In this regard, it is to be noted that no such complaint was filed by the prosecution on record which shows that deceased Anjali was ever harassed by her in-laws during her stay at the matrimonial house or any such alleged complaint was ever filed by parents of deceased. The witness has further stated that his daughter was beaten in his presence for demand of dowry. This statement is bereft of any other detail. No date has been given when the beatings were given in his presence by accused persons to SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 20 of 22deceased. It is not stated that what demand of dowry was made in his presence. Witness has stated that complaint at PS Jafarpur Kalan was made where compromise took place but no such compromise has been filed on record. There is no date on which accused persons had refused to send Anjali to her parental house as stated by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. The entire deposition of PW-1, if taken to be a gospel truth on the face of it, does not satisfy the ingredients necessary to attract Section 498A/304B IPC.
41. It is pertinent to note that while the witness deposed against the accused persons during his examination-in-chief, he retracted from his statement at a later stage. He was cross examined by counsel for accused persons wherein he stated that -
"There was no demand of dowry on behalf of the accused persons. I had given the articles in the marriage as per my wishes and as per my financial status. It is correct that both the families were having cordial relationship with each other. My daughter was never stopped to come to her parental house by the accused persons. It is correct that accused persons have never harassed my daughter for the demand of dowry. My daughter was never harassed or beaten by the accused persons when she was pregnant. It is correct that no accused persons had ever demanded any dowry articles from me or may family members during the time of her stay at her matrimonial house."
42. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State as he turned hostile but he did not support the prosecution version. At this stage, it is relevant to point here that apart from PW-1 Mukesh Kumar, PW-2 Meena (mother), PW-3 Praveen Kumar (brother of deceased) and PW-4 Hemant Kumar (another brother of deceased) have also been examined by prosecution. However, to the utter dismay it is observed that none of them have supported the prosecution case. They were thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State, SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 21 of 22however, they did not state anything incriminating against the accused persons and denied all the suggestions regarding the demand of dowry and regarding the beatings given by accused persons.
43. In view of the discussion made above, it is observed that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against accused persons. Therefore, in these circumstances, accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Conclusion
44. Hence, accused Deepak, Chhote Lal and Kusum stand acquitted in present FIR No. 62/2019 PS Dwarka South of the charges framed against them under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VANDANA VANDANA Announced in open court JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 07.07.2025 15:24:01 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains twenty two (22) pages and having my signature on each page. Digitally signed VANDANA by VANDANA JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 15:24:07 +0530 (Vandana Jain) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi SC No. 327/2019 State Vs. Deepak & Ors.
FIR No. 62/2019, PS Dwarka South Page 22 of 22