Delhi District Court
State vs Amna Begum Etc. (6) on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-01, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-000089-2012
SC No. 27306/2016
FIR No.74/2012
U/Sec. 498A/307/302/304B/34 IPC
P.S. Chandni Mahal
STATE VERSUS AMNA BEGUM & ORS.
(i) SC No. of the case : 27306/2016
(ii) Date of commission of offence: 17.05.2012
(iii) Name, parentage and address: 1. Amna Begum
W/o Sh. Sabir
R/o H.No.F-23, DDA
Flats, Shish Mahal,
Chandni Mahal
Delhi
2. Samrana
W/o Sh. Jahiruddin
R/o H.No.383, Gali
No.8, Wazirabad
Village, Delhi.
3. Mohd. Wasim
S/o Sh. Sabir
R/o H.No. F-23, DDA
Flats, Shish Mahal,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi.
4. Nadeem
S/o Sh. Sabir
R/o H.No.F-23, DDA
SC No.27306/2016
FIR No.74/2012
P.S. Chandni Mahal
State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 64
Flats, Shish Mahal,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi.
5. Mohd. Zakir
S/o Sh. Sabir
R/o H.No.F-24, DDA
Flats, Shish Mahal,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi.
6. Sabir
(Proceedings Abated)
(Vide order dated 07.04.2025)
S/o Sh. Abdul Qayum
R/o H.No.F-24, DDA
Flats, Shish Mahal,
Chandni Mahal, Delhi.
(iv) Offence complained of : Section 498A/307/302/
304B/34 IPC
(v) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Final order : Accused no. 1 Amna
Begum and Accused
no. 3 Mohd. Wasim are
CONVICTED u/Sec.
498A IPC and
u/Sec. 306 IPC r/w
Section 34 IPC
AND
Accused no. 2, 4 and 5
stands ACQUITTED of
all offences and case
against Accused no. 6
Sabir stood abated.
(vii) Date of such order : 24.12.2025
SC No.27306/2016
FIR No.74/2012
P.S. Chandni Mahal
State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 2 of 64
Date of Institution : 29.08.2012
Date of Judgment reserved on : 23.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Azizur Rehman/ PW6 vide complaint Ex.PW6/A dated 17.05.2012 at night. An FIR was registered on 18.05.2012 at about 01:45 P.M. vide Ex.PW1/A. DD No.20A dated 17.05.2012 Ex.PW10/A was received at PS - Chandni Mahal at about 11:55 P.M. that at Sheesh Mahal, Ganjmeer Khan, Chandni Mahal, a lady has committed suicide. The information was received by Ct. Devender/ PCR vide Phone No.9213530638. The further proceeding was marked to SI Rohtash/ PW29 who alongwith CT. Ratan had started for the spot of offence. Vide DD No.6A dated 18.05.2012 of PS -
Chandni Mahal Ex.PW10/B at about 06:15 A.M., HC Shyam Sunder/ PW2 alongwith W/ CT. Pushpa/ PW13 met SI Rohtash/ PW29 at Sanjivani Hospital, Daryaganj. Vide DD No.11A, dated 18.05.2012 of PS - Chandni Mahal which is Ex.PW1/C at about 11:45 P.M. HC Shyam Sunder/ PW2 had produced Asal Tehrir sent by SI Rohtash Singh/ PW29 and the FIR was registered u/s 498A/307/34 IPC. The same is deposed SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 3 of 64by PW1/ HC Rakesh Kumar.
2. In the complaint Ex.PW6/A, it is mentioned that the younger brother-in-law of PW6, namely, Sh. Shafiquddin/ PW8 had informed the complainant/ PW6 that Kesar Jahan was taken to LNJP Hospital by the neighbours. PW6 had reached the hospital and he had seen his sister Kesar Jahan lying on bed. She was on ventilator and no talk could be conducted with her. The doctor had advised not to talk with her. Inside the hospital, he met the husband of Kesar Jahan/ accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim and also the father-in-law Sabir of Kesar Jahan. When it was asked from them that why did they not tell about the incident to PW6 then it was replied by Mohd. Wasim and his father that they were not at home. The marriage of Kesar Jahan had occurred on 04.03.2011. After marriage, there was repeated fights of Kesar Jahan with her husband and in-laws. Her husband and in-laws used to beat her. He had seen in the hospital that Kesar Jahan had a black spot on her between hairs on the head from which it appears that she was beaten up by her in-laws. Ms. Kesar Jahan used to tell PW6 that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in law (both younger and elder) used to tease her that she had not brought sufficient dowry. Thereafter, investigation in this case was started. After investigation of the case, chargesheet was filed in the matter on 16.08.2012 and the CD alongwith Hash Value was filed by the IO. All the accused persons were in judicial custody who were later enlarged on bail.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 4 of 64Supplementary chargesheet filed in the matter on 22.01.2013 after expiry of Ms. Kesar Jahan who did not regain consciousness since the initial admission of her in the hospital. Ms. Kesar Jahan was taken from hospital by her parents to their home where she had expired on 24.12.2012. This was informed at police station vide DD No.13A at 11:45 A.M. The complainant/ PW6 has informed SI Govind Singh that her sister Ms. Kesar Jahan had expired at about 09:00 A.M. on 24.12.2012. On such expiry of Ms. Kesar Jahan, the sections were changed from Section-307 IPC to Section-302/304B IPC on which supplementary chargesheet dated 22.01.2013 was filed after completing necessary investigation.
3. Charge was given to all the accused u/s 498A/34 IPC and also u/s 307/34 IPC on 12.09.2012 to which all the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the additional charge was given to all the accused on 01.04.2013 after filing of supplementary chargesheet u/s 304B/34 IPC and in the alternative under Section-302/34 IPC to which all the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW29 as evidence against all the accused. Separate statement of SI Rohtash dated 01.07.2019 is recorded to the effect that Dr. Jyoti Barwa/ PW22 could not be traced out for the purpose of her cross-examination on the aspect of death of Ms. Kesar Jahan. Thereafter, statement of all the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 5 of 64was recorded on 02.09.2019. The main explanation of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan had suicidal tendency and even on prior occasions she had attempted suicide by hanging herself who was saved by the accused persons. It is claimed by all the accused that the family of deceased also had history of suicidal tendencies. One Mehak, D/o Kasim who is daughter of brother of the deceased and another lady Ms. Khalida D/o Habib-ur-Rehman who is also daughter of brother of deceased had allegedly committed suicide. Both of whom had committed suicide in a similar manner. Accused persons have claimed false implication and DE of the accused persons was closed vide order dated 01.06.2022 when Ld. Counsel for the accused have pleaded that they do not want to examine any witness in their defence. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 Amna Begum has preferred not to lead evidence in defence. Accused No.2 Samrana has also not preferred to lead evidence in defence. Accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim had preferred to lead evidence in defence and he had further taken the defence that the complainant had taken about Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- from accused Mohd. Wasim in three parts. Whenever, the accused Mohd. Wasim had asked the complainant/ PW6 to pay back the said money on which PW6 used to reply that he will falsely implicate them.
5. Final arguments are heard on behalf of both the parties SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 6 of 64and record perused. Since Section-302/304B IPC are serious offence and more graver than the offence u/s 307 IPC thereby the evidence is first discussed in reference to Section-302/304 B IPC and in the event it is found that the offence is of lesser gravity then further discussion may proceed towards Section- 307 IPC and Section 498A IPC. The relevant law in this regard is laid down in case titled as Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2008) 13 SCC 233 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 537 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1187 at page 237. The necessary ingredient of Section-304B IPC are reproduced hereunder:
16. In order to attract Section 304-B IPC, the following ingredients are to be satisfied:
(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage;
(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of dowry.
18. "6. Sections 304-B and 498-A read as follows:
'304-B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012
P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 7 of 64
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.'
7. The term 'dowry' has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'the Dowry Act') as under:
'2. Definition of "dowry".--In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 8 of 64
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II.--The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Penal Code, 1860.'
8. The Explanation to Section 304-B refers to dowry 'as having the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Act', the question is : what is the periphery of dowry as defined therein? The argument is, there has to be an agreement at the time of the marriage in view of the words 'agreed to be given' occurring therein, and in the absence of any such evidence it would not constitute to be a dowry. It is noticeable, as this definition by amendment includes not only the period before and at the marriage but also the period subsequent to the marriage. This position was highlighted in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1998) 3 SCC 309 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 740] .
9. The offence alleged against the (accused) is under Section 304-B IPC which makes 'demand of dowry' itself punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come under the clutches of law. When Section 304-B refers to 'demand of dowry', it refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in the definition of 'dowry' under the Act. The argument that there is no demand of dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of such evidence, that could be either direct or indirect. It is significant that Section 4 of the Act was also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word 'agreement' referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 9 of 64the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the (accused) seek, that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. 'Dowry' definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking dowry and Section 4 which deals with a penalty for demanding dowry, under the Act and IPC. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry.
10. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows:
'113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860.' The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its Twenty-first Report dated 10-8-1988 on 'Dowry Deaths and Law Reform'. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in this background that presumptive Section 113-B in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of 'dowry death' in Section 304-B IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, one of the essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions is that the woman concerned must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 10 of 64
harassment 'for, or in connection with, the demand for dowry'. Presumption under Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman.
(This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.) (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
11. 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. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case the aforesaid presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 11 of 64indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession'. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence." [Ed. : Quoting from State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa, (2004) 4 SCC 470, pp. 475- 78, paras 6-11.] THE DEATH OF MS. KESAR JAHAN AND ITS CAUSE
6. The first ingredient the prosecution has to prove is that the death of Ms. Kesar Jahan was caused by such bodily injury or otherwise then under normal circumstance. The crime team report is Ex.PW11/A which has come in evidence of PW11 SI Pankaj Kumar who has proved the photographs of the spot which are available on record as Ex.PX-1 to Ex. PX-11. As per the above report, the patient was already shifted to Sanjeevan Hospital, Daryaganj. The ligature mark around the neck of the patient was present. PW11 has deposed that on 17/18.05.2012, he was posted as in-charge Crime Team, Central District. At about 01:30 AM, on receiving the information from the Control Room he alongwith photographer PW/Constable Vijay and finger print proficient HC Hari Kishan SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 12 of 64reached at the spot which is F-23, DDA Flats, First Floor, Sheesh Mahal, Chandni Mahal. There they met SI Rohtash Kumar and other police staff at the ground floor. One iron rope was lying on the floor near the bed. At Sanjeevan Hospital, they have found the victim aged about 27 years lying on the bed. He reached at the spot at about 01:50 AM and remained there till 02:30 AM. It is admitted as correct that there were buildings on all sides of the spot of the incident and in front, there was a park, of the flat. The house/spot was lying open. He had not seen number of rooms in the house/spot. It is admitted as correct that they have visited the spot on 18.05.2012 but at point B, the date of report is mentioned as 17.05.2012, which is explained by the witness as clerical mistake. On being re-examined by Ld. APP for the State, it is deposed that the report Ex.PW11/A was prepared by HC Hari Kishan under dictation of PW11. He came to know about the address mentioned in the report from the IO. Ex.PW9/A is Medical Injury Register prepared by PW9 on 17.05.2012 at about 11:15 pm. The symptoms were recorded as strangulation. Due to unavailability of Ventilators at LNJP the patient was shifted to Sanjeevan Hospital on 17.05.2012. At Sanjeevan Hosptial, she was medically examined vide Ex.PW9/A. Ligature mark was found on the neck of the patient. The patient was brought in unconscious state and unfit for statement. The patient was shifted to G B Pant Hospital on 27.05.2012 and during the entire period she had remained on ventilator and she was not fit to give statement. Hence, the patient remained at Sanjeevan Hospital for ten days. Dr. Manav Aggarwal SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 13 of 64was not in hospital, whose whereabouts were not known.
7. The MLC of deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan is Ex.PW25/A prepared at LNJP. Request of NCCT Head was made at the time of admission. OSM Mark which is strangulation mark was found below chin of the patient. The MLC was prepared by Dr. Showkat Ahmed. PW25 Dr. Ritu Saxena has deposed that Dr. Showkat Ahmed has since left the services of the hospital and she had worked with him having seen him writing and signing in ordinary course of his duties. PW25 has proved MLC Ex. PW25/A in handwriting of Dr. Showkat Ahmed prepared under his supervision. The NCCT Head Report of X-ray is Ex.PW18/A, which is proved by PW18/Dr. Saurabh Goel. He had seen Dr. Preety Sharma writing and signing having worked with him. The report is in hand writing of Dr. Preety Sharma bearing her signature at point A who has since left the services of LNJP Hospital. The report records atrophic changes in B/L Cerebral Hemisphere. The ventricular system in the head appears prominent and the periventricular which is white matter located immediately adjacent to the brain fluid filled ventricles with hyper density. The impression of the NCCT Head Report mentions diffuse brain atrophy with prominent ventricular system discussed in the report.
8. The query of the IO from the Director FSL, is Ex.PW29/C. The report on the two queries are given in Ex. PW21/A. The reply to the first query is that the ligature mark is consistent been caused by pressure applied on the neck by constricting. The ligature mark SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 14 of 64around the neck is ligature strangulation. Answer to the second query is that the possibility of the ligature mark being caused by nylon rope cannot be ruled out. PW21 Dr. Monisha Pradhan from FSL has deposed on behalf of Dr. Anju Rani who has prepared Ex. PW21/A. PW21 has deposed that Dr. Anju Rani had left services of MAMC, Delhi, with whom PW21 had worked. She had seen her writing and signing during ordinary course of her duties. She has identified signatures of Dr. Anju Rani at point A in Ex.PW21/A which is subsequent opinion regarding postmortem of the deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan. Dr. Jyoti Barwa, who had prepared the postmortem Ex.PW22/A had also worked with PW 21 at MAMC, who has since left the services. Hence, PW21 has proved clear opinion that the ligature mark on deceased Kesar Jahan is of strangulation. In the present case, nylon rope was recovered and it is proved that the ligature mark was caused by nylon rope.
9. PW22 Dr. Jyoti Barwa had conducted postmortem of deceased on 24.12.2012 with history of strangulation. Deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan had expired on 24.12.2012. She had prepared the postmortem report in seven pages vide Ex.PW22/A. The cause of death was found cerebral damage occurring in a clinical diagnose case of ligature strangulation. On examination of the head PW22 had found that meninges showed greyish white exudates with subarachnoid space involvement both the parietal lobe convexities. Brain parenchyma was soft and oedematous with flattering of gyri and obliteration of sulci, thinning of grey matter was present. Ventricles were grossly enlarged in size. Weight of brain was 940 SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 15 of 64grams. The cause of death in this case was found to be cerebral damage occurring in a clinically diagnosed case of ligature strangulation. The tissues preserved for histopatological examination were sealed separately and were handed over to the police after the postmortem along with the sample seal.
9.1 The presence of meninges during postmortem shows that fungal infection was developed in the patient. The ventricles were grossly enlarged which can lead to damage overtime due to long term effect of an injury. The increase in brain volume/brain atrophy is due to cerebral edema/swelling due to resultant injuries. It is mentioned in the postmortem report forming bases from final diagnosis made at LNJP Hospital that in case of strangulation the filing are likely to represent novel anoxia which is a condition where entire brain is deprived of oxygen due to severe respiratory failure and may lead to neuron damage, cell death within minutes and can cause severe brain injury. The horizontally placed ligature mark in the form of furrow, brownish scabbed with uniform fitness of 1.5 cm encircling completely at the level of thyroid cartilage circumferential on the neck, which is about 9.7 cm above sternal notch in midline in front of neck. In the postmortem report in external general appearance, old heal hypo-pigmented and contracted scar marks measuring 2 cm x 1.8 cm was present in front of neck in midline situated 4 cm above sternal notch. On internal examination, no fracture was found, thinning of grey matter was present, ventricles were grossly enlarge in size. No extra vagation SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 16 of 64of blood was present in the neck muscles.
10. The article is referred which was published in AIR Online 2025 by ld. Advocate Sh. Anupam S. Sharrma tilted as "Ligature/Strangulation Mark on the neck- is it really suicide or murder". The same article was published in Manupatra on 25.08.2023 (Criminal) It mentions that as a general rule the strangulation/suicide mark of ligature is positioned approximately horizontally in contrast to hanging when the mark slopes up to the point of suspension situated high up the neck directly obliquely upwards the line of mendable on both sides of neck to pass behind the angle of jaw and mastoid process and ending on the back of the scalp, leaving a gap in between the two edges of the ligature mark. In case of homicidal strangulation/murder, it may totally encircle the neck or be seen only at the front. When it is in later situation when is seen only in the front then this situation arises when the ligature is pulled tightly from behind and the mark may be slopping if the ligature is pulled upward from behind. In the present case, the ligature mark was seen even at the time when the deceased Kesar Jahan was admitted in the hospital.
11. Hon'ble High court of Uttrakhand in case titled Madhvanand and Others vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 May, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2004 has held that the expression soon before her death does not mean immediately before the death. The concept of reasonable time would be applicable which depend upon the SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 17 of 64facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. The impact of cruelty and harassment inflicted upon the deceased in relation to demand of dowry has to be seen in reference to cause of unnatural death of deceased. Before raising presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act, 1872 the prosecution has to prove that soon before her death such woman was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. When such cruelty and harassment is proved then the presumption has to be mandatorily raised. To attract the provision of Section 304B IPC it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the husband or relative had killed the deceased but it has to be seen that the death has occurred other then under normal circumstances which will therefore be called a dowry death and the husband / relative/ accused shall be deemed to have caused her death unless proved otherwise. Distinction is also laid down between hanging and strangulation. The present case does not seem to be the case of strangulation as the ligature mark is not proved horizontal or traves continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. Abrasion and ecchymosis round above the edges of ligature marks are also not proved. It is not proved that saliva was not dribbling from the mouth of the deceased. Hence it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangulated and the hanging may be suicidal which prosecution has to prove by relevant evidence. The relevant para of the citation are reproduced hereasunder:
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 18 of 64
27. The expression "soon before her death" does not mean "immediately before the death". These words should be given reasonable and practical interpretation. In the case of Uday Chakraborty and others v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 7 SCC 518, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "The expression "soon before her death" has to be given its due meaning as the legislature has not specified any time which would be the period prior to death, that would attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC. The concept of reasonable time would be applicable, which would primarily depend upon the facts of a given case, the conduct of the parties and the impact of cruelty and harassment inflicted upon the deceased in relation to demand of dowry to the cause of unnatural death of the deceased. In our considered view, the marriage itself has not survived even for a period of two years, the entire period would be a relevant factor in determining such an issue."
28. The menace of dowry, in fact, has crippled the society. The relations had gone down to the extent that, in fact, 304B was inserted in IPC in the year 1986. Such death, which occurs in the house of in-laws is very hard to be proved by the prosecution. Therefore, some special provisions were also made in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Evidence Act"). Section 113B of the Evidence Act permits the court to presume about death dowry. It reads as hereunder:-
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. --- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
29. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC, it is not necessarily to be proved by the prosecution that the husband or his relative had killed the deceased. What has to be seen is that the death occurred other than under normal circumstances.
30. In the case of Satbir Singh and another v. State of Haryana, SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 19 of 642021 SCC OnLine 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the suicidal or homicidal aspect of death and observed that, in fact, death other than normal circumstances includes homicidal or suicidal or accidental death. In paras 24 and 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-
"24. The second contentious part relating to Section 304-B IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances"
can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, Section 304-B IPC endeavours to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents.
25. Therefore, if all the other ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any death whether caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as per the legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death"
and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to have caused her death" unless proved otherwise. The section clearly specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who has or have caused the dowry death [refer Maya Devi v. State of Haryana [Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768] , Shanti v. State of Haryana [Shanti v.
State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 191]". xxxxxxxxxxxxx
36. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased committed suicide because she was mentally unstable. In support of her contention, learned Senior Counsel has referred to the postmortem report to argue that, in fact, it does not reveal much. Reference has been made to the Modi Jurisprudence (Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-second Edition, page 270), where the symptoms of hanging and strangulation have been detailed. It is as hereunder:-
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 20 of 64
Hanging Strangulati
on
1 Most suicidal Mostly
homicidal
2 Face - Usually pale Face -
and petechiae Congested,
livid and
marked
with
petechiae.
3 Saliva - Dribbling Saliva- No
out of the mouth such
down on the chin dribbling.
and chest.
4 Neck- Stretched Neck -Not
and elongated in so.
fresh bodies.
5 External signs of External
asphyxia, usually signs of
not well marked asphyxia,
very well
marked
(minimal if
death due
to vasovaga
and caroti
sinus
effect).
6 Bleeding from the Bleeding
nose, mouth and from
ears very rare the nose,
mouth and
ears may be
found.
7 Ligature mark - Ligature
Oblique, non- mark-
continuous placed Horizontal
high up in the neck or
between the chin transverse
and the larynx, the continuous,
base of the groove round the
or furrow being neck, low
hard, yellow and down in the
parchment-like. neck below
the thyroid,
the base of
SC No.27306/2016
FIR No.74/2012
P.S. Chandni Mahal
State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 21 of 64
the groove
or furrow
being soft
and
reddish.
8 Abrasions and Abrasions
ecchymoses round and
about the edges of ecchymose
the ligature mark, round about
rare. the edges
of the
ligature
mark,
common
9 Subcutaneous Subcutaneo
tissues under the us tissues
mark- White, hard under the
and glistening. mark-
Ecchymose
d.
10 Injury to the Injury to
muscle of the neck the muscles
- Rare of the neck
- Common
11 Carotid arteries, Carotid
internal coats arteries,
ruptured in violent internal
cases of a long coats
drop ordinarily
ruptured.
12 Fracture of the Fracture of
larynx and trachea - the larynx
Very rare and that and trachea
too in judicial -Often
hanging found also
hyoid bone.
13 Fracture- Fracture-
dislocation of dislocation
the cervical of the
vertebrae-Common cervical
in judicial hanging vertebrae-
Rare
14 Scratches, Scratches,
abrasions and abrasions
bruises on the face, fingernail
neck and other marks and
SC No.27306/2016
FIR No.74/2012
P.S. Chandni Mahal
State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 22 of 64
parts of the body- bruishes on
Usually not present the face
neck and
other parts
of the
body-
Usually
present.
15 No evidence of Sometimes
sexual assault evidence
of sexual
assault.
16 Emphysematous bullae Emphysem
on the surface of the atous bullae
lungs - Not present on the
surface of
the lungs-
may be
present.
37. It is true that each and every factor, which could have distinguished between 'hanging' and 'strangulation' has not been noted in the postmortem report. But, merely because of it also, it cannot be said that the postmortem report does not prove strangulation. PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat has been cross-
examined in detail. He has stated that the ligature mark was round the neck, except two inches below the knot. He denied the suggestion that such ligature mark could come due to hanging.
38. A few facts may be noted. PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, in his cross-examination, has stated that the nose and mouth of the deceased were not bleeding. It may be noted that in the case of hanging, the saliva dribbles out of the mouth down on the chin and chest, as noted by Modi. The reason for it has been stated at page 255 of the Modi's Jurisprudence as above, when it records "Saliva is often found dribbling out of an angle of the mouth down on the chin and chest. This is a sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot occur after death".
39. The inquest report does not indicate dribbling of saliva from the mouth. The mouth was closed.
40. The postmortem report records the sign of asphyxia. But, SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 23 of 64PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat has not been put to cross- examination so as to shake his opinion. According to PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, the death was due to strangulation. xxxxxxxxxxxx
43. At the time of inquest, certain photographs have been taken, which have been proved by PW 8 Chaman Singh, IO. The negatives of these photographs have not been proved, but reference has been made by the learned Senior Counsel of these photographs at the time of argument to argue that the knees as placed in these photographs may not have placed in case of strangulation. As stated the dead body was seated on the ground. The height of tree was about five feet. It was not full suspension. It has also emerged in the evidence that the deceased had her socks, Chappals on her body and her shawl was wrapped properly. As stated, in the inquest it is recorded that there were pieces of broken bangles on the way from the house of the deceased to the place of incident. The inquest records that in one of the hands of the deceased, there were only two bangles, whereas on another hand there were four bangles. This Court does not intend to discuss this aspect in greater detail. It would be academic only.
44. The fact remains that the deceased was a young girl of 21 years of age, who died on 20.01.2001 other than under normal circumstances. The fact remains that, according to PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, the deceased died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. The fact remains that there were signs of asphyxia. The deceased died other than under normal circumstances.
45. The prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. It was a continuous process. On 08.05.1999 the deceased married with the appellant Madhvanand. There was a Panchayat in between. It has been proved by the witnesses. On 20.01.2001, the deceased was dead. Her death was other than under normal circumstances.
46. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of a view SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 24 of 64that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. There is no reason to make any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
12. In the present case, the ligature mark is horizontal, at the level of thyroid cartilage which is in the nature of strangulation as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. In absence of cross examination of the above prosecution witness, who are PW9, PW18, PW21, PW22 and PW25, the prosecution has successfully proved that the ligature mark, which was horizontal in nature was in the nature of strangulation than in the nature of hanging. The above injuries have also proved on record that the death of Ms. Kesar Jahan was under circumstances other than normal. Hence, the prosecution has proved the first ingredient of Section 304-B of IPC.
13. The second ingredient, the prosecution has to prove is that such death has occurred within seven years of marriage of her death. It is deposed by PW5 that her sister had married on 04.03.2011. The same is the deposition of PW6. The fact of marriage is not disputed in the cross examination of the above witness and the date of death is 24.12.2012 as mentioned in postmortem report Ex.PW22/A is also not disputed in the present case. Hence, the death has occurred for a period of one year and nine months. In such circumstance, it is held that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredient of Section 304-B IPC that the death of Ms. Kesar Jahan has occurred within seven years of her marriage.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 25 of 6414. The third ingredient the prosecution has to prove is that soon before her death, Ms. Kesar Jahan was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
15. PW8 has deposed that on 17.05.2012 at about 09:45 P.M. Mohd. Wasid/ PW3 son of Bua of PW8 came to his shop at Turkman Gate and informed that in-laws of the deceased had tried to kill her by strangulation with the help of a rope and the in-laws had taken the deceased to LNJP hospital alongwith other people of the locality. PW8 had informed to Ms. Nasreen Begum/ Salhaz of PW8 about the incident.
16. PW-3 Mohd. Wasid is the only eye witness to the strangulation of deceased Kesar Jahan. It is deposed by PW-3 that deceased Kesar Jahan was in his distant relation. On 17.05.2012 around 9:30 PM he alongwith his friends was sitting in Sheesh Mahal park when he heard noise from the flats which were situated in front of the park. It is reflected in site plan Ex.PW29/B prepared on 18.05.2012. The flat is F-23, first floor, DDA flats, Sheesh Mahal, Ganjmir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi. PW-3 has deposed that he had pushed the door of the said house at the first floor when he saw one rope on the neck of Ms. Kesar Jahan the deceased. One portion of the rope was in the hand of accused no. 3 Md. Wasim and another portion of the rope was in the hand of accused no. 1 Amna Begum the mother-in-law and both were pulling the said rope. The SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 26 of 64Jeth who is accused no. 5 Md. Zakir and the sister-in-law accused no. 2 Samrana were holding the legs of the deceased. The father-in- law were holding the hands of the deceased. The brother-in-law accused no. 4 Nadeem was extorting "Aaj Isko Jaan Se Maar Do. Kissa Khatam Kar Do". The brother of accused no. 3 Mr. Danish was also standing there who rushed towards PW-3. The PW-3 ran away from the spot to the house of PW-8. As per the case of the prosecution in the chargesheet the nylon rope found on the floor was of red and yellow colour in which three iron Kunda were there and on the corners there were two plastic Gittis. The length of rope is about 8 feet which was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A(at page no. 73 of the case file).
17. It is noted that as per deposition of PW-3, another person Mr. Danish was also present there at the spot. However he is not made an accused in this case by the prosecution. The IO PW-29 SI Rohtash has not deposed anything about the said Mr. Danish who was allegedly present at the spot and he was not brought by prosecution which shows that during investigation sufficient evidence was not found against Mr. Danish.
18. PW-3 in cross-examination has deposed that he reached at the park at about 8:30 PM. He cannot tell how many more person were sitting at the Sheesh Mahal park. He was doing work of Kabadi. It is suggested to PW-3 that accused no. 5 Md. Zakir was at the house of his in laws at Phatak Teliyan between 8 PM to 12 SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 27 of 64midnight on the said date to which PW-3 has shown his unawareness. It is deposed that he does not know whether accused no. 2 Samrana was living with her family at Wazirabad who is already married. It is also suggested to PW-3 that accused no. 3 Md. Wasim and accused no. 6 Sabir were also not present at home on 17.05.2012 at the time of alleged offence. It is suggested that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide by hanging a rope of Palana which was noticed by accused no. 1 Amna Begum who thereafter called accused no. 6 Sabir and accused no. 3 Md. Wasim and they together brought the deceased to LNJP hospital. PW-3 did not tell any person or neighbour about the incident. He did not notice any person was residing at ground floor. He also did not tell about this fact to PW-8 Safiquddin and Aziz-ur-Rehman/PW-6 about the incident when they met him in Sanjivani hospital. The plea of alibi raised by the accused is not proved on record.
19. It is further deposed in cross-examination by PW-3 that he could not tell about the incident to anyone as immediately after 3-4 weeks he had gone to Jamat for which he had already registered at Rakab Ganj, Badi Masjid. He could not produce receipt of such registration. The head of the Masjid was Md. Abdullah. PW-8 is relative of PW-3 and he is also real brother-in-law/Jija of Kesar Jahan. Hence PW-3 is interested witness and his deposition has to be read with caution. It is deposed that at the first floor where the offence was committed there are 3 or 4 other flats from which no one came out. He did not notice the colour of walls of the flat and SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 28 of 64doors or colour of wall inside the flat. It is deposed that he stayed there for 2 mins. The above fact of not telling police immediately after the incident that the deceased was so tried to be killed by accused person creates doubt in the deposition of PW-3 that he was at all present at the spot. His explanation for going to Jamat after 3- 4 weeks does not help his case as three weeks is a very long period and he could have immediately told the incident to PW-6 and PW-8 when they met PW-3 at Sanjeevani hospital where the deceased was first admitted. It is difficult to believe that he continued to watch the assault on deceased for few minutes and had to run only after followed by Mr. Danish. Whereas the natural course of conduct either to object immediately at the spot on such assault or to run and gather people or police authorities with informing them about the assault on the deceased. Hence the conduct of PW-3 is found un- natural which makes his deposition doubtful.
20. PW3 Mohd. Wasim has deposed that on 17.05.2012 at around 09:30 P.M. when he was sitting with his friends in the Sheesh Mahal Park then he had heard noise from the flats situated in front of the park. He rushed there at the first floor. When he pushed open the door at first floor then he saw one rope on the neck of Kesar Jahan and one portion of rope was in the hand of her husband Wasim/ Accused No.3 and the other portion of the rope was in the hands of accused No.1/ Ms. Amna Begum. Both were pulling the said rope. The Jeth/ elder brother of accused No.3/the husband and the sister-in-law accused No.2 Samrana Begum were holding legs SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 29 of 64of the deceased. The father in law/ accused No.6 was holding both the hands of the deceased. The brother in law Nadeem/ accused No.4 was saying "Aaj Isko Jaan Se Mar Do, Kissa Khatam Kar Do". One of brother in law of deceased, namely, Sh. Danish was also standing there who rushed towards PW3 to catch him on which PW3 ran away to the house of PW8/ brother in law of the deceased. PW3 had reported the incident to PW8. PW3 has correctly identified accused No.2, 4, 5 and 6 before the court.
21. In cross-examination, it is deposed by PW6 that PW8 met him on 17.05.2012 at his godown at about 09/09:30 P.M. at LNJP hospital. PW6 met Nazimuddin, Shappo, Habibur Rehman/ PW20 and many more persons in the locality including the accused. It is denied that the deceased was not admitted in hospital by accused No.3 Wasim and accused No.6 Sabir. It is deposed by PW6 in cross- examination dated 07.08.2014 at Page 2 that in the office of SDM his brother Habibur Rehman/ PW20, sister Qamar Jahan/ PW5 and other persons were present. It is admitted at Page 3 that all his brother and sisters had already joined him at the hospital before recording of statement by SDM on 18.05.2012.
22. PW3 does not know that who has shifted the deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan to LNJP Hospital. It is deposed that the deceased Kesar Jahan had remained admitted in LNJP Hospital for 3-4 days, whereas the deceased was admitted in LNJP Hospital on 17.05.2012 and due to non-availability of the ventilator at LNJP hospital, she was admitted at Sanjeevan Hospital on 17.05.2012 itself. It is also SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 30 of 64proved in the deposition of PW9 Dr. Prem Aggarwal. Hence, PW3 is deposing against the facts proved by the prosecution on record. He has deposed that when he went at Sanjeevan Hospital, then one Mr. Safiq and Mr. Aziz met him there and he did not tell them about having witnessed the strangulation of Ms. Kesar Jahan. He did not make any call to police on 100 number though his friend was having mobile phone on the date of incident with him. In his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, it is not mentioned by him that he was sitting in the Sheesh Mahal Park with his friend. Nor it is recorded there that his friend met him anytime thereafter. The friend is also not produced in evidence by the prosecution. Hence, PW3 is making improvement in his deposition. Hence deposition of PW3 is highly doubtful that he is eye-witness.
CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT IN CONNECTION WITH DEMAND FOR DOWRY.
23. Both Section-498A IPC and Section-304B IPC refer towards cruelty and harassment. Section-113B of Evidence Act, 1872 also refers to cruelty and harassment. Therefore, under all the above provisions of law, the prosecution has to prove prima facie cruelty and harassment before raising of presumption u/s 113B of Evidence Act, 1872 about dowry death. However, to raise the presumption, the one of the essential ingredient is that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. In the present case in the complaint Ex.PW6/A it is stated by PW6 the brother of deceased that cruelty and SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 31 of 64harassment was meted out to the deceased by her relatives for the illegal demand of dowry. Hence, before raising the presumption, the first ingredient which has to be seen is that whether cruelty or harassment was meted out by the accused person.
24. The following cruelty and harassment have come in evidence of prosecution:
25. In Ex.PW6/A, it is mentioned that PW6 had seen in the hospital that his sister Kesar Jahan had a black spot in the nature of injury in the middle of her hair on the head. It was incumbent on the prosecution to prove on record by medical evidence that the said black spot was a injury. The time of injury has also to be proved. It was also require to prove that such kind of injury would be caused by such kind of weapon/article. No such evidence is led by the prosecution on record. There is no evidence that this injury was recent in origin. It was also required to be proved that whether such injury was in the nature of soon before death of the victim, though, it may need not be immediately before the death. In absence of such evidence is cannot be said that this black spot is an injury in the nature of cruelty committed upon the deceased by the accused person u/s 304 B IPC.
26. It is further mentioned in Ex.PW6/A that Kesar Jahan used to tell PW6 that her mother-in-law had taunted her that nothing was given by your family members. (in the nature of dowry).
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 32 of 6427. PW5/ Ms. Qamar Jahan, the elder sister of deceased has deposed that the deceased was married on 04.03.2011 with accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim as per Muslim Customs and she had went to the house F-23, Sheesh Mahal, Delhi. She remained happy for two months at her matrimonial house. Accused No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and one Mr. Danish, the brother in law used to taunt the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry.
28. They were demanding flat from the deceased. It is deposed by PW5 Ms. Qamar Jahan that after 40 days of birth of the female child the deceased came with her baby to house of PW5 where she had informed that her in laws were pressing for demand of a flat. PW6 Azizur Rehman, brother of the deceased has deposed that after about two months of marriage, the accused person had started beating and harassing the deceased for not fulfilling demand of dowry of one flat and this fact was told to him by his sister/ deceased when she visited PW6. PW6 alongwith his elder brother had requested the accused person not to raise such huge dowry demand but accused person continued to beat and harass the deceased. One day prior to the date of offence on 17.05.2012 i.e. 16.05.2012, the deceased met PW6 at the house of PW5 and told that accused person are beating and harassing her for the dowry demand of flat. PW5 had also found injury marks on back side of neck of the deceased which was told by deceased that it was caused by accused No.2 Wasim at the instance of accused No.1 Ms. Amna SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 33 of 64Begum and accused No.6 Sabir, the father in law. This injury is not proved on record by the prosecution by any medical evidence. PW5 and PW6 had consoled the deceased. The statement of PW6 before SDM is Ex.PW6/A dated 18.05.2012 and another statement before SDM for identification of deceased is Ex.PW4/B dated 24.12.2012. PW6 at Page 4 of his examination in chief has deposed that when they had gone to the house of the deceased on birth of a female child when all the accused persons had taunted the deceased by exhorting that "Tere Kangle Gharwalon Ne Kya Diya Hai". At that time, PW6 had also gave Rs.50,000/- on the occasion of female child. One or two days prior to the incident/ death the deceased came to the house of PW6. Then Rs.20,000/- was given to her by PW6 so that accused No.2 Wasim and accused No.4 Nadeem can start a business of mobile phone and the money was paid on demand sent by accused person to the deceased. PW20 Habibur Rehman is a scrap dealer who is brother of the deceased. He has deposed that the deceased Kesar Jahan used to tell her that she was harassed by her husband and her in-laws for demand of dowry. They used to take the deceased regularly for treatment to hospital after the incident. From the date of offence till date of her death, the deceased remained semi-conscious and bed ridden. She could only open her eyes but cannot move her body. She used to weep whenever they tried to talk with her as she was not able to speak. She had expired on 24.12.2012.
29. It is deposed by PW6 in cross-examination dated 07.08.2014 SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 34 of 64at Page 3 that his daughter was harassed for demand of dowry of one flat by the accused person and it was stated by him to SDM while recording his statement Ex.PW6/A. He is confronted with the same where it is not so recorded. He is further confronted where it is not so recorded in Ex.PW6/A that he alongwith his elder brother/ PW20 and other family members had requested accused person not to raise such huge demand despite of which accused persons did not mend their ways. PW6 in his examination in chief has deposed that after about two months of marriage of deceased the accused person started harassing and beating the deceased for not fulfilling the demand of one flat in dowry.
30. PW6 is further confronted with Ex.PW6/A and also his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. where it is not so recorded that one day prior to the incident, the deceased met him at the house of PW5 and told that accused persons were beating and harassing her and demanding flat.
31. PW6 was further confronted that it is not recorded in his statement Ex.PW6/A before SDM and the statement Ex.PW6/DA before police that he met the deceased in the house of PW5 and found injury mark on back side of her neck when the deceased had told that such injury was caused by accused No.3 Wasim at the instance of accused No.1 Aman Begum, accused No.6 Sabir and in presence of all the accused persons. Nor it is recorded that they pacified the deceased.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 35 of 6432. PW5 at page 2 of her examination in chief dated 12.02.2014 has deposed that on 05.12.2011 the deceased gave birth to a female child in Chhuchak ceremony of which Rs. 50,000/- in cash and clothes were given by her brothers and clothes were also given for all the family members. The accused no. 1 Amna Begum has insulted them by asking that clothes were not brought for children of her daughter /accused No.2. On this accused no. 1 was told that they do not have parents and the clothes were given by their brothers. After 40 days from 05.12.2011 the deceased came with the new born baby to the parents house when she was given Rs.20,000/- by brothers of PW5 among other articles, the three sisters had given Rs.5,000/- each and two sisters had given Rs.2500/- each to the deceased. This was about one month prior to her death.
33. Ms. Qamar Jahan/PW5 has deposed that accused persons were giving beatings to the deceased after two months of marriage. PW5 came to know about this fact when deceased came at the house of PW5 and met PW5. The accused persons were called and asked that why they were giving beatings to deceased Ms. Qamar Jahan on which they had assured not to repeat the said act again. It is deposed by PW-20 Habib-ur-Rehman that his sister Kesar Jahan the deceased used to tell him that she was being harassed by her husband accused no. 3 and her in laws the remaining accused for demand of dowry.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 36 of 6434. Ms Qamar Jahan/PW5 has deposed that when deceased was pregnant for four months then she was given beatings by accused No.1, accused No.3/ husband, accused No.6/ father in law and this was told by deceased to PW5 when the deceased came to meet at the house of PW5. This fact is also recorded in the statement under Section 161 Cr. PC dated 18.05.2012.
35. On the occasion of birth of female child of the deceased on 05.12.2011, the accused No.1 Amna Begum had insulted PW5 alongwith the visitors who are family members of deceased for not bringing clothes for children of daughter of accused No.1, namely, children of accused No.2 Ms. Samrana.
INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCE IMPUTED TO ACCUSED NEAR THE TIME OF DEATH OF KESAR JAHAN
36. The following incriminating circumstance are imputed by Prosecution to the accused near the time of death of Ms. Kesar Jahan.
37. The PW6 was informed by PW8/ Shafiquddin that Ms. Kesar Jahan was taken to LNJP hospital. It was not told by the accused to PW6 despite the fact that the PW6 was staying nearby. The same is viewed in reference to reply of the husband/ accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim and the father of accused No.3 Sabir/ accused No.6 that they could not inform to PW6 as the accused persons were not at home.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 37 of 6438. PW5 Ms. Qamar Jahan has deposed in her examination-in- chief that when the doctor had inquired from accused No.3 in the hospital that what had happened to Ms. Kesar Jahan then it was replied by accused No.3 to the doctor that Ms. Kesar Jahan was suffering from Epilepsy. PW5 had noted strangulation marks around the neck of the deceased which she had pointed out to the doctor. This is also stated by PW5 in her statement Ex.PW5/A dated 18.05.2012 which was recorded before SDM. PW7 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that when they had inquired for accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim and accused No.6 Sabir, the father in law about the mark on neck of the deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan then they did not give any satisfactory reply. After admission of the deceased at Sanjeevan Hospital, the accused No.3 and 6 had left the hospital. PW8 has deposed that he had noticed at LNJP hospital dark blue colour mark on neck of Ms. Kesar Jahan. Accused No.3 Mohd. Wasim and Accused No.3 Sabir when inquired about the said mark, then they had replied that it was due to fits suffered by the deceased.
39. PW6 is confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/DA where it is not recorded that accused No.3 Wasim, accused No.6 Sabir had told in the hospital that the deceased had suffered epilepsy attack. One of the fact to be noted is that the deceased was admitted to hospital by her husband accused no. 3 Mohd. Wasim. He silent in Ex. 9/A which is Medico Legal Injury SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 38 of 64Register and the particulars of injuries and symptoms are mentioned as strangulation. Initially the patient was taken to LNJP Hospital where the Medico Legal Injury Register Ex. PW 5/A mentions name of relatives as Qumar Jahan/PW 5 and the symptoms of injury are mentioned as hanging. It is suggested to PW 5 in cross examination dated 29.09.2015 that Nasreen used to take Kesar for treatment to Maulana and knowledge of this is denied by PW 5. It is suggested at page 4 of same cross-examination that the deceased had committed suicide because of the stress that PW 6 Azeez Ur Rehman had not paid money to accused No. 3 Mohd. Wasim husband of the deceased and also due to the fact that female child of the deceased was not well. Accused no. 3 Mohd. Wasim has also taken plea in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that the complainant/PW6 had taken about 2,50,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- in three parts from him and whenever accused no. 3 used to ask them back then PW6 used to threaten accused no. 3 to falsely implicate him. The above plea has to be substantiated by the accused for which they have not led any evidence. In this plea the accused has not taken the ground of mental ill-health of deceased for committing suicide. No evidence was produced that PW6 has taken money from him. Hence, the above plea of accused no. 3 Mohd. Wasim is found unproved and has no basis in facts. In cross-examination of PW6 dated 07.08.2014 at first page it is deposed that Kesar Jahan was admitted to Sanjeevan Nursing Home by accused no. 3 her husband. It is also suggested at second page to PW6 of same cross-examination that deceased became abnormal and attempted to commit suicide as her SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 39 of 64minor daughter had fallen down from her hands and thereafter she did not weep. To the contrary defence of accused is taking of money by the PW6 from accused no. 3. It is suggested to PW6 in cross- examination dated 12.08.2015 at page 2 that accused no. 3 used to participate in auction of junks and used to buy lot of junk/scrap jointly. The amount of sale proceed of which were misappropriated by PW6 and did not pay share to accused no. 3 which is denied by PW6. It is further suggested that the deceased and accused no.3 were demanding said money from PW6 which is denied by PW6. Further, it is suggested that the deceased was treated by one Maulana for Upari Hawa and neurological problem and the deceased Kesar had developed suicidal tendency which is denied by PW6 . Hence the confrontation above in Ex. PW6/DA does not help the case of the accused that the deceased was suffering from neurological problems. It has supported the consistent deposition of PW 5 and PW6 that at the LNJP hospital the accused had told them that the deceased had suffered Epilepsy attack. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved on record that the accused person has falsely told about illness of the deceased at the time of admission at LNJP hospital on 17.05.2012 that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy attack. Hence, not only inconsistent pleas are taken by the accused person but also multiple different version are taken to show different ground of commission of suicide by the deceased. For this purpose the relevant citation titled Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2023 INSC 879 in Crl. A. No. 301 of 2015 at relevant para no. 33 to 39, 50 to 51, 54 and 57 are reproduced SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 40 of 64here under :
33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
35. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404, this Court while SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 41 of 64considering the word "especially" employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under:
"11. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.
It is evident that that cannot be the intention & the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R, 1936-3 All ER 36 at p. 49 (B)."
36. The aforesaid decision of Shambhu Nath (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein this Court observed as under:
"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 42 of 64
the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 10 SCC 373, this Court observed as under:
"23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilised. We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar [(2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516]: (SCC p. 393, para 38)
"38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] the learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus: (AIR p.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 43 of 64406, para 11) '11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre- eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge.'""
(Emphasis supplied)
38. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court was considering a similar case of homicidal death in the confines of the house. The following observations are considered relevant in the facts of the present case:
"14. 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 guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315 : (1944) 2 All ER 13 (HL)] - quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 135].) 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 SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 44 of 64necessary 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 travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
15. 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.
22. 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 place in the dwelling home where the husband also 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
39. The question of burden of proof, where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused, was examined by this Court in the case of State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382. In this case, the SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 45 of 64assailants forcibly dragged the deceased from the house where he was taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused, and took him away at about 2:30 in the night. The next day in the morning, his mangled body was found lying in the hospital. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 364, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for the charge of murder. The accused had not given any explanation as to what happened to the deceased after he was abducted by them.
The Sessions Judge, after referring to the law on circumstantial evidence, had observed that there was a missing link in the chain of evidence after the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons, and the discovery of the dead body in the hospital, and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of murder against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and laid down the following principles in paras 31 to 34 of the report:
"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this.
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 46 of 64
other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position.
The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. To explain what constitutes a prima facie case to make Section 106 of the Evidence Act applicable, we should refer to the decision of this Court in Mir Mohammad (supra), wherein this Court has observed in paras 36 and 37 respectively as under:
"36. In this context we may profitably utilise the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:
"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 47 of 64would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference."
(Emphasis supplied)
51. We should also look into the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Others v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 311, wherein this Court made the following observations in para 24 as under:
"24. Even otherwise, in our view, this is a case where Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply. Krishnanand Chaudhary was brutally assaulted and then a chhura-blow was given on the chest. Thus chhura-blow was given after Bijoy Chaudhary had said "he is still alive and should be killed". The appellants then carried away the body. What happened thereafter to Krishnanand Chaudhary is especially within the knowledge of the appellants. The appellants have given no explanation as to what they did after they took away the body. Krishnanand Chaudhary has not been since seen alive.
In the absence of an explanation, and considering the fact that the appellants were suspecting the boy to have kidnapped and killed the child of the family of the appellants, it was for the appellants to have explained what they did with him after they took him away. When the abductors withheld that information from the court, there is every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the boy.
Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The appellants by virtue of their special knowledge must SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 48 of 64
offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission of Mr Mishra."
(Emphasis supplied)
54. In the aforesaid context, we must look into the decision of this Court in the case of Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1955 SC 801. In the said decision, there is a very important passage in which, the learned Judges deal with the effect of failure of the accused to offer any explanation for circumstances appearing in evidence against him in a prosecution based upon circumstantial evidence. At the cost of repetition, the law is very clear that the accused is not bound to offer any explanation, that there is no burden cast upon him to do so and that the onus of proof does not shift in respect of the vital matter of guilt at any stage of a criminal trial. But as stated by this Court:
"It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which, if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain."
(Emphasis supplied)
57. In the aforesaid context, we may also refer to and rely on a decision of this Court in Kalu alias Laxminarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2019) 10 SCC 211, wherein this Court after referring to its various other decisions on the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act observed as under:
"16. In view of our conclusion that the prosecution SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.Page No. 49 of 64
has clearly established a prima facie case, the precedents cited on behalf of the appellant are not considered relevant in the facts of the present case. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313 CrPC with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. It is laid down that to constitute a prima facie case u/s 106 of Evidence Act the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonal inference can be drawn regarding death then the accused by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the cause to draw a different inference. If the accused offer no explanation or false explanation would be additional link which completes the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused. The traditional rule of burden of proof cannot be allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage otherwise the offenders in serious offence would be major beneficiaries and the society would be casualty. If the prosecution succeed to prove prime facie case then court has to presume existence of certain facts unless the truth of such inference is disproved. u/s 114 of Evidence Act. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it think likely to have happened. The accused must offer a reasonable explanation by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts and if he fails to offer an explanation then it may draw a different inference u/s 106 of SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 50 of 6441. PW5 in her examination chief dated 12.02.2014 has deposed at page 3 that the child of her deceased was handed over to PW5 by the police during night hour. She had also went with her brothers to the matrimonial house of the deceased where nobody from the family of her in laws met them in the said house. The above circumstance shows that the accused person were not interested in taking care of child. The above conduct of accused shows that they were indifferent both to the child and her mother.
42. Hence, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-20 have deposed that the deceased was taunted by her inlaws for not giving sufficient dowry and mainly by accused no. 1 Amna Begum. PW-6 has deposed that Rs. 50,000/- was given on the occasion of birth of child which is supported in her deposition by PW-5. This amount was given at the time of Chhuchak ceremony of the birth of child to the deceased, however, it is not deposed that this amount was given on demand of the accused but this amount was given specific to the ceremony of the birth of the child to the deceased and therefore, payment of Rs. 50,000/- cannot be linked to demand of dowry but it was paid out of sweet will of PW-6 to celebrate birth of child to the deceased. However, when this amount was given it is deposed by PW-5 and PW-6 having witnessed together that accused no. 1 Amna Begum had insulted them for not bringing clothes of children of accused no. 2 and also by exorting that "Tere Kangle Gharwalo Ne Kya SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 51 of 64Diya Hai". During cross examination of PW-6, it is suggested at page 2 dt. 15.08.2015 that the deceased was engaged with someone and therefore aspersion on character of deceased was made by the accused persons without any substance. It is further suggested that the deceased was treated for psychiatric and neurological problem who had developed suicidal tenancy. The treatment was given by some Maulana. No such evidence is brought on record of such treatment. It is suggested that due to mental problem of deceased her 2-3 earlier engagement were broken. However, no such evidence is produced on record by the accused. Accused wants to dispell the burden by referring to deposition of PW-6 at page 3 as correct that deceased with other family member had gone to Maharashtra on religious tour. They might have gone after about a year of marriage. Such taking of deceased for religious does not rebut burden of proof. It is suggested to PW-6 that the accused no. 3 Wasim had taken the deceased and their daughter to Nainital in the month of March, 2012. However, no such evidence is produced in defence and merely a bald suggestion is made. The deposition of PW-6 dt. 13.08.2015 that he is not aware about when child birth was given by the deceased is of no consequence when the birth of child in itself is not disputed and it is in knowledge of both the parties.
43. It is suggested to PW-6 in cross examination dt. 13.08.2015 at page 3 and admitted as correct by witness that Ms. Khalda had died before marriage when she was aged about 17-18 years.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 52 of 64However, it is denied that she had committed suicide for not keeping good health. It is denied that she was suffering from psychiatric and neurological problem. It is deposed that Ms. Khalda was daughter of Sh. Habib Ur Rehman. She was suffering from TB. It is further suggested at page 4 that daughter of Nazma namely Mehak had died about 4-5 years back.
44. It was held in case titled Tehsildar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P, 1959 SCC Online SC 17/AIR 1959 SC 1012 that the statement under Section 161 Cr. PC can be contradicted only in terms of Section 145 r/w Section 155 of Evidence Act, 1872 and for no other purpose. It was further held that the purpose of Section 162 Cr. PC is to protect the accused for the reason that the person who are in knowledge that an investigation has already started are prepare to tell untruths. The object of Section 162 Cr. PC is to protect the accused both against over jealous police officers and untruthful witness. Resort to Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act would only be necessary if the witness denies that he made a former statement and if the former statement was reduced in writing then under Section 145 the attention of witness must be drawn to those parts which are used for contradiction and to know other parts. That position does not arise when the witness admits his former statement. These statements are only a summary what a witness says and very often perfunctory and for this reason there is statutory prohibition against police officers taking signature of a person making it. Thereby the statement is not intended to be binding on SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 53 of 64the witness or an assurance by him that it is a correct statement. At the same time it is earliest record of the statement of the witness soon after the incident and any contradiction found therein would be of immense help to the accused to discredit the testimony of the witness. It cannot be used for corroboration of a prosecution or a defence witness or even a Court witness. A statement cannot include that is not stated into it and very often to make a statement sensible or self consistent it becomes necessary to imply words which are not in the statement. Therefore the contradiction can be made only in respect of such portion of the statement which is contradictory to the deposition of the witness who made the statement and such contradiction can be made also in respect of such implied words coming from the statement itself so that the statement becomes sensible and self consistent. Hence for no other purpose the statement under Section 161 Cr. PC can be used.
45. PW5 and PW6 have led the evidence that the accused person were demanding dowry of Flat. In the statement before SDM PW6 Azizur Rehman has not disclosed on 18.05.2012 that accused person were demanding flat as dowry in the first statement by Qamar Zahan/PW5 in her statement dated 18.05.2012 before SDM vide Ex. P4/A does not mention that there was demand of dowry of flat by the accused person. However it is stated in both the statements that the accused person used to fight and beat the deceased time and again. The statement u/s 161 Cr. PC of PW5 was recorded on 18.05.2012 which mentions that the deceased had told SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 54 of 64her that she was beaten for not giving sufficient dowry. Hence, both PW5 and PW6 have not stated before 5 PM that there was beating given to the deceased for demand of dowry. PW20 has also not deposed in his evidence that there was demand of flat by the accused persons. However, it is deposed that the deceased used to tell PW20 that her husband and in-laws used to harass her for dowry. PW5 has deposed that since the date of marriage of the deceased on 04.03.2011 she was living happily for two months at her matrimonial home. It is deposed that sufficient dowry was given as per their financial status which was one motorcycle and jewelery items. Neither the registration no. of motorcycle is proved both by PW5 and PW6 nor it has come in evidence of PW5 and PW6 that vide such registration no. motorcycle was given. Hence, giving of motorcycle is not proved on record. The PW5 has deposed in her cross-examination dated 13.08.2015 that 15 grams of gold jewellery was given which was confronted with her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC where it is not so recorded. Neither any invoice or payment proof of giving of such gold jewelery is produced on record. The demand of flat is not stated to be made at the time of marriage on 04.03.2011 and the accused no. 3 and deceased were living happily for two months. Material omission was made by PW5 and PW6 in their statement before SDM of alleged demand of flat by the accused persons and this material omission thereof in the nature of contradiction. It has been proved on record and has come in evidence that there was monetary dispute between PW6 and accused no. 3 having common business of scrap dealing which they SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 55 of 64have executed jointly at a point in time. However, demand of dowry by the accused person is not conclusively proved on record. However, prosecution has successfully proved on record that the deceased was being beaten by the accused person time and again and this beating was narrated by the deceased both to PW5 ,PW6 and also to PW20. It was also narrated one day before the date of commission of offence on 17.05.2012. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved on record that the deceased was being beaten by the accused person. She was not given proper medical care as she was taken to Maulana for her treatment and not to a qualified doctor. In the medical evidence fresh injuries are not quoted on other parts of the body of the deceased other than recovery of the nylon rope vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A. The corresponding injuries to strangulation about resistance by deceased are not brought on record by the prosecution. However, the cruelty was meted upon the deceased.
46. One important fact to be noted is that the accused person are totally silent about the time and manner in which the deceased was taken down if she had hanged herself. They are silent that who had opened the door if the door was locked or that the door was broken by them. Who among them had first reached at the spot. The above silence of the accused is incriminating in nature and leads to necessary adverse inference against the accused u/s 106 of the Evidence Act that due to their conduct and cruelty the deceased had committed suicide.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 56 of 6447. In cross examination of PW-5 dt. 29.09.2015 at page 3, it is suggested that the child of the deceased has fallen from the bed who was taken by the deceased to LNJP hospital with accused no.2. The child was not admitted in hospital however CT Scan was advised by the doctor which was not done. It is admitted as correct that the female child of the deceased Kesar Jahan was not weeping and he was semi conscious. At page 4 it is suggested that the deceased has committed suicide as she was stressed for the reason that PW-6 had not paid money due to accused no.3 Mohd. Wasim. It is further suggested that the suicide was committed because the child of the deceased was not well. It was primary liability of accused no.3 to get the child treated at LNJP hospital and get done his CT Scan but it was not done which shows that the accused no.3 was not observing this duties towards the child and his wife the deceased in a careful manner. This is cruelty against the child and the deceased. Further the accused persons has taken multiple reasons to prove that it is the habitual in his family of deceased to commit suicide for which they have referred to various ladies of the maternal family of the deceased who had committed suicide. The above arguments have two aspects. There were also surviving members of the maternal family who had not committed suicide. PW-6 at page 3 of cross examination dt. 17.08.2015 has denied that all the girl aged about 17-18 years had committed suicide by hanging and it is further deposed that she had expired as she was suffering from TB. Daughter of Nazma namely Ms. Mehak had expired about 4-5 years SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 57 of 64back. It is neither admitted nor denied that she had committed suicide. Hence, there is no scientific basis on which the accused can say that any disease was there in the maternal family of the deceased due to which they had tendency to commit suicide. In absence of which it cannot be said that there was tendency on the part of deceased to commit suicide. The burden of proof of this arguments is on the accused and they have failed to rebut it by any reasonable evidence. In fact, it appears that various different grounds are taken by accused persons citing different reason for the deceased to commit suicide and this itself is a contradictory defence to somehow wriggle out of this case and it is not perceived as an attempt to bring truth on record. This shows that accused persons have no basis to claim the unsubstantiated defence and in fact it further support the case of the prosecution that the act of the accused person was cruel both towards the child and deceased Ms. Kesar Jahan.
48. It is suggested to PW-6 in cross examination dt. 12.08.2015 at page 2 that the deceased was taken for treatment of psychiatric and neurological problem which they have mentioned as " Upri Hawa' and as per the accused due to such problem the deceased has developed suicidal tendency. It is also suggested that the deceased has earlier attempted to commit suicide several times. No such evidence is brought on record by the accused person that the deceased had earlier attempted suicide several times. Neither they had intimated this fact to the police station. Hence, the above SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 58 of 64suggestion by the accused person is not proved. If they had believed that the deceased was suffering from psychological and neurological problem then they must have taken her to a competent doctor which is not done by them and instead they had admittedly taken the deceased to one Maulana. This in itself shows that the accused person were acting with cruelty upon the deceased. It is also admitted that the deceased was taken to such Maulana by accused no.2 Samrana.
49. Without any basis it is suggested at page 3 of cross examination of PW-6 by the accused person that no engagement of deceased with accused no.3 was held and marriage was performed directly as accused person had seen that marriage will break down due to mental ailment of the deceased Kesar Jahan. This proves on record that accused persons were cruelly presumptive of the fact that deceased was suffering from mental ailment before marriage and the marriage was sure to break down and with such mind set they had acted against the interest of the deceased and made her life difficult to live. There is no explanation that if the deceased was so much mentally ill then why at all they married the deceased.
50. Other than this, at page 4 of cross examination dt. 29.09.2015 of PW-5 it is noted that the deceased was involved with in financial dispute between accused no.3 and PW-6 for no reason and it is inferred that for such dispute the accused persons were committing cruelty on the deceased. This is supported by the suggestion made SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 59 of 64by accused person to PW-5 that the deceased was stressed due to such non payment and this therefore shows that accused person had ground to cruelly act upon the deceased.
51. Other than this, PW-6 has mentioned in Ex. PW6/A that accused no.1 had taunted her that nothing was given by her family members. Though there was no specific demand of money and articles, it has come in evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 that accused no.1 had insulted the family members of the deceased when they had reached to celebrate Chhuchak ceremony of the child of the deceased. When accused no.1 Amna Begum had protested with the visitors for not bringing clothes for the children of accused no.1 and also of accused no.2. Hence, this evidence has remained unimpeached consistent and stands proved on record and it therefore proves that the accused persons had acted cruelly against the deceased.
52. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved that deceased Kesar Jahan was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused person proved before her death. However, there is not sufficient evidence on record regarding involvement of accused no. 4 Nadeem who is staying separately. Accused no. 5 and 6 were staying together with the deceased in the same house. In the evidence of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 specific act of cruelty has not come on record against accused no. 5 Mohd. Zakir and accused no. 6 Sabir. Accused no. 1 Amna Begum and accused no. 3 Wasim has SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 60 of 64failed to throw light on the fact of the case that how suicide happened. They have remained silent on the aspect that how the deceased was found hanging or who had first traced out the hanging of the deceased. How she was taken down. The medical evidence has also not proved that the deceased has suffered abrasions either on neck or other parts of the body in the nature that she had tried to save herself to infer if strangulation was attempted on her. In absence of the same, two opinion can be found that the horizontal blue mark on the neck of the deceased can be either due to strangulation of the deceased or it was caused by hanging of the deceased. In absence of necessary medical evidence to support the case of prosecution of strangulation the opinion in favour of the accused is taken that the injury on the deceased has occurred on the neck due to hanging. It has also not come on record that accused no. 2 Samrana had demanded anything from the deceased other than that she has taken the deceased to one Maulana for treatment of Upri Hawa. The one instance of such stating cannot be turned to be of such sufficient influence to push the deceased towards suicide. More so when, accused no.2 Samrana is staying separately with her husband Zahiruddin. Hence, in view of the citation titled as Chabi Karmakar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal (2025) 1 SCC 398 in reference of para no.10 wherein it was held that when the appellant no.1 therein who was sister in law of deceased was a married woman and at the relevant point of time, admittedly, she was residing with her family at her matrimonial home and in absence of specific evidence to connect the appellant to the commission of the SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 61 of 64crime, therefore, the appellant therein held not liable for the act of cruelty on the deceased. The same are the fact and circumstances in the present case and therefore, accused no.2 is held not liable for the acts of cruelty on the deceased Kesar Jahan. Similarly, the accused no. 4 Nadeem, accused no.5 Mohd. Zakir and also accused no.6 Mohd. Sabir. There are absence of specific act of cruelty against them or to show that they had participated in such act of cruelty committed by accused no. 1 and 3. It cannot be said that they have committed the offence of cruelty on the deceased.
53. Hence, the acts of cruelty is committed by the accused no. 1 and 3 on the deceased are sufficient abetment to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The above act of cruelty has proved intention of accused no. 1 and 3 to aid, instigate and abet the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved on record necessary ingredients of Section 498A IPC read with Sections 306 IPC and 34 IPC against accused no.1 Amna Begum and accused no.3 Mohd. Wasim and they are accordingly convicted for the above offence. It is held that the prosecution has failed to prove necessary ingredients Section 304B IPC against all the accused person and therefore necessary presumption U/s. 113B of Evidence Act is not raised in this matter against all the accused persons.
54. The prosecution has also charged against all the accused persons U/s. 302 IPC in the alternative to Section 304B IPC.
SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 62 of 64However, keeping in view the evidence of PW-3 which is not found reliable and also absence of necessary medical evidence in support of strangulation of deceased by accused person it cannot be said that accused persons have committed the offence U/s. 302 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove that the strangulation on the deceased was committed by accused persons. Though the neck injury mark is similar in the nature of strangulation is present on the deceased however the same mark can also be when death is by hanging/suicide. Further no medical evidence is produced on record that such kind of injury would be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The intention of the accused to kill the deceased by strangulation on 17.05.2012 has remained unproved.
55. The accused are also charged U/s. 307 IPC read with Section 498A IPC. It is noted that offence U/s. 300 IPC, 304B IPC, 307 IPC and Section 306 IPC are offences affecting human body and the offences affecting life. However, between Section 299 IPC to Section 310 IPC, the offences falls under different intensity according to manner in which the offence was executed. The above offence can be with different intensity of "mens rea" and knowledge. It is already held above that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had strangulated the deceased Kesar Jahan and the facts discussed above are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. U/s. 307 IPC the prosecution must establish the intention of causing death or that accused knew that such act is likely to cause death. The main difference U/s. 302 IPC and Section SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors.
Page No. 63 of 64307 IPC is that U/s. 307 IPC it is not necessary that the injury had been caused. However, the ingredient of intention to cause death is common to both the offence. It is also common to both the offence that the injury caused by accused persons is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is already held that prosecution failed to prove the above common ingredients between Section 307 IPC and Section 302 IPC and it is also settled law that all the ingredients have to be proved conjunctively and not in the alternative. However, prosecution has successfully proved the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC which is abetment of suicide. Prosecution has also successfully proved commission of offence U/s. 498A IPC which also mentions about cruelty.
56. Accordingly, accused no.1 Amna Begum and accused no.3 Mohd. Wasim are convicted U/s. 498A IPC and also U/s. 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Accused no. 2 Samrana, accused no.4 Nadeem and accused no. 5 Mohd. Zakir are acquitted of offence charged against them as prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of offence against them. The case against accused Sabir is already abated vide order dated 07.04.2025.
Put up for arguments on sentence on 14.01.2026.
Digitally signed by JOGINDER Announced in the open Court PRAKASH JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR on 24.12.2025 NAHAR Date: 2025.12.24 16:47:18 +0530 (JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR) Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I) Tis Hazari Court/Delhi/24.12.2025 SC No.27306/2016 FIR No.74/2012 P.S. Chandni Mahal State vs. Amna Begum & Ors. Page No. 64 of 64