Delhi District Court
State vs Suraj on 9 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA Courts : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 430/2021
FIR No. 313/2021
Police Station Karawal Nagar
Under Section 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC
Instituted on 03.12.2021
Argued on 20.08.2025
Decided on 09.09.2025
Final Order Convicted
State Vs. 1. Suraj
S/o late Munna Lal,
2 Guddi
W/o late Munna Lal
Both R/o House No.77,
Gali No.10, Phase-9, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Judgment, this Court shall decide the charges leveled against both accused namely Suraj and Guddi under sections 498A/34 SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 1 of 54 and 304B/34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2021, an information vide DD No.65A was received at police station Karawal Nagar informing that Suraj admitted his wife Archna, aged 20 years in the hospital as she hanged herself and the doctor declared her dead. On receipt of the said DD, ASI Ajay Tomar reached the hospital and collected MLC. Thereafter, ASI Ajay Tomar reached the house of accused Suraj i.e. House No.77, Gali No.10, Phase-9, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and informed the crime team. Crime team inspected the site and clicked photographs. Information regarding hanging was given to Sh. R. L. Meena, Executive Magistrate who got shifted the dead body to mortuary. Executive Magistrate recorded the statements of the parents of the deceased. Thereafter, FIR was registered. Both the accused persons were arrested. IO prepared documents and recorded the statements of the witnesses. IO prepared chargesheet and filed it before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.10.2021.
A. Charges
3. Vide order dated 19.05.2022, charges were framed against both the accused persons for offences under sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC. Both the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the said charges.
B. Prosecution Evidence:-
4. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in this case.
5. PW1 Har Pyari (mother of the deceased) deposed that Archna (since deceased) was his daughter. Apart from Archna, he has two sons and SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 2 of 54 one daughter. She deposed that on 06.05.2021, Archna was married to the accused, Suraj, according to Hindu rites and customs. On 12.07.2021, at about 8:00 PM, her daughter Archna made a telephonic call to them and spoke with her and her husband. She further deposed that during the conversation, she was weeping and, while crying, she informed them that her mother-in-law and husband were pressurizing her for dowry namely, a gold ring, a gold chain, a motorcycle, and cash amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs. She further deposed that they consoled Archna and told her that the aforementioned demands made by her mother-in-law and husband would be fulfilled by them by November. She further deposed that on 13.07.2021, at about 2:00 PM, she again received a phone call from her daughter Archna. At that time too, Archna was weeping.
6. PW1 further deposed that she told her that she was unable to talk as she was not feeling well, and further said that she would call her back after two hours. On the same day, i.e., 13.07.2021, at about 5:00 PM, she received a phone call from the accused, Suraj. She further deposed that accused Suraj told her, "Main ne aapki Archna maar di, ise utha le jao,"
and then disconnected the call. On 18.07.2021, PW1, along with her husband, came to Delhi. She further deposed that the Executive Magistrate recorded her statement, on which she placed her thumb impression and her husband, Vinod Kumar, also signed the statement. Her statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate is marked as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that they handed over three photographs of Archna's marriage with the accused Suraj to the police, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. The three SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 3 of 54 photographs are marked as Ex. PW1/C1 to Ex. PW1/C3, respectively. She further deposed that she does not remember the complete mobile number from which her daughter had called them. However, the last two digits were "77." She further deposed that when her statement was recorded by the police on 18.07.2021, she showed the call history on her mobile phone to the Investigating Officer (IO), who, after checking it, noted the number in her statement as 8742945377. PW1 further deposed that accused Guddi Devi is the mother-in-law of her daughter Archna. Accused Suraj and Guddi Devi are present in the court today and have been correctly identified by witness.
7. At this stage, the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor (PP) for the State sought permission to put a leading question to the witness regarding her first visit to Delhi after the incident in question, which was allowed.
Q. When did you reach Delhi along with your husband after receiving the information about the death of your daughter? A. I proceeded from my native place on the evening/night of 13.07.2021 and reached Delhi during the night. Thereafter, my statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 14.07.2021, which is marked as Ex. PW1/A.
8. PW1 further deposed that she along with her husband, went back to their native place and again came to Delhi on 18.07.2021, when her statement was recorded by the police.
9. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she had stated in her statement before the Executive Magistrate that on 12.07.2021, at about 8:00 PM, her daughter Archna had made a telephonic call to them and SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 4 of 54 spoke with her and her husband. She further deposed that during the conversation, her daughter was weeping and, while crying, informed them that her mother-in-law and husband were pressurizing her for dowry, i.e., a gold ring, a gold chain, a motorcycle, and a cash amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A, where the date is not recorded but the other facts are mentioned. She further deposed that it is correct that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized in a simple ceremony and that the lockdown period had just ended when the marriage took place.
10. PW1 affirmed that there was no dowry demand from the side of the accused at the time of the marriage. Further, she deposed that it is correct that she had stated in her statement before the Executive Magistrate, in para 4, that the marriage of the deceased Archna was solemnized about two months back and that she did not make any complaint against the accused persons. She affirmed that the deceased did not make any complaint regarding dowry demands initially. She denied that the deceased Archna never made any complaint regarding cruelty, harassment, or dowry demands by the accused prior to her death. PW1 further deposed that the deceased had informed PW1 about the cruelty and harassment by the accused persons for dowry on 12.07.2021. PW1 affirmed that her daughter and the accused Suraj stayed at her house for about nine days during the wedding of her son in May 2021. The first statement of PW1 was recorded at the police station. She denied that she received the dead body of her daughter and then went to her native village. (Vol.) Her statement was first recorded before the Executive Magistrate, and thereafter she received the dead SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 5 of 54 body. She was taken to the office of the Executive Magistrate by an Inspector from the police station, where her statement was recorded. She denied that her daughter repeatedly called her on 13.07.2021 because she was missing her a lot. She denied that she is falsely deposing that the deceased did not speak to her on that day or that she did speak to her and other family members. She denied that accused Suraj and Guddi never made any dowry demands from Archna. PW1 denied that Archna committed suicide because she was missing her family. PW1 further deposed that the statement of her husband was also recorded on 18.07.2021. She denied that she did not visit the police station, or that no statement of hers was recorded by the police, or that the statement was manipulated by the police without her knowledge. PW1 stated that she did not inform anyone except her husband and children about the dowry demands and harassment by the accused. She denied that her daughter committed suicide because she was making false allegations against the accused persons out of personal grievances. She denied that both accused are innocent.
11. PW2 Vinod Kumar (father of the deceased) deposed that Archna (since deceased) was his daughter. Apart from Archna, he has two sons and one daughter. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact date and month of Archna's marriage with accused Suraj, but confirmed that the marriage took place in the year 2021. He further deposed that after Archna's marriage, the marriage of his brother's son was solemnized. PW2 further deposed that he does not remember the date and month of that marriage either, but believes it took place one or two months after Archna's marriage. PW2 further deposed that during that SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 6 of 54 marriage ceremony, Archna and her husband Suraj came to their (PW2's) house. PW2 further deposed that during their stay, his daughter Archna told them that accused Suraj and accused Guddi (Suraj's mother) were demanding a gold ring, a gold chain, a motorcycle, and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. He further deposed that he told his daughter that they would fulfill the dowry demands after selling a plot of land, sometime later.
12. PW2 further deposed that his daughter and accused Suraj stayed at their house for about 4-5 days. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Suraj took Archna and visited the house of some relatives. He further deposed that later, both Suraj and Archna again came back to PW2's house, and after that, Suraj took Archna back to her matrimonial home. He further deposed that subsequently, Archna once called them and informed that accused Suraj and his mother Guddi were pressurizing her and again raising the demand for Rs. 2 lakhs, a gold chain, a gold ring, and a motorcycle. He further deposed that while speaking on the phone, Archna was weeping. He further deposed that thereafter, at around 4:00 PM, PW2 received a phone call from accused Suraj, who said: "Maine aapki Archna maar di hai, ise utha le jao" , and then disconnected the call and at that time, his wife was present with him.
13. PW2 further deposed that he made several calls to Suraj after that, but Suraj did not pick up the phone. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact date on which he received the phone calls from Archna and later from Suraj. After receiving the information about the death of his daughter, he, along with his wife and some relatives, SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 7 of 54 reached Delhi. He further deposed that they first went to the police station, from where a police official took them to the office of the Executive Magistrate on a motorcycle. He further deposed that the Executive Magistrate made inquiries from him and his wife and recorded their statements. His statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate is Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he also signed his wife's statement at points B and B1. When his own statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, he was in a state of shock due to his daughter's death, and therefore, he could not share all the relevant facts, some of which he later told to the police in his subsequent statement.
14. PW2 further deposed that he identified the dead body of his daughter in the mortuary of GTB Hospital, as per the identification memo Ex.PW2/B. A postmortem was conducted on Archna's body, and the dead body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW2/C. They took the body of Archna to their native place, where her funeral was conducted. He further deposed that after a few days, PW2, along with his wife, again came to Delhi, where they met with the police. The police recorded their statements. He further deposed that they also handed over three photographs of the marriage of Archna with accused Suraj, which were seized by the police vide seizure memo already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. These three photographs are marked as Ex.PW1/C1 to Ex. PW1/C3 respectively. He further deposed that he does not remember the complete mobile numbers from which Archna had contacted them on two occasions. However, he remembers that the last two digits of both numbers were "77". Both numbers had been SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 8 of 54 written in their diary and were also saved in their mobile phone.
15. PW2 further stated that he showed the diary and the mobile phones to the police, and based on that, the police mentioned the numbers as 9990674177 and 8742945377 in his statement dated 18.07.2021. Accused Suraj and Guddi Devi are present in the court today and have been correctly identified by the witness.
16. At this stage, the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor (PP) for the State sought permission to put a leading question to the witness regarding the dates of marriage and phone conversations with Archna which was allowed. PW2 affirmed that the marriage of Archna with Suraj was solemnized on 06.05.2021. PW2 affirmed that PW2 received information about the death of his daughter through accused Suraj on 13.07.2021. PW2 affirmed that they received a phone call from Archna on 12.07.2021 at about 8:15 PM, and again on 13.07.2021 at about 2:00-2:30 PM.
17. In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he had stated before the Executive Magistrate that after the marriage of his daughter Archna, the marriage of his brother's son was solemnized. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact date and month, but believes it took place one or two months after Archna's marriage. During that marriage, Archna and her husband Suraj came to their house. He further deposed that during their stay, Archna told them that accused Suraj and accused Guddi were demanding a gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle, and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. He further deposed that he assured them the dowry demands would be fulfilled after selling a plot of land. Confronted with statement Ex. PW2/A, where this fact is not recorded. PW2 admitted SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 9 of 54 that he had not told the Executive Magistrate that his daughter and Suraj stayed for about 4-5 days at their house, and that Suraj then took Archna to visit his relatives, after which both returned to their house, and then Suraj took Archna to her matrimonial home. (Vol. He had not disclosed these facts because the Executive Magistrate had not asked him about them.). PW2 denied that he is falsely deposing that Suraj took his daughter to his relatives and that, in reality, Suraj stayed for the entire period of nine days at their house. He further deposed that he does not remember the date when Archna first informed him about dowry demands and cruelty by the accused persons.
18. PW2 further stated that he disclosed the information shared by Archna regarding cruelty and dowry demands to his wife. He further deposed that he did not file any police complaint when Archna informed him of the dowry demands. (Vol. He did not make any complaint because he had assured the accused persons that he would pay the amount after selling their plot.) PW2 denied that the accused never demanded dowry from the deceased or from him, or that he is deposing falsely on this point. He affirmed that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized soon after the COVID lockdown ended in 2021. PW2 further denied that the accused persons did not make any dowry demands at the time of marriage. PW2 further affirmed that his daughter made repeated phone calls to his family members on 13.07.2021 and spoke with all of them, including him. PW2 further deposed that she spoke to him and his wife; thereafter, he left, so he is unaware whether she spoke to any other family members or not. PW2 further affirmed that his daughter told him she was missing them a lot and requested to be brought back SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 10 of 54 to her parental home. He affirmed that she expressed that they had married her off far away. PW2 denied that that she told him her in-laws were treating her well and were not demanding any dowry.
19. PW2 stated that he himself heard the deceased saying that the accused were demanding dowry and harassing her. This fact was also heard by his wife. He denied that the deceased was stating the above facts to her sister-in-law (bhabhi) instead. PW2 clarified that his wife attended the phone call from Suraj at 4:00 PM, but she was not at home at that time. PW2 denied that the accused persons never demanded dowry from the deceased or her family, either before or after the marriage. PW2 admitted that he did not mention in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he showed his diary to the police officials. PW2 further deposed that he reached Delhi on receiving the information about his daughter's death on 14.07.2021 at about 5:00 AM. PW2, along with his wife, two uncles, and his son, visited the police station immediately upon reaching Delhi the next day after the incident. However, the police officials asked them to come back around 10:00 AM or later. He further deposed that they again reached the police station at about 9:00- 10:00AM. (Vol. They stayed there since morning.). PW2's first statement was recorded at the police station, and thereafter, by the Executive Magistrate. He further deposed that he does not know the exact location of the Executive Magistrate's office. He further deposed that he signed his statement. He further deposed that his wife also gave and signed her statement. He further deposed that the police did not meet him after the release of his daughter's dead body. PW2 denied that his daughter committed suicide because she was calling them to Delhi SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 11 of 54 and they failed to reach her, or that the accused never demanded dowry from his daughter. He denied that his daughter committed suicide and they are falsely implicating the accused persons in this case.
20. PW3 Rambeti deposed that she is the maternal aunt ( mausi) of Archna (since deceased). She further deposed that Archna was married to accused Suraj on 06.05.2021, according to Hindu rites and customs. PW3 further deposed that she and her husband acted as mediators for this marriage. She further deposed that accused Guddi Devi is the sister of her husband Mukesh. She further deposed that prior to the marriage, no dowry demands were raised by the accused persons. However, after one month of marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs. 2 lakhs in cash, one motorcycle, one gold chain, and one gold ring from Archna and her parents, and began harassing Archna in relation to these demands. She further deposed that on 23.06.2021, accused Suraj physically assaulted Archna. She further deposed that both accused Suraj and Guddi Devi showed PW3 and her husband a video of this beating. She further deposed that PW3 and her husband questioned the accused about the violence and in response, the accused persons stated that if their dowry demands were not fulfilled, Archna would continue to be beaten and tortured in the future. The said video was shown to them when PW3, along with her husband Mukesh, visited the house of the accused to counsel and persuaded them. However, despite their visit and request, the accused persons did not stop the abuse or the dowry demands.
21. PW3 further deposed that on 13.07.2021 at about 2:20 PM, PW3 had a SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 12 of 54 telephonic conversation with Archna. She further deposed that during the call, Archna told her that the accused were demanding the aforementioned dowry items and threatening that if the demands were not met, they would kill her. Archna also said that she was being physically assaulted. About half an hour later, Bobby, the brother of accused Suraj, came to PW3's house and informed them that Archna had committed suicide. She further stated that Archna committed suicide on 13.07.2021 due to the continued beatings and dowry demands. Her statement was recorded by the police on 22.07.2021. Accused Suraj and Guddi Devi are present in court and were correctly identified by the witness.
22. In her cross-examination, PW3 deposed that at the time of the incident, her husband was working in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, as a driver of a CNG canter. She further deposed that her husband used to stay in Shamli due to work but would visit occasionally, including trips to Delhi in the CNG canter. He had no fixed duty timings. She further deposed that her house is located near the house of the accused, at a gap of 8-10 houses, in the opposite lane. She further deposed that the accused family had a tenant living with his family in their house. She further deposed that deceased Archna kept the incidents of torture and dowry demands to herself and did not share anything with PW3 prior to 23.06.2021. She further deposed that on that date, accused Suraj called PW3 and informed her that Archna was weeping, and requested her to find out the reason. She further deposed that PW3 then went to the house of the accused alone at night and accused persons raised the above-said dowry demands through her, as she and her husband were SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 13 of 54 the matchmakers for the marriage. She further deposed that they made such demands on multiple occasions, but PW3 stated she is unable to recall the specific dates, months, or times, as she is illiterate. Her statement was recorded by the police at PS Karawal Nagar in the month of July, after Archna's death. She further deposed that the statement was not read over to her at the time. (Vol. it was later read over to her before she gave her evidence in court.).
23. PW3 admitted that she did not mention in her police statement that Suraj had beaten Archna on 23.06.2021 or that the accused had shown them a video of the beating. (Vol. The police told her that these facts were irrelevant and that only the parents' statements would be recorded.) PW3 denied that she is fabricating a false story and therefore did not mention the above facts to the police. She did not make a police complaint when accused Guddi Devi and her two sons, Amit and Bobby, allegedly beat her and tried to strangulate her on 27.06.2021. She further deposed that she had informed Archna's mother about the incident of 23.06.2021 the following day via telephone. She further deposed that she had also told her own husband about it on the same day. She denied that no beating took place on 23.06.2021 or that, for this reason, she did not call the police at 100. PW3 confirmed that Suraj was not at home when she visited the accused's house on 23.06.2021. PW3 further deposed that she stayed there for about one hour and then returned home alone. She further deposed that the parents of the deceased live in their own house at Sirasa Ganj, Firozabad, U.P. PW3 further deposed that they do not own any plot or agricultural land and they have four children, including the deceased Archna. Archna's father SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 14 of 54 works as a beldar (daily wage laborer). She further deposed that at the time of the incident, three children were married Archna, her elder sister, and her brother. The elder brother was living with the parents. She affirmed that no dowry demands were made prior to the marriage. Accused Suraj used to do various manual labor jobs and was able to earn approximately Rs. 12,000/- per month. She denied that the accused never demanded anything from the victim or her family, or that the victim's parents did not have the capacity to meet such demands. (Vol.:
She further deposed that they had the capacity, as they gave a motorcycle, gold ring, and gold chain to Archna's elder sister without any demand from her in-laws. However, nothing could be given in Archna's marriage with Suraj, as the marriage was arranged and solemnized within just 3 days.).
24. PW3 further deposed that the original match for accused Suraj was with another girl, but that marriage was called off at the last moment, and on the same scheduled date, Archna was married to Suraj. She denied that the earlier marriage was called off two and a half months before the scheduled date. She denied that PW3 herself arranged Archna's marriage with Suraj and that the accused persons never requested her or her husband to do so. (Vol.: Accused Guddi Devi was weeping, as the earlier marriage was cancelled by the girl herself at the last moment. Guddi Devi is her nanand (husband's sister), and since her husband had already expired, PW3 and her husband arranged this marriage at the last minute.) She denied that the previous alliance was cancelled by the accused family because they no longer wanted to proceed with the marriage due to Guddi Devi's husband's death, and the girl's family SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 15 of 54 insisted on going ahead, leading to the break-off. (Vol. Guddi Devi's husband died in January, and as per their community customs, marriage can be solemnized after the first Holi following the death of a family member.)
25. PW3 affirmed that deceased had called PW3 on the phone approximately 2 to 2½ hours prior to her death. She further affirmed that during this call, the deceased did not mention any incidents of torture or dowry demands. (Voluntarily stated: She did not have a phone of her own and was using the mobile phone of the accused, Suraj, which he had put on recording mode. Furthermore, the accused never allowed her to talk in isolation; she could only speak in their presence. Hence, she could not disclose everything she wanted to. However, she narrated everything to the witness when she visited her house once.). PW3 deposed that she never filed any police complaint regarding the phone being kept on recording mode by the accused or about the deceased not being allowed to talk in isolation. PW3 denied that the accused never controlled or restricted the deceased's communication with her relatives, as deposed by the witness. It is for this reason that PW3 did not file any complaint in this regard.
26. At this stage, four mobile audio recordings, sent by the younger brother of the accused and played on the mobile phone of the counsel for the accused, were played in court. After hearing them, PW3 admitted that the recordings were true and correct. The essence of these recordings is that the deceased was desperate to meet her parental family, as she was living far away from them. She is heard crying in the recordings.
SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 16 of 54 Furthermore, she was unable to talk to her family as and when she wanted, as the phone screens were locked in her matrimonial home. It appears she did not own a mobile phone.
27. At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused handed over a pen drive containing four audio recordings of conversations between the deceased and her relatives, including the present witness. The same was taken on record and exhibited as Ex.PW3/D1.
28. PW3 further affirmed that the deceased did not mention any dowry demands or torture by the accused persons when PW3 had called her a few hours before her death. The witness was confronted with her earlier statement recorded on 28.11.2022, where she had stated otherwise. She denied that she is deposing falsely today. (Voluntarily stated: The deceased had told her everything when she visited her in person.) Even in the evidence recorded on 28.11.2022, her intention was to convey that the deceased was not allowed to speak freely on the phone and had narrated the torture and dowry demands in person when she met her. PW3 further deposed that on the evening of the incident, Bobby, the brother of the accused Suraj, came to her house and informed her about the death of the deceased. PW3 further deposed that she went to the house of the accused in the evening on the same day. Her statement was not recorded by the police on that day, although she had requested it. (Voluntarily stated: The police told her that her statement would not be recorded as she was not a parent of the deceased.) She did not inform the police that the deceased had been beaten by the accused on the day of her suicide. She further deposed that she did not notice any injuries SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 17 of 54 on the body of the deceased, as she was hurriedly taken to the hospital under the assumption that she was unconscious, without checking for injuries. She affirmed that both accused persons were present at their home when PW3 visited. The only other person present was the husband of the accused Guddi's muhboli (ritual) sister. Accused Guddi accompanied them to the hospital, but Suraj did not. For the first time, she, along with the deceased's parents, went to the police station on 14.07.2021. She further deposed that in her presence, the police did not record the statements of any witnesses, except for the deceased's parents. She further deposed that they arrived at the police station at around 8:00 AM and returned after 3-4 hours. She further deposed that she does not remember the exact dates, but she visited the police station two more times after that. She further deposed that she also does not recall the proceedings conducted by the police on those occasions. She further deposed that the police inquired about the incident from her and her husband, but did not record her statement in her presence. The family members of the deceased came to her house late at night after receiving news of the death. She further deposed that they visited twice within a month of her death. PW3 denied that the accused never demanded dowry or never tortured the deceased physically or mentally, or that the witness is deposing falsely due to being a close relative (mausi) of the deceased.
29. PW4 Mukesh Kumar deposed that he is employed as a private driver with IGL Company. He is the mausa (maternal uncle) of Archna (since deceased). PW4 further deposed that accused Guddi Devi is his real sister. PW4 further deposed that Archna was married to Suraj on SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 18 of 54 06.05.2021 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. He further deposed that he and his wife acted as mediators for this marriage. He further deposed that when the father of accused Suraj was alive, Suraj's marriage had been fixed with another girl. However, after his father's death, that alliance could not be finalized. He further deposed that thereafter, through his mediation, the marriage between Suraj and Archna was arranged and solemnized on 06.05.2021. He further deposed that prior to the marriage, no dowry demand was made by the accused persons. However, some time after the marriage, the accused persons demanded ₹2,00,000 in cash, one motorcycle, one gold chain, and one gold ring from Archna and her parents, and began harassing her over these demands.
30. PW4 further deposed that on 23.06.2021, a quarrel took place between Suraj and Archna, during which Suraj physically assaulted her. Following this incident, he and his wife went to the house of the accused persons and requested them not to harass Archna. He further deposed that they reminded the accused that no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage, and that it was improper to raise such demands now. Thereafter, they returned to their home. He further deposed that on 13.07.2021, he received a phone call from Bobby (the brother of accused Suraj), who informed him that Archna had committed suicide. First, his wife went to the house of the accused persons, and later he also visited. Archna was found lying outside the house. He further deposed that he took her to GTB Hospital, accompanied by accused Guddi Devi. He further deposed that his statement was recorded at the police station on 22.07.2021. Both accused Suraj and Guddi Devi were SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 19 of 54 present in court and were correctly identified by the witness.
31. In his cross-examination, PW4 deposed that from May to August 2021, he was working as a CNG transporter, transporting fuel from the mother station at Loni to the daughter station of IGL in Shamli, U.P. He further deposed that on 23.06.2021, his duty was at Shamli and he did not come home that day. He further deposed that his statement was recorded at PS Karawal Nagar, though he does not recall the exact date or the name of the police official who recorded it due to the passage of time. He further deposed that his wife, Rambeti, also had her statement recorded on the same day. The police official read over his statement to him. PW4 further deposed that he stated to the police that the accused persons had beaten Archna on 23.06.2021. However, he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC dated 22.07.2021, in which this fact is not recorded. He further deposed that he received the phone call informing him of Archna's death from Bobby, her devar (younger brother-in-law), in the evening on the day of the incident. He further deposed that his wife had previously informed him about the dowry demands made by the accused, but he does not remember the exact date when she first or last told him this. He further deposed that he did not lodge any police complaint regarding the dowry demands or torture of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he did not make any such complaint because his wife never informed him about the dowry demands or harassment by the accused.
32. PW4 admitted that none of the accused persons had ever demanded dowry in his presence. He confirmed that Suraj's marriage had earlier SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 20 of 54 been fixed with another girl for the same date as his marriage with the deceased. When that alliance broke, Archna was married to Suraj instead. (Voluntarily stated: The mother of accused Suraj wanted the marriage to be solemnized on the same date, hence the wedding with Archna was fixed.) Court Question:
Q. Do you know why the previous alliance was broken?
A. I do not know.
PW4 denied the suggestion that the deceased was excessively attached to her parents. On 13.07.2021, he was present at home and had not gone to work. PW4 further deposed that upon receiving information about Archna's death, he went to the house of the accused persons immediately. PW4 further deposed that he reached there after noon, around 3:00-4:00 PM, though he does not remember the exact time. The police visited the house of the accused in the evening after the incident. He was standing outside the house at that time. No other proceedings took place in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of his wife.
Court Question:
Q. How are you related to the accused persons? A. Accused Guddi is my real sister, and Suraj is my nephew (bhanja).
He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely against the accused persons under pressure from his wife.
33. PW5, SI Sukhram Pal, deposed that on 13.07.2021, he received information from GTB Hospital through duty constable Virender, vide SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 21 of 54 DD No. 65A, that accused Suraj had brought his wife to GTB Hospital, where the concerned doctor declared her "brought dead" as per MLC No. BD/1253/21. PW5, along with Constable Ajay, immediately proceeded to GTB Hospital and collected the MLC. He requested the hospital authorities to shift the dead body to the GTB mortuary. Thereafter, PW5, along with Constable Ajay, visited the house of accused Suraj and found a knife lying in the room. Two pieces of saree were also found - one piece was tied to the ceiling fan and the other was lying on the floor. The accused informed PW5 that the knife was used to cut the saree in order to bring down the body. PW5 prepared a sketch of the knife (chhuri) and recorded its measurements. The sketch was marked as Ex. PW5/A. The piece of saree tied to the ceiling fan was removed. PW5 then seized the knife and both pieces of saree after placing them in a polythene bag and sealing it with the seal of "SPS,"
vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. PW5 took the mobile number of the deceased, Archna, from her relatives and informed her parents. He also informed Executive Magistrate R.L. Meena, who recorded the statements of Archna's parents. PW5 made an endorsement on the statement of Har Pyari (Ex. PW5/C) and got the present FIR registered.
34. PW5 further deposed that on 15.07.2021, he along with the Investigating Officer (IO), visited the spot, where the IO prepared the site plan at the instance of PW5 (Ex. PW5/D). Accused Suraj was also present at the spot. The IO interrogated and arrested him, vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/E. A personal search of the accused was conducted (memo Ex. PW5/F), and his disclosure statement was recorded (Ex. PW5/G). PW5 further deposed that accused Suraj produced a copy of SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 22 of 54 his marriage invitation card (Ex. PW5/H). PW5 and the IO searched for accused Guddi Devi, but she could not be traced. On 04.08.2021, PW5 again joined the investigation and, along with the IO, reached the spot where, on his identification, accused Guddi Devi was arrested (arrest memo Ex. PW5/I). Her personal search was conducted by a lady constable (memo Ex. PW5/J). Thereafter, the medical examination of accused Guddi Devi was conducted, and she was produced before the KKD Court, from where she was sent to judicial custody. PW5's statement was recorded by the IO. During his testimony before the Court, PW5 identified the seized knife (Ex. PW5/Article-1) and also identified the sealed pullanda containing the two pieces of cut saree bearing the seal impression "SPS" (Ex. PW5/Article-2).
35. During his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that he received information from Duty Head Constable Virender at GTB Hospital at around 6:00 PM, stating that Suraj had brought his wife to the hospital, where she was declared brought dead. Upon receiving this information, he reached GTB Hospital at 6:30 PM and collected the MLC of the deceased from the doctor. There was no tenant in the said house, which measured only about 50 square yards.
36. PW6 Ramji Lal Meena deposed that on 14.07.2021, at about 11:30 AM, IO/SI Sukrampal, along with PW1 Har Pyari and PW2 Vinod Kumar (the parents of the deceased), came to his office, where PW6 recorded the statements of the deceased Archna's parents. PW6 identified the statements of both witnesses as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A. He made endorsements on both statements and handed them over to IO/SI Sukrampal. On the same day, 14.07.2021, PW6 reached the GTB SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 23 of 54 Mortuary, where he met the IO, who prepared documents related to the post-mortem of the deceased under his (PW6's) supervision. The body was identified by Vinod Kumar and Akash (the father and brother of the deceased). The identification memos are Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW6/A. PW6 then directed the IO to hand over the body of the deceased to her relatives after the post-mortem.
37. PW7, IO/Inspector Prakash Roy deposed that on 15.07.2021, he, along with ASI Sukrampal, reached the spot and prepared the site plan at his instance (site plan Ex. PW5/D). He interrogated accused Suraj and subsequently arrested him (vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/E), conducted his personal search (vide memo Ex. PW5/F), and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex. PW5/G). The accused, Suraj, produced a copy of the marriage invitation card (Ex. PW5/H). Efforts were made by PW7 to trace co-accused Guddi, but she could not be located at that time. PW7 recorded the statements of relevant witnesses. Accused Suraj was sent to court through ASI Sukrampal, from where he was remanded to Judicial Custody (JC). On 18.07.2021, PW1 and PW2 came to the police station and produced three photographs of the marriage, which were seized by PW7 (vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B). The three photographs are marked as Ex. PW1/C1 to Ex. PW1/C3. PW7 also recorded the supplementary statements of witnesses. On 22.07.2021, he recorded the statements of PW3 and PW4. During the investigation, PW7 sent a request to the service provider to obtain the Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Customer Application Forms (CAFs) of the deceased and the complainant. On 26.07.2021, under the direction of PW7, Constable Deepak deposited the viscera box of the SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 24 of 54 deceased with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
38. PW7 further deposed that on 27.07.2021, PW7 visited the office of the Crime Team, North-East District, and examined the In-Charge of the Crime Team and the photographer who had inspected the scene of occurrence, and recorded their statements. PW7 collected 19 printouts of the photographs (Ex. A1) and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A2). On 04.08.2021, PW7, along with ASI Sukrampal and W/Constable Indu, went in search of accused Guddi to her house. They located her in Gali No.10, Phase-9, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, where PW7 interrogated and arrested her (vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/I) and had her personal search conducted by W/Ct. Indu (vide memo Ex. PW5/J). PW7 also recorded the statements of ASI Sukrampal and W/Ct. Indu. On 06.08.2021, PW7 sent a request to the Executive Magistrate, Karawal Nagar, Delhi to provide the inquest report (Ex. PW7/B). On 09.08.2021, PW7 received the inquest report along with its annexures (five pages), from the Executive Magistrate, vide their letter Ex. PW7/C. On 26.08.2021, Amit, the brother of accused Suraj, came to the police station and handed over a Samsung mobile phone, stating it was used by the deceased to contact her parental house. He also informed PW7 that the same phone was used by the deceased on 12.07.2021 and 13.07.2021. PW7 seized the mobile phone (vide memo Ex. PW7/D) and sent it to FSL Rohini for extraction of the data contained therein. PW7 also seized the marriage invitation card (Ex. PW7/E). PW7 further prepared another site plan on 15.07.2021, showing the locality where the house of the accused persons is situated and where the incident occurred (site plan Ex.
SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 25 of 54 PW7/F). He also collected the scaled site plan, already marked as Ex. A-4.
39. PW7 further deposed that he obtained the CDRs, Cell ID charts, and CAFs related to the mobile numbers of the complainant, accused Suraj, and the deceased, and placed them on the file. He examined and recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and filed the charge sheet. PW7 identified the white Samsung mobile phone produced by Amit during the investigation (Ex. PW7/Article-1). A sealed wooden box containing the viscera of the deceased, sealed with the PM seal, was sent to the FSL through Ct. Deepak. The FSL examination report regarding the viscera, dated 13.01.2022, is Ex. PW7/G.
40. In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that on 15.07.2021, he began the investigation and reached the spot at around 10:00 AM, where the accused Suraj was present, but the complainant was not. He prepared the unscaled site plan, which is marked as Ex. PW5/D. The information regarding the arrest of accused Suraj was communicated to his brother telephonically.
41. PW8 Pankaj Sharma deposed that he verified the records of mobile number 8851901052 for the period 01.05.2021 to 15.07.2021, which was issued in the name of accused Suraj. The Customer Application Form (CAF) and Call Detail Records (CDR) are exhibited as Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C, respectively.
42. PW9 Gaurav Sharma deposed that the Samsung mobile phone (Ex.
MP1) was forensically analyzed using Oxygen Forensic Detective software. Audio files dated 12.07.2021 and 13.07.2021, which were SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 26 of 54 retrieved from Ex. MP1, were provided along with a detailed report on a compact disc, marked as Annexure CD1. His detailed forensic report is exhibited as Ex. PW9/A, and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW9/B. The compact disc is exhibited as Ex. PW9/Article-I.
43. PW10 Geetesh Patel deposed that upon detailed examination, it was revealed through auditory analysis by critical listening, followed by waveform and spectrograph analysis of the audio recordings in Ex. 1, that the recordings contained a continuous acoustic signal with no indication of any form of alteration. His detailed report is exhibited as Ex. PW10/A.
44. PW11 Inspector Mohd. Rizwan deposed that he filed the supplementary charge sheet, which included the FSL report and other relevant documents.
45. On 16.12.2022, on the instructions of the accused persons, statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. of the counsel for both the accused was recorded wherein he admitted the following documents i.e. (i) 19 photographs taken by Constable Satender as Ex. A1 (colly) and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act issued by Constable Satender as Ex. A2, (ii) SOC visit report prepared by ASI Mahavir as Ex. A3, and (iii) scaled site plan prepared Inspector Mahesh Ahuja as Ex. A4. On 16.04.2024, after consultation with their counsel, both the accused have given statement under section 294 Cr.P.C., wherein they admitted the following documents i.e. (i) statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Constable Satender Kumar as Ex. A5, (ii) SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 27 of 54 statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Mahabir Singh as Ex. A6,
(iii) statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Inspector Mahesh Ahuja as Ex. A7, (iv) statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Constable Ajay Tomar as Ex. A8, (v) statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Constable Deepak as Ex. A9, (vi) statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Constable Dinesh as Ex. A10, (vii) Registration of the present FIR by DO/HC Upendra, FIR and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Act as Ex. A11 (colly), (viii) DD No.65A dated 13.07.2021 prepared by HC Satender Dev Sharma as Ex. A12, (ix) call details of mobile no.9997315174 to be proved by Nodal Officer for Bharti Airtel Ltd. The CDR and CAF as Ex. A13, (x) Call details of mobile no.9990674177 to be proved by Nodal Officer for Voda-Idea. The CDR and CAR as Ex. A14, and (xi) MLC No.BD/1253/05/21 dated 03.07.2021 prepared by Dr. Subham Sharma, JR, Dept. of Accident and Emergency, UCMS & GTB Hospital as Ex. A15.
46. On 23.07.2025, statements of both accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they had denied their involvement and opted to lead evidence. In defence evidence, both the accused examined Ajay Kumar.
C. Defence Evidence
47. DW1 Ajay Kumar deposed that he knew accused Suraj and Guddi as he was also the tenant in the same building where both the accused were residing. It was around the Raksha Bandhan time in the year 2021, accused Suraj was sleeping in a separate room and in another room. The door of another room was bolted from inside. Accused Guddi came SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 28 of 54 from outside and found that from the window of the room and saw the deceased was hanging with the fan with the help of duppata. Accused Guddi called accused Suraj from another room and he with the help of one bucket while standing on the same after putting the hand inside the gate and open the gate and took the deceased to the hospital. Accused Suraj was arrested after 2-3 days of the incident after calling him to the police station. Accused Guddi was arrested after 20-22 days after the incident, till the accused Guddi was arrested, she was residing at her house only. Police called her over the phone and when she went to the police station, police arrested her. DW1 never seen any quarrel took place between the deceased and both the accused till the date deceased was alive. They all were residing in a peaceful manner. Both accused never ever had asked for dowry to the deceased or her family. Once DW1 was also called by the police and made inquiry from him and also took his statement.
48. In cross-examination by the State, DW1 deposed that no rent agreement was executed between him and landlord. Landlord never given him receipt of the rent. He remained in the said building on rent for about 3 to 4 years. No police verification was done regarding his tenancy in the said building. The amount of the rent is Rs. 2200/- per month. The said building was two storey and he was residing on the second floor. Accused Suraj used to do work of drawing mehandi in the hands. Accused Suraj and his family was residing in the ground floor. There were two rooms in the ground floor. In the year 2021, he was fruit vendor. Accused Suraj was belonging to Aligarh, UP. Accused Suraj was residing in the said flat for the last 10 years. DW1 did not attend SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 29 of 54 the marriage of Suraj with deceased. DW1 was present in his room when deceased hanged herself. It was about 12.00 noon when the incident happened. Generally DW1 leave his house for work in the morning and come back in the evening. DW1 was present at the spot when the incident happened. DW1 had only witnessed the incident and he did not do anything except witnessing the incident. Police had recorded statement of DW1 and DW1 put his signature in the statement. He had not read the statement before putting his signature. He is in touch with accused Suraj. At present accused Suraj resides at the distance of around 100 meter from his house. Accused Suraj had asked DW1 to be defence witness in this case.
D. Findings:-
49. It is the submission of Counsel for accused that no complaints were made by family members if any demand for dowry was made. Further, it is stated by PW1 and PW2 that they assured their daughter that demand would be met after selling the land but PW3 and PW4 stated that PW2 did not own any such land. It is submitted that in the audio recordings, the deceased was only crying and she was desperate to meet her family, she was missing her family members a lot. She wanted them to come to meet her but they did not come due to which she committed suicide. It is submitted that no demand of dowry was ever made nor she mentioned about the same in her audio calls. It is submitted that when no dowry was exchanged during marriage, the question of asking for dowry after marriage does not arise. It is submitted that DW1 who is neighbour also deposed that they were residing peacefully.
SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 30 of 54
50. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that there are specific allegations of dowry demand by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. PW4 is real brother of accused Guddi who was also mediator in the marriage but he also does not support the accused persons. It is submitted that in the audio calls also she could be heard continuously crying due to the demand for dowry.
51. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
52. PW1 Harpyari is the mother of deceased Archna. She deposed before the Court that on 06.05.2021, her daughter was married with accused Suraj and on 12.07.2021 at around 8:00 pm, her daughter made them a telephonic all and spoke with her and her husband. During talks, she was weeping a lot and informed that her husband and mother in law were pressurizing her for making demand of dowry i.e. gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from them. They consoled their daughter by saying demands would be fulfilled by November. On 13.07.2021 at around 2:00 pm, they again received phone call of their daughter who was weeping a lot, however PW1 told deceased that she was not feeling well and she would call them after two hours. However, on 13.07.2021 at about 5:00 pm, she received call of Suraj who stated that "Maine aapki Archana maar di, ise utha le jao"
and then he disconnected the call. Her daughter had talked to them from the mobile No.8742945377. On the night of 13.07.2021 they left their native place and reached Delhi and their statements were recorded by Executive Magistrate on 14.07.2021 which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. Then, they went back to their native place and came back to SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 31 of 54 Delhi on 18.07.2021 when their statements were recorded by the police. She had also handed over marriage photographs of her daughter with accused Suraj to the IO.
53. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that when deceased called them on 12.07.2025, she was weeping and informed them about dowry demand. She admitted in cross-examination that at the time of marriage no demand for dowry was made. She further admitted that it was a simple marriage which was solemnized during Covid times. However, she deposed that deceased had disclosed to them about harassment by accused persons on 12.07.2021. She also admitted that her daughter came to stay with them for nine days in the marriage of their son in May 2021.
54. A perusal of the statement of PW1 would show that she had deposed that at the time of marriage no demand was made, however later on deceased was tortured for dowry. Her statement to the effect that she was telephonically called by deceased on 12.07.2021 and 13.07.2021 is supported by the CDRs on record and audio recordings also. She was cross examined in detail and there is nothing in her testimony to conclude that she is not speaking the truth.
55. PW2 Vinod Kumar is the father of deceased Archna. He deposed that after one or two months of the marriage of their daughter Archna, marriage of son of his brother was solemnized which was attended by Archna and her husband. In that marriage, Archna and her husband came to their house to stay. During the stay, his daughter told him about the demand of gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- by SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 32 of 54 accused Suraj and Guddi. He told her that he would try to fulfill their demands by selling the plot after sometime. Thereafter, his daughter called him and informed about the dowry demand by both the accused of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold ring, gold chain and motorcycle. She was weeping also while talking to them. Thereafter, at around 4:00 pm, he received phone call of accused Suraj who told them that "Maine aapki Archana maar di, ise utha le jao" and thereafter, he disconnected the phone call. His wife was also present with him during phone call. Then he made several calls to Suraj but he did not pick. Thereafter, he along with his wife and some relatives reached Delhi. He was taken to the office of Executive Magistrate who recorded statement of PW2 as well as his wife (PW1). He further deposed that he was in shock of death of his daughter hence he could not state some facts to the Executive Magistrate which he later on told to police in his statement. He admitted that the mobile numbers with which conversation took place between him and accused persons are 9990674177 and 8742945377.
56. In his cross-examination, he reiterated the fact that when his daughter had come to stay with Suraj in their house, she told them about the demand of dowry i.e. gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. He further stated that he did not tell Executive Magistrate about their stay in their house as same was not asked by Executive Magistrate. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not make any complaint regarding dowry demand as he assured the accused persons that he would pay them some amount by selling their plot. He further admitted that their daughter made telephonic calls to them repeatedly on 13.07.2021 and talked to all family members. Also SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 33 of 54 she told them that she wanted to visit parental home. It is further reiterated that their daughter told them about dowry demand also.
57. Perusal of the statement of PW2 would show that he also stated about the dowry demand made from them through their daughter. Further, PW2 Vinod Kumar also deposed before the Court that their daughter had come to stay in their house for approximately 9 days at the time of marriage of the son of PW2. During this period, deceased Archna disclosed to PW2 about this demand by the accused persons at that time, however he assured her to fulfill this demand in November. This witness has stood the test of cross examination and there is nothing in her testimony to conclude that he is not speaking the truth. Testimony of PW1 and PW2 cannot be looked upon with suspicion only because they are relatives of deceased. They have been cross-examined in detail, there is nothing in their testimony to conclude that the allegation of the demand of dowry which was made from them indirectly through their deceased daughter is not correct or is a false allegation. Needless to say their testimony is corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4 as well as the audio calls made by deceased to them before her death.
58. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.339-340 of 2014 titled Rajesh Yadav and another etc. v. State of U.P. held as follows:
29. When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence produced, notwithstanding the classification as quoted above, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. The aforesaid position of law has been well laid down in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591:
"32. Coming back to the appreciation of the evidence at hand, at the outset, our attention is drawn to the fact that the witnesses SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 34 of 54 were interrelated, and this Court should be cautious in accepting their statements. It would be beneficial to recapitulate the law concerning the appreciation of evidence of related witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364: 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed the law as under: (AIR p. 366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
33. In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 Cri LJ 226] , a five-Judge Bench of this Court has categorically observed as under: (AIR pp. 209-210, para 14) "14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard- and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 35 of 54 rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.
59. IO had obtained Customer Application Form (CAF), which is duly proved on record, which is in the name of Suraj in which mobile number which was allocated to him is 8851901052. However, in this application form Suraj has mentioned his alternate contact number as 8742955377. IO has obtained call details of mobile no.9997315174 which is the number of parents of Archna. These CDRs are duly proved on record, in the CDRs, there is incoming call on this number from the mobile of accused 9990674177 on 12.07.2021 at 8:16 pm. There is incoming call on the mobile of parents of Archna from the number of accused 9990674177on 13.07.2021 at 2:25 pm and 2:26 pm. Second call lasted for 641 seconds. Then there is outgoing call by parents of Archna to the mobile number of accused 8742945377 at 2:38 which lasted for 59 seconds. Then there is another call by parents of Archna at this number of accused at 5:31 and 5:35 pm. Then there is another outgoing call by parents of Archna at this number at 7:35 pm. Then there is another outgoing call by parents of Archna to the mobile number of accused at No.9990674177 at 10:44 pm in the night. The CDR is admitted by accused persons in their statement under section 294 Cr.P.C. on 16.04.2024. Accused persons have also admitted CDRs of mobile no.9990674177 in their statement recorded under section 294 Cr.P.C. on 16.04.2024. These CDRs clearly established the stand of PW1 and PW2 regarding the telephonic calls exchanged between them and Archna on 12.07.2025 and 13.07.2025.
60. IO had seized the mobile phone of accused which was sent to FSL.
According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Cyber Forensic SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 36 of 54 Division dated 23.12.2021, recordings retrieved from the Samsung mobile phone were found to be not tampered. There is report of Physics Division of FSL dated 08.12.2023 where audio recordings were played and heard. According to it, the audio recordings were not tampered. Further, in the CD, some 49 call recordings were submitted however IO has filed list whereby mentioning the important calls which were played by this Court.
61. The Court has gone through the recording mentioned in PDF file at no.40, 34, 33, 32 and 31 which are also pointed out in supplementary chargesheet by the IO. In the call recording, deceased was speaking with her mother as well as bhabhi and was continuously weeping. She was only saying that she was missing them a lot. She was asking her mother why she was married at such far off place. She wanted them to visit her matrimonial home and was also requesting to send her brother tomorrow itself. She was repeatedly requesting them to visit her. From her voice, she appeared low and distressed, and was crying incessantly but slowly. Further, the telephonic conversation of deceased Archna with her mausi PW3 Ram Beti also shows that she was continuously crying during the conversation. These were the call recordings of 13.07.2021 i.e. immediately before her death. In the conversations, when she was asked where are other family members, deceased stated that they are watching TV.
62. Audio recordings are admissible under section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act and they are primary evidence. FSL report in respect of audio recordings plays a crucial role in lending authenticity to the SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 37 of 54 electronic evidence. Once the prosecution proves proper custody of the device and proves that recording was duly obtained, the scientific opinion of the FSL that audio recording are un-tampered becomes relevant in criminal cases. FSL report assures the Court that the recording is genuine and is not the result of manipulation.
63. Such reports are relevant under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872. Audio recordings are admissible under section 62 of IEA read with section 65B of IEA. Further, this recording was played in evidence of PW3 Ram Beti by defence counsel in the Court and there is no such argument that the voice or recording do not pertain to the deceased. Such scientific evidence is based on objective test and examinations carried out by experts like FSL and do not suffer from lapses like bias or tutoring. The report of experts is neutral and helps the Court arrive at the truth with greater certainty. Scientific evidence often supports the oral testimony of witnesses.
64. In the present case, this audio recording is obtained from the mobile phone of the accused himself which was duly seized. There is no such suggestion to the IO that his mobile phone was not duly seized.
65. It is the specific case of prosecution that she was not allowed to keep a mobile phone of her own. She was only permitted to talk with her parents and other family members through the mobile of her husband and her husband had kept call recorder on the mobile phone always 'on' for all the conversations which were recorded as well. Infact the call recordings were retrieved from the mobile phone of accused himself. Hence, it could be due to this reason that deceased was not SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 38 of 54 able to state clearly about the harassment by the accused persons to her parents as all her audio calls were getting recorded. This fact is stated by PW3 and PW4 in their testimonies as well. There is no such suggestion to these witnesses that calls were not recorded. Rather these calls were played during cross examination of PW3. The request to send her brother or repeated requests to come to meet her cannot be taken only in the sense of exact words which she stated. May be she wanted to say more but was not able to do so due to the recording of her conversations.
66. At this stage, it is important to analyze the testimony of PW4 Mukesh who is the real brother of accused Guddi and PW3 Ram Beti who is bhabhi of accused Guddi.
67. PW4 Mukesh is the mausa of deceased, he is also real brother of accused Guddi. PW4 deposed that he along with his wife were mediators in the marriage of accused Suraj with deceased Archna. He also stated that prior to the marriage, no demand of dowry was raised by accused persons. However, after some time of marriage, accused persons started demanding cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, motorcycle, gold ring and gold chain from Archna and her parents, and started harassing Archna regarding the aforesaid demands. He further deposed that on 23.06.2021, a quarrel took place between Suraj and Archna after which Suraj had given beatings to Archna. He along with his wife went to the house of accused persons and made them understand not to harass Archna. He also tried to make them understand that when earlier no demand for dowry was made, it was not proper to make dowry demand SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 39 of 54 now and then they returned back. On 13.07.2021, they received call from the brother of accused Suraj that Archna has committed suicide. He took her to GTB Hospital along with accused Guddi. In his cross- examination, PW4 deposed that he told police regarding the incident of 23.06.2021 but police did not record the same. He admitted that no dowry was demanded in his presence.
68. Perusal of the statement of PW4 would show that he is the real brother of accused Guddi, yet he did not support them, he is rather supporting the case of the prosecution as he was the mediator in the marriage. Further since he was relative of both the sides, also being mediator in the marriage, it is but natural that he would know about the said demands of dowry. There is no reason to presume that the incident dated 23.06.2021 narrated by him is not correct or that his testimony is not believable.
69. PW3 Smt. Rembeti is the wife of PW4. She stated that accused Guddi Devi is the sister of her husband. She and her husband were mediators in this marriage. She also deposed that at the time of marriage, no demand for dowry was made, however, one month after marriage, the demand for gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- was made from Archna and her parents.
70. She also deposed that on 23.06.2021, Suraj had given beatings to Archna and when she asked accused persons why she was beaten, they stated that if demands of dowry were not fulfilled, Archna would be beaten in future also. They were shown video of beating also when they reached the house of accused to make them understand. However, SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 40 of 54 accused did not stop beating and raising demands.
71. She further stated that on 13.07.2021 at 2:20 pm, she had telephonic conversation with Archna who told them that accused persons were demanding dowry articles and if demand is not fulfilled, she would be killed. She also stated that they are beating her. On the same day brother of Suraj came to their house and informed about suicide by Archna. In her cross-examination, PW4 stated that her house is located 8-10 houses away from the house of accused in opposite lane. She further deposed that she came to know about the demand of dowry of 23.06.2021 when Suraj told her to speak with Archna as to why she was crying. Then she went to their house alone at night. She further deposed that accused persons demanded the above said articles from the family of deceased through her and her husband as they were matchmaker. She further deposed that demand was made on many occasions. She further stated in cross-examination that she told the police about the incident of 23.06.2021 but they told them that this was irrelevant and that only the statement of parents of deceased was relevant at that time. She further deposed that accused Suraj used to do manual work for his livelihood and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month approximately. She further stated that no demand was made prior to marriage. She denied the suggestion that family of deceased did not have capacity to give such articles, she further clarified that such articles were given to the elder sister of deceased at the time of her marriage.
72. She further stated that marriage of Suraj was to be solemnized with some other girl but the marriage was called off at the last moment and SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 41 of 54 Guddi Devi started crying in front of them whereby saying that she wanted the marriage of his son Suraj on the same day, hence this marriage was arranged between Suraj and Archna within a span of three days. She further deposed in cross-examination that deceased had called her to her house prior to the death. It was clarified by her that deceased could not tell her at that time about dowry demand because she did not have any phone of her own and she used the mobile phone of accused Suraj which he had put on recording mode. Further they never allowed deceased to talk in isolation, she was allowed to talk in the presence of accused persons, hence she could not tell them anything on that day. She further stated that she told them everything when she visited their house once.
73. Further certain mobile recording were played by counsel for the accused during her cross-examination of PW3, it was observed by the learned Court on 15.02.2023 that the essence of the recordings is that the victim was desperate to meet her parental family members as she was at a long distance from them. She is heard crying in the recordings. Further, she was unable to talk to them as and when she wanted because screens of the phones were locked in her matrimonial house. It appears that she did not have any mobile phone of her own. Further counsel for the accused had filed the pendrive containing audio recording on record which Ex. PW3/D1. PW3 Rambeti further states that it is correct that immediately before her death when deceased Archna had spoken, she did not mention about the dowry. She reiterated that as she did not have mobile of her own and she was not allowed to talk freely on phone hence she could not state everything on SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 42 of 54 phone.
74. A perusal of testimony of PW3 Ram Beti who is bhabhi of accused Guddi and PW4 Mukesh Kumar who is the real brother of accused Guddi would show that they are not supporting accused persons in their claim for innocence. Both were mediators in the marriage and both deposed that marriage was finalized within three days and hence no demand of dowry was made at that time but later on Archna was harassed for dowry i.e. gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/-. It is unanimously stated by all the four public witnesses that there was a specific demand of gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/-. They have specifically deposed that Archna had told them about the demand for dowry. Further her conversation with Archna on 13.07.2025 is also filed and proved on record wherein she could be heard weeping. The obvious reason why Archna could not state about harassment by her in laws in telephonic conversation is that her calls were recorded. Further, PW3 Ram Beti specifically deposed that accused persons had demanded abovesaid articles from the family of deceased through her as she and her husband were matchmaker. However, she could not tell any specific date, month and year as PW3 is illiterate. Further PW3 specifically deposed in her cross-examination that over mobile phone she could not state about the demand of dowry as calls were recorded and she was allowed to talk with family members in the presence of accused persons. There is no motive imputed to them for deposing against accused persons despite the fact that PW4 is the real brother of accused Guddi. There is no such suggestion to them that they are deposing falsely for any specific SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 43 of 54 motive.
75. Further, it is established on record that immediately prior to committing suicide, the deceased had made telephonic call to her parents and other close relatives. In these calls, she did not expressly state about the acts of harassment by accused persons but she was continuously weeping and appeared to be under extreme emotional distress. The parents of the deceased and relatives i.e. PW1 to PW4 have consistently stated that she was subjected to persistent dowry related cruelty in her matrimonial home. Further, she refrained from disclosing anything openly during her calls as she was aware that telephonic calls were being recorded. These recorded calls viewed in the backdrop of her unnatural death in the matrimonial home cannot be viewed as meaningless. The law does not require the dying declaration to be made in any specific form of words. Under section 32 of IAE, the only requirement is that the statement or communication relates to cause of death or the circumstances leading thereto.
76. The deceased's desperation to reach out to her parents immediately before her death (2 to 3 hours prior to death), her continuous weeping during calls and the timing of calls immediately before her death constitute a reliable circumstance pointing out to the state of mental agony and helplessness in which she was , due to daily harassment. Further, such communication formed part of res-gestae which is admissible under section 6 of IEA, being directly related to and form part of the same transaction of committing suicide. When read together with the oral testimonies of public witnesses, they are strong SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 44 of 54 corroborative evidence thereby supporting the case of the prosecution. These audio calls are a significant link to the chain of circumstance, demonstrating that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death.
77. When a married woman commits suicide in the matrimonial home section 113B of IEA lays a presumption in such cases. Section 113B of IEA provides that when prosecution is able to prove that a woman has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person has abetted the suicide. In such cases the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption. He must offer some plausible explanation for the death of his wife inside the matrimonial house. The law casts a special burden on husband and his family to explain the circumstances leading to her death. Though the accused also enjoys the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify against himself. However, this general principle is subject to certain presumptions created by law to deal with the menace of dowry death.
78. In the case of suicide in matrimonial home, there can rarely be any eye witness to the occurrence and case of prosecution rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. Such crimes take place within the four walls of the house of accused and it is very difficult to get direct evidence to establish such offences. It is the woman alone who faces such cruelty, which may be subtle continuing over a period of time, which ultimately may lead a woman to end her life in an unnatural way due to the SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 45 of 54 continuous rigor of harassment and cruelty. Other family members of accused would not like to be witness.
79. It was observed in the case of Trimukh Maroti Krikan v. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (Crl.) 1341 of 2005 that:-
"10. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
11. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished.
12. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 46 of 54 guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 \026 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration
(b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
16. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].
17. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 47 of 54 normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife."
80. The only inference that can be made from the above is that she had committed suicide due to dowry related harassment by the accused persons.
81. The accused in their defence have examined DW1 Ajay Kumar who was residing in the same building where both accused were residing. He stated that on the date of incident when deceased committed suicide, accused Suraj was sleeping in another room. Accused Guddi came from outside and called Suraj, Suraj opened the door by putting his hand from the window as door was locked from inside. Accused took the deceased to the hospital. He deposed that he had never seen any quarrel taking place between deceased and accused persons and they were residing in a peaceful manner. He further deposed that no dowry was demanded. However, this witness in cross-examination could not produce any document to show that he was residing in the same building where deceased committed suicide. He could not state SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 48 of 54 the name of the deceased. He further deposed that he could not say if any quarrel had taken place between the deceased and accused persons during day time as he used to go for work. Hence, testimony of this witness cannot be relied to prove that no dowry was demanded as he was only a neighbour. He did not state that he used to visit their house regularly. Further, he did not know deceased at all so he had no occasion to know if any dowry was demanded from deceased. Further demand for dowry was made from Archna and her parents and relatives. There is no occasion for a neighbour to know about such demand. Further, if she was mentally tortured for such demand, he being an outsider, would not know about it as he personally did not know Archna.
82. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.339-340 of 2014 titled Rajesh Yadav and another etc. v. State of U.P. held as follows:
"17.What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of existence of a fact by analysing the matters before it on the degree of probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it.
18.The word "prudent" has not been defined under the Act. When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 49 of 54 common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case.
19.The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, we may hasten to add, the evidence of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court's domain."
83. In view of above discussion, it is established on record that:-
a. The marriage of deceased with accused Suraj took place on 06.05.2021 and she committed suicide on 13.07.2021. Both these facts are admitted. Fact of suicide is also admitted.
b. The marriage was fixed within three days during Covid time and no dowry was demanded at that time. The marriage was fixed by the mediator PW4 who is real brother of accused Guddi and mausa of deceased, and PW3 who is wife of PW4. Both were mediators in the marriage.
c. After marriage the demand for dowry started and she was continuously tortured for the same. She informed about this demand to her father PW2 Vinod Kumar and to PW3 Ram Beti who was mediator in the marriage. The demand for gold ring, gold chain, motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000/- was made through the deceased.
SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 50 of 54 d. She was not allowed to keep a mobile phone of her own. She was made to speak with her parents thruogh the mobile phone of accused persons where all the calls were recorded.
e. She called her parents and relatives on 12.07.2021 and 13.07.2021 telephonically. The calls were retrieved from the mobile phone of accused Suraj who used to record all the calls of deceased. In the calls, she could be heard continuously weeping.
f. Two hours after the last telephonic call to her parents, she committed suicide.
g. No explanation is offered by accused persons for the said suicide .
84. In Criminal Appeal No.2321 of 2009 titled Rajender Singh v. State of Punjab dated 26.02.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304B have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients and they are said to be:
(a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry.
21. This Court in Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 129, had this to say:
"17. Thus, the words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 51 of 54 the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is, therefore, important. The question is how "soon before"? This would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before"
is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death.
18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term "soon before". The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 222- 23, para 15) "15. ... 'Soon before' is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term 'soon before' is not synonymous with the term 'immediately before' and is opposite of the expression 'soon after' as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 52 of 54 dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law."
22. In another recent judgment in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 2015 (1) SCALE 250, this Court said:
"We are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt." (at page 262)
25.We hasten to add that this is not a correct reflection of the law."Soon before" is not synonymous with "immediately before".
26. The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money were made shortly after one year of the marriage. A she- buffalo was given by the father to the daughter as a peace offering. The peace SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 53 of 54 offering had no effect. The daughter was ill-treated. She went back to her father and demanded money again. The father, then, went along with his brother and the Sarpanch of the village to the matrimonial home with a request that the daughter be not ill-treated on account of the demand for money. The father also assured the said persons that their money demand would be fulfilled and that they would have to wait till the crops of his field are harvested. Fifteen days before her death, Salwinder Kaur again visited her parents' house on being maltreated by her new family. Then came death by poisoning. The cross-examination of the father of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence. On the facts, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are upheld. The appeal is dismissed. "
85. All the essential ingredients to prove that an offence under section 304B IPC is committed have been established in this case. Hence, both the accused stand convicted for the offence under section 304B/34 IPC. Also, both the accused also stand convicted for the offence under section 498A/34 IPC.
E. Conclusion:-
86. In view of above discussion, both accused namely Suraj and Guddi are convicted for the charged offence punishable under sections 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC.Digitally signed by
Announced in Open Court TWINKLE TWINKLE
WADHWA
as on 09.09.2025 WADHWA Date: 2025.09.09
15:36:44 +0530
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
Additional Sessions Judge-02
North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No. 430/2021 State Vs. Suraj and another page 54 of 54