Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 25 March, 2026
CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M)
Reserved on: 08.01.2026
Decided on: 25.03.2026
Siriya and another
......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
A trial held by Sessions Judge Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as 'trial Court' only, arising out of FIR No.158 dated 08.07.2000, Police Station Sadar Dadri, culminated into conviction of two accused vide judgment dated 18.11.2004, hereinafter being referred to as 'impugned judgment' only. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction a joint appeal has been preferred by both the convicts, hereinafter being referred to as 'appellants' only. However during the pendency of instant appeal the appellant No.1 (Smt. Siriya) passed away, and therefore, on 20.09.2018 it was ordered the instant appeal, qua above named appellant stands abated.
2. It shall not be out of place to mention here that initially the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the police against two persons only i.e. appellants, and subsequently, on an application under Section 319 MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 2 Cr.P.C. third accused namely 'Smt. Bala Devi @ Raja Bala' was summoned as additional accused. She faced trial for the commission of above mentioned offence, however, by virtue of impugned judgment she has been acquitted.
3. The above mentioned FIR was lodged with regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as 'IPC' only. The allegations against the appellants were that appellant No.1 (Smt. Siriya), being mother-in-law, and the appellant No.2 (Jaiphool), being husband, and third accused (Bala Devi @ Rajbala), being 'jethani', subjected 'Smt. Santosh' wife of appellant No.2 to cruelty and harassment for the demand of dowry, and that on account of such cruelty she died an unnatural death on 08.07.2000, and thus, they committed the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
4. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Smt. Om Pati (PW-6), hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. In her complaint Ex.PE, it was stated by the above named complainant that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the appellant No.2 on 19.04.1995 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and that at the time of above mentioned marriage, she had spent more than 2.5/3 lacs rupees and gifted dowry articles befitting to their status. According to complainant, after one visit to her matrimonial home her daughter 'Sanotsh', hereinafter being referred to as 'deceased' only, told her that she was being subjected to harassment and cruelty on the pretext of insufficient dowry. According to complainant for the above mentioned reasons the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial home by the appellants and other co-accused and MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 3 she stayed in her parental home for about three years. The complainant further stated that after three years she moved an application before the panchayat of village Salhawas and the above mentioned panchayat was attended by the respectables of the community and in the above mentioned panchayat the appellants had given an assurance that proper treatment would be given to the deceased in her matrimonial home. As per complainant, despite assurance the appellants failed to meet their commitment when her daughter joined the company of appellant No.2, in her matrimonial home, she was again thrashed by the appellants and other accused and ultimately turned out of her matrimonial home.
5. The complainant had further stated that when the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial home, and residing in her parental home, on 07.07.2000 the appellant No.2 along with her maternal aunt came to the house of complainant and requested to send the deceased back to her matrimonial home. According to complainant the appellant No.2 had given an assurance that he would properly maintain the deceased and on his assurance the deceased was allowed to accompany the appellant No.2, but on the very next day she received an information that her daughter had committed suicide.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned information formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
7. Once the investigation was complete the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the police in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, i.e. the learned trial Court, opportunity was given to the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 4 prosecution to lead its evidence, and the prosecution in support of its stand examined following witnesses:-
Examined as Name of witness
PW-1 Dr. U.S.Disodia
PW-2 Narender Singh Yadav, Draftsman
PW3 Assistant Sub Inspector Chhotu Ram
PW-4 Constable Ram Kishan
PW-5 Devender Singh
PW-6 Om Pati complainant
PW-7 Assistant Sub Inspector Mahender Pal
PW-8 Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar (now
Inspector)
8. In order to bring home charges against the accused the prosecution had also proved certain documents on record the documents relied upon by the prosecution and marked with exhibits were as under:-
Exhibits Documents
Ex.PA Copy of Post mortem report
Ex.PA/1 & PA/2 Skiagrams showing the seat of injuries
Ex.PB Application for post mortem examination
Ex.PC Inquest report
Ex.PD Scaled site plan
Ex.PE The complaint
Ex.PE/1 Endorsement recorded on the complaint with
regard to registration of FIR
Ex.PE.2 The FIR
Ex.PF Statement of Devender under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.03.30 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 5
Ex.PG Rough Site Plan of the place of occurrence
Ex.PH Recovery memo of Chunni (Sardine)
Ex.PJ Recovery memo of parcels/clothes etc. of the
deceased
Ex.P1 Copy of wedding card
Ex.P2 Copy of bahi Kanyadaan
9. The record pertaining to trial Court shows that once the prosecution evidence was complete, the statement of appellants and their co- accused under Section under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and they were given the opportunity to lead evidence in their defence the accused had examined following witnesses:-
Examined as Name of witness
DW-1 Brij Lal, Clerk of the office of Food and Supply
DW-2 Sheel Sharma, Clerk of Kendriya Vidhyalya No.1
DW3 Gugan Ram, Ex. Sarpanch of village Shishwala
10. The following documents, too, were proved by the appellants and other co-accused in their evidence.
Exhibits Documents
Ex.DA Copy of ration card of Sube Singh
Ex.DB Copy of letter issued by the school
Ex.DB/1 Certificate issued by the school regarding study
of Snagita daughter of Jai Parkash
Ex.DB/2 Copy of admission register
Ex.DB/3 No dues certificate form
Ex.DB/4 Copy of transfer certificate
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.03.30 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 6
Ex.DB/5 Copy of application for admission
Ex.DB/6 Date of the birth certificate
Ex.DB/7 Copy of service certificate of Jai Parkash
Ex.DB/8 Copy of affidavit of Jai Parkash
Ex.DC Certificate issued by the military authorities
11. Heard.
12. It has been contented on behalf of appellants that an error of judgment has been committed by the leaned trial Court, while believing the unreliable & inconsistence evidence adduced by the prosecution which was full of contradictions. According to learned counsel for the appellants merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises the learned trial Court has observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact, there were numerous deficiencies in the prosecution evidence, which would have rendered it unreliable, and that the evidence so adduced by the prosecution was not good enough to qualify the standard prescribed for proving a charge in criminal case. While arguing that, merely, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions a finding of conviction has been returned by the leaned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellants sought for intervention of appellate jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned judgment.
13. It has been further contented by learned counsel for the appellants that in the present case the charge against the appellants were for the commission of offence under Section 304-B IPC, and that to constitute an MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 7 offence under Section 304-B IPC one of the essential component was the demand of dowry just before death. According to learned counsel for the appellants there was no reliable evidence except the bare allegations of brother and mother of deceased, to the effect that there was any demand of dowry by the appellants. As per learned counsel for the appellants even the events, which had unfolded in this case shows that prior to her death for a long period the deceased was staying in her parental home and she was taken to her matrimonial home only one day prior to the death. According to learned counsel for the appellants the statement of complainant itself shows that the initiative to bring that deceased back to her matrimonial home was taken by the appellant No.2 at his own level and during the above mentioned event there was no allegation that any dowry was demanded by the appellant No.2 or the same was gifted. In view of above the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that a wrong inference has been drawn by the learned trial Court that there was any demand of dowry just before the death of deceased.
14. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out the deficiencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6. According to learned counsel for the appellants firstly, the testimonies of above mentioned two witnesses, who were interested witnesses being brother and mother of the deceased, should not have been believed unless corroborated by independent evidence and secondly, the credibility of the testimonies of above mentioned two witnesses stood eroded as the same were contradictory with regard to several material aspects. While claiming that charge against the appellants were not proved by the prosecution, the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 8 learned counsel for the appellants requested that by accepting the present appeal the impugned judgment, of conviction, be set aside and the appellants be acquitted.
15. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments.
16. The learned State counsel has contented that in the present case with regard to various issues there was no denial by the appellants, such as marriage with the deceased, presence of deceased in her matrimonial home on the date of death, and unnatural death of deceased within seven years of her marriage. According to learned State counsel, in such circumstances, the only ingredient supposed to be proved by the prosecution was the demand of dowry just before the death, and that the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 proved the above mentioned ingredients.
17. While defending the impugned order the learned State counsel has contended that no error, either of judgment or of law, has been committed by the learned trial Court while believing the prosecution case and holding the appellants to be guilty. The learned State counsel has further contended that there is no scope of interference in the impugned judgment, and that the present appeal is devoid of merit and deserve dismissal.
18. The record has been perused carefully.
19. In the present case the appellants have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. For proving a charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304- B IPC, there are certain ingredients which are supposed to be proved by the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 9 prosecution. Once the above mentioned ingredients are proved, the presumption arises against the accused. The components which were supposed to be proved by the prosecution were:
i) that the death of the deceased (wife) was unnatural;
ii) that the death had taken place within seven years of marriage;
iii) that the demand of dowry by the accused just before death.
20 As far as the first ingredient is concerned the factual matrix of the above mentioned case shows that there was no denial of the fact that marriage of deceased was solemnized with the appellant No.2 on 19.04.1995. In addition to above, it is also an admitted fact, and proved otherwise with the help of ample evidence, that death of deceased had taken place on 08.07.2000. The above mentioned fact-situation of the case shows that death of deceased, who happened to be the legally wedded wife of appellant No.2, had taken place within seven years of her matrimonial life. Thus, it is hereby observed that first ingredients for the constitution of offence under Section 304-B of IPC has been duly proved in the present case.
21. As far as the second ingredients is concerned it was the allegations of the prosecution that death of deceased wife of appellant No.2 was unnatural, as she had committed suicide by hanging herself. With regard to above mentioned plea of prosecution firstly, there was no denial of the accused at any stage of trial and otherwise also with the help of testimonies of PW-5 and PW- 6, duly supported and corroborated by the testimonies of the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer PW-1 and PW-8 respectively, it was proved by the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 10 prosecution that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. On the basis of above mentioned evidence also stood proved, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, that the death of deceased was an unnatural death.
22. Once the two ingredients were proved the third ingredient come into picture i.e. the cruelty for the demand of dowry just before death.
23. With regard to above the relevant observations have been made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Hira Lal and others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865'. In the above mentioned case Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. According to Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases the prosecution is supposed to rule out the possibility of natural or accident death, so as to bring it within the purview of "the death occurring otherwise in normal circumstance".
24. In the above mentioned case the Hon'ble Apex Court has also emphasized on the importance of words "soon before". According to Hon'ble Apex Court the expression soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of Evidence Act and Section 304-B of IPC are pressed into service. As per Hon'ble Apex Court prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption can operate.
25. If the factual matrix of the present case is analysed in the light of above mentioned principles of law, it transpires that in order to discharge its MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 11 burden to prove above mentioned component, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimonies of two witnesses. The star witness of the prosecution was Smt. Ompati, the mother of the deceased, the complainant in the present case she was examined as PW-6. The PW-6 when appeared in the witness-box had supported the prosecution case by deposing that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with the appellant No.2 on 19.04.1995 and that she had gifted dowry at the time of above mentioned marriage in accordance with their capacity. The PW-6 had also deposed categorically, that the appellants and other accused were not satisfied with the quantum of above mentioned dowry, and that for the demand of motorcycle, in dowry, her daughter (the deceased) was subjected to harassment and cruelty. According to PW-6 the deceased was brutally thrashed by her in-laws in her matrimonial home, to bring more dowry. As per PW-6, when the demand of appellants could not be met, the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial home.
26. In addition to above, the PW-6 also deposed that on one of such occasion when the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial home she stayed in her parental home for a period of almost three years, and in such a situation she had moved an application before the panchayat which was attended by the appellants also, and that because of intervention of the panchayat, comprising of respectables of the society/community, the deceased was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home, under the assurance by the appellants that she would be treated properly. According to PW-6 however, despite assurance the appellants, and other in-laws of the deceased, failed to mend their behaviour and after subjecting her to cruelty she was turned out of MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 12 her matrimonial home again.
27. As per PW-6 when the deceased returned her parental home and was staying there, on 07.07.2000 the appellants along with his maternal aunt (mosi) visited his matrimonial home (deceased' parental home) and by giving an assurance of proper treatment to the deceased, requested to impress upon the deceased to join the appellant No.2 in her matrimonial home. According to complainant the above mentioned assurance given by the appellant No.2 and his maternal aunt, was believed by her, vis-a-vis by other family members of the deceased, and that at about 4.00 P.M. deceased left her parental home with appellant No.2, for her matrimonial home. The PW-6 had further testified that on the very next day in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. she got the news about the suicide, by hanging, by her daughter (deceased).
28. To provide support and corroboration to the testimony of PW-6, when PW-5 got himself examined he deposed that marriage of deceased was solemnized with appellant No.2 on 19.04.2000 and that after ten days of her marriage when his sister (deceased) came to her parental home she told her mother about the ill treatment being given to her in her matrimonial home by alleging that the dowry was insufficient. As per PW-5 it was told by the deceased to her mother that the appellants No.2 and his family member were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and for that purpose, only, she was turned out of her matrimonial home.
29. The PW-5 had further deposed that with regard to above mentioned ill treatment of deceased by the appellants and his family members, panchayats were convened on 2-3 occasions, but the appellants and his family MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 13 members did not respond to the call of panchyat. As per PW-5, however on one day the appellant No.2 came to his matrimonial home along with his maternal aunt and gave an assurance that he would maintain the deceased properly and took the deceased to her matrimonial home, but on the very next day in the morning, news of suicide by the deceased was received.
30. In order to provide support and corroboration to the testimonies of above named two witnesses (PW-5 & PW-6) several other witnesses, too, were examined by the prosecution. They were the official witnesses and the medical Officer.
31. The Medical Officer, who was the member of the Board deputed for post mortem examination of the body of deceased, was examined as PW-1. The PW-1 while proving the factum of unnatural death of deceased had proved the post mortem report, as Ex.PA. According to PW-1 the cause of death was due to shock caused by asphyxia, caused by hanging. According to PW-1 the above mentioned reason was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.
32. Amongst the official witnesses whose testimonies were formal in nature the first witness was examined by the prosecution as PW-2, he was 'Narender Singh Yadav', the Draftsman. He had proved the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as EX.PB. The next official witness examined as PW- 3, ASI Chhotu Ram, had deposed that on receipt of complaint, Ex.PE, he had lodged the formal FIR of this case, as Ex.PE/2. Another official witness ASI Mohinder Pal had appeared in the witness-box as PW7- and deposed that the appellant No.1 Smt. Siriya (now deceased) was arrested in his presence. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 14
33. The next prosecution witness Constable Ram Kishan PW-4 had deposed that on registration of FIR, he was deputed to deliver the copies of above mentioned FIR to the Jurisdiction Magistrate, and that he had complied with the above mentioned directions. The Investigating Officer of the case was examined by the prosecution as PW-8. He had proved various steps taken by him during the course of investigation. Being official witness the PW-8 had duly supported and corroborated the prosecution case.
34. As far as the above mentioned evidence adduced by the prosecution was concerned, a careful analysis of the same gives rise to certain questions:
a) that the entire prosecution case with regard to demand of dowry, by the appellant and his family members, was resting upon the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6. The credibility of the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 suffered a set-back when on two occasions they levelled the allegations against the respondent No.3-'Smt. Rajbala' with regard to her involvement in the commission of crime, i.e. firstly, at the time of filing a complaint for registration of FIR and secondly, before the learned trial Court when their testimonies were recorded on oath.
On first occasion the police after investigation found the accused 'Rajbala' to be innocent but the PW-6 (complainant) after her examination moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. got Rajbala summoned as an MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 15 accused. However, on trial she was found to be innocent. It is important to note here that the verdict, with regard to acquittal of 'Rajbala', is not under challenge before any forum. The above mentioned conduct of PW-5 and PW-6 speaks in volume, against the credibility of their testimonies;
b) the testimony of PW-5 with regard to demand of dowry by the accused, and cruelty for the above mentioned demand, was not based on primary information received by the PW-5. According to PW-5 the miseries being faced by the accused in her matrimonial home, on account of demand of dowry, were disclosed by her to the PW-6 and not directly to the PW-5. Thus, the PW-5 was having no occasion to have primary information with regard to cruelty, with the deceased, for the demand of dowry;
c) since the entire case with regard to cruelty for the demand of dowry was founded upon the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, it is expected from PW-5 and PW-6 that they should have come forward with specific and reliable plea qua the demand of dowry. However, a bare perusal of the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 shows that no specific occasion was stated, when the above said demand of dowry was raised. There is nothing on record to show that which of the three accused was responsible for the above mentioned demand of dowry;
35. In addition to above, it is also relevant to note that:- MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 16
i) the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 were contradictory with regard to various material points, such as, as per prosecution case and the testimony of PW-6 the marriage of appellant No.2 with the deceased had taken place on 9.04.1995, but as per PW-
5 it was on 19.04.2000;
ii) as per PW-5 panchayats were convened on 2-3 occasions to resolve the dispute between the appellant No.2 and the deceased, but as per PW-6 only one panchayat was convened;
iii) as per PW-5 the appellant and his family had not responded to the call of panchayat, but as per PW-6 in the panchayat the issue was resolved and on the assurance of appellants and his family members, the deceased was rehabilitated in her matrimonial home;
iv) there was no independent corroboration of the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 by any independent source.
36. In addition to above, much weight could not have been given to the testimony of PW-6, as in her cross-examination it was specifically and categorically stated by the PW-6, that she was a tutored witness.
37. In the present case, the widely followed principle that man may lie but the circumstances not, is applicable. As per prosecution case, and the deposition of PW-5 and PW-6, after staying for long time in her parental home the deceased joined the company of appellant No.2 only one day prior to her death, i.e. on 08.07.2000. The contents of the FIR vis-a-vis testimonies of PW- 5 and PW-6 show that taking the deceased to her matrimonial home no MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 17 initiative was taken by her parents, and it was only the appellant No.2 who had visited his matrimonial home along with his maternal aunt and requested the PW-5 to send the deceased to her matrimonial home. The above mentioned conduct of the appellant No.2 speaks in volumes about the bona fide intentions, he was having.
38. With regard to above mentioned conduct of the appellants it is also relevant to mention here that any of two witnesses, i.e. PW-5 and PW-6, had not deposed even a single word that on 07.07.2000 when the appellant No.2 visited his matrimonial home, there was any kind of demand of dowry by the appellant, or that either on that occasion or any occasion previous to that, the demand of dowry, i.e. motorcycle was ever fulfilled.
39. The above mentioned conduct in itself demolishes the plea taken by the PW-5 and PW-6 that the deceased was subjected to cruelty/thrashing in her matrimonial home on the pretext of demand of dowry. Had it been so, firstly, the appellant No.2 would not have taken initiative for return of deceased to her matrimonial home and secondly, he would have demanded motorcycle before the return of deceased to the matrimonial home. The absence of any such demand erodes the credibility of the claim of the complainant/prosecution with regard to demand of dowry.
40. The time gap between the return of deceased to her matrimonial home on 07.07.2000 and her death on 08.07.2000 would have been less than 16 hours, because as per the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6, the deceased had left her parental home at 4.00 P.M. on 07.07.2000 and on 08.07.2000 at 8.00 A.M. the news of her death was received by the PW-5. In such a small period MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 18 any cruelty for the demand of dowry was not possible, particularly in the background of the developments which had taken place just before that.
41. Since before resuming her matrimonial home on 07.07.2000, the deceased was staying in her parental home since long, any cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry was not possible, and thus, the instant case fails to qualify the standard laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Hira Lal and others' (supra), wherein it has been ruled that the demand of dowry must be just before the death.
42. If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors is taken into consideration, it transpires that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was deficient and not good enough to inspire confidence, qua the fact that the deceased was subjected to any kind of cruelty on the pretext of dowry by the appellants.
43. Thus, it is hereby observed that the prosecution had faltered in discharging its duty with regard to proving the third essential ingredients meant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
44. As a sequel to above mentioned observations, it is hereby observed that the learned trial Court has committed an error of judgment, when despite so many deficiencies, referred to above, it believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and observed that allegations against the appellants had been proved. In the opinion of this Court the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not only deficient but also contradictory to each other, and therefore, the same was rendered unreliable. Thus, in view of above, it is hereby observed that there is need for indulgence and interference in the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S No.2338-SB of 2004 (O&M) 19 findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court qua the appellant No.2. Consequently, by accepting the present appeal the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, qua appellant No.2, is hereby set aside. It is hereby observed that the appellant No.2 is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the appellant No.2 is hereby acquitted accordingly.
45. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 25.03.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.03.30 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document