Delhi District Court
State vs Lokesh on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh
CNR No. DLCT-01009735-2024
Sessions Case No. 414/2024
FIR No. 263/2024
Police Station Burari
Date of Committal 02.07.2024
Name of the Complainant Smt. Uma Devi
Name of the Accused/s Lokesh @ Yogesh
Offence Complained of 498A/304B IPC
Plea Of The Accused Pleaded Not Guilty
Arguments Heard/Order Reserved 30.03.2026
On
Final Order Acquitted u/s 498A/304B IPC
Date of Such Order 01.04.2026
J U D G M E N T:-
BRIEF FACT AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The present FIR was registered at PS Burari against accused person namely Lokesh @ Yogesh for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.04.2024, at about 17.48.00 hours, DD No. 142A was marked to SI Shyam Bihari Yadav who along with HC Sachin Pawar went to the place of occurrence i.e. at house at the end of street no. 45, B-Block, Kaushik Enclave, Burari, Delhi, where they came to know that victim lady had FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 1 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:28:47 +0530 been taken to Burari hospital by her husband. SI Shyam Bihari Yadav left HC Sachin at the spot and went to the said hospital where he met Lokesh i.e. husband of victim Kirti. SI Shyam Bihari Yadav collected the MLC of Kirti as per which patient was declared brought dead at 06.12 PM. SI Shyam Bihari Yadav made inquiries from accused Lokesh who stated that the marriage between him and deceased Kirti took place on 20.01.2024. SI Shyam Bihari Yadav informed the concerned SDM. Thereafter, SI Shyam Bihari Yadav returned back to the spot and got the place inspected through crime team officials and also seized exhibits including the mobile phone of victim. SI Shyam Bihari Yadav also collected the medical documents of deceased Kirti being provided to him by accused Lokesh. The concerned executive Magistrate recorded the statement of Smt. Uma Devi i.e. mother of deceased Kirti. The Executive Magistrate got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Kirti in the presence of SI Shyam Bihari Yadav. On the direction of the concerned SDM SI Shyam Bihari Yadav prepared Rukka and got the FIR registered in respect of offences punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC. During investigation, IO/Inspector Jaspal Singh recorded the statement of witnesses and effected the arrest of accused. IO also got verified the factum of marriage from Arya Smaj Mandir. During investigation IO sent the exhibits at FSL Rohini and also obtained subsequent opinion in respect of ligature material. IO also got verified the medical documents of victim and also analysed the DVR and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet in respect of commission of offence punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC was filed.
3. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offences as prima- facie case was made out against the accused Lokesh @ Yogesh, copy of chargesheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC and thereafter file was committed to this Court for the purpose of trial.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 2 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:28:52 +0530 CHARGE
4. Thereafter, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A/304B IPC qua accused Lokesh @ Yogesh was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter matter was fixed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses.
7. PW1/Ms. Anuradha, has deposed that she was residing at D-5/164, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Nagloi, Delhi since last four years after her marriage, that deceased Kirti was her elder sister, that her sister Kirti learnt dance for about 1 year prior to her marriage at Pluto Dance Academy from accused Lokesh and thereafter she started teaching dance at the said Academy. She deposed that her sister Kirti (deceased) fell in love with accused Lokesh and with the consent of both family, marriage of her sister was solemnized on 20.01.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Harit Vihar, Burari, that she also participated in her marriage, that no dowry demand was made by the accused as well as his family members at time of marriage, that after marriage, her sister joined her matrimonial home, that after one month of her marriage, she met her and saw that she was ill and very stressed, that she came to know that Lokesh was alleging that her sister was involved in paranormal activity, that her sister told her that accused Lokesh used to taunt her by saying that " Mere Bhaiyo Ko Shadi Mei Bhut Kuch Dahej Mila, Mujhe Kuch Nahi Mila, Samaj Mei Meri Izzat Down Ho Rahi Hai", that accused Lokesh was pressurizing her sister Kirti (deceased) to bring dowry from her parents. She further deposed that on 10.04.2024, accused Lokesh telephonically informed her that "Apki Sister Mei Bhoot Aata Hai, Humne Pooja Path Karai, Baba Ko FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 3 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:28:57
+0530
Dikhaya Lekin Weh Tik Nahi Ho Rahi Hai, Kal Ko Kuch Ho Gya, Hume Mat Bolna".
8. She further deposed that on 20.04.2024, she came to her parental home from her matrimonial home and found her sister Kirti already present there, that she saw her sister Kirti was very sick and she was on anti-depression medicine, that she asked her sister why she was depressed and sick after her marriage and merely three months had gone. On which, her sister told her that there was nothing wrong with her, that her sister Kirti told her that her husband/Lokesh was demanding money from her and asked her to tell her parents and brother to give money to Lokesh, that her brother gave a washing machine as he pressurized her sister Kirti for demanding washing machine from her parents. She further deposed that in the evening of 20.04.2024, she returned to her matrimonial home from parental home. She further deposed that on 21.04.2024, at about 05/05:30 p.m. she was informed by her mother that her sister Kirti had committed suicide, telephonically, that immediately, she made a phone call to Lokesh and asked him where was Kirti. On which Lokesh told her that Kirti was lying in front of him then she asked Lokesh to take her to hospital immediately, that after marriage her sister became depressed and she committed suicide.
9. During cross examination PW-1 has admitted that her sister Kirti was born on 24.05.2001, that both family born expenses of marriage. She further admitted that she do not know what dowry articles were given to accused Lokesh at time of marriage of her sister as she was at her matrimonial home. She deposed that she does not remember whether any list of dowry articles was prepared by her mother or brother. She admitted that she advised accused Lokesh that if he was not happy with her sister, he should get separate from her. She admitted that Police did not seize her mobile phone. She further FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 4 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:02 +0530 deposed that before marriage her sister was neither taken to any Baba/Tantrik nor she got treatment from any mental hospital, that she was not aware that her sister was 15 years younger from accused Lokesh, that after knowing death of her sister, she did not make 100 number call, that she asked accused Lokesh to take her sister to hospital for treatment, immediately, that neither Lokesh nor his parents made demand of dowry from her. She denied that her sister Kirti committed suicide at her own will as she was sick and under depression.
10. PW-2/Ms. Uma Devi, has deposed that her daughter Kirti (deceased) used to learn dance in the dance academy of accused Lokesh for about 2 years and thereafter, she started giving dance classes in the dance academy of accused Lokesh on monthly basis at salary of Rs. 4,500/-, that in the month of October 2024, her daughter Kirti told her that she fell in love with accused Lokesh and they want to marry.
11. She further deposed that initially, she did not agree for the marriage of Kirti with accused Lokesh but due to continuous request of her daughter, she agreed for her marriage with accused Lokesh, that she met with the family member of accused Lokesh and they also agreed for the marriage of accused Lokesh with her daughter Kirti, that prior to marriage of her daughter with accused Lokesh, no demand was made by accused Lokesh and his family members. She further deposed that on 20.01.2024, marriage of her daughter Kirti (deceased) was solemnized with accused Lokesh in Arya Samaj mandir, Burari in the presence of family member of both bride and groom, that at the time of marriage, no dowry demand was made by accused and his family members, that after marriage, her daughter Kirti joined her matrimonial home, that accused Lokesh used to drop her daughter Kirti at her house at about 10:00 am and used to pick her FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 5 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:05 +0530 daughter from house at about 07:00 pm, that accused Lokesh did not allow her daughter Kirti to give dance classes after marriage, that her daughter (Kirti) told her that accused Lokesh started harassing her on the account of demand of dowry by taunting her that " mere bhaiyo ko bahut kuch mila, tumhare ghar walo ne kuch nahi diya ". She also told to her daughter that she will talk with her in-laws in respect of dowry but her daughter did not agree for the same, that at the time of marriage, her daughter Kirti was physically fit and mentally sound, that after marriage, her health condition became worse, that her daughter Kirti told her that accused Lokesh was harassing her for money and dowry, that her daughter was in depression, that her daughter also told them that accused used to take her to tantrik/baba for "jhar fukk" as Lokesh was suspecting that she was suffering from paranormal activities, that in the month of April, 2024, during Navratra, Lokesh came at her house and took her daughter to his another house in Moti Bagh, that when accused Lokesh came at her house for taking back her daughter Kirti her younger daughter Anuradha told to Lokesh that "doctor ko dikhao jhar fukk mat karo", that accused Lokesh assured them that he will take Kirti to his house for her medical treatment at hospital.
12. She further deposed that after 4-5 days, accused Lokesh dropped her daughter Kirti at her house, that her daughter told her that she was suffering from pain in back portion of her body and when she checked back portion of her body, she found sign of hunter/koda on back portion of her body, that on her asking about the injuries on her body part, her daughter Kirti told her that "Lokesh ne tantrik bulaya tha, jisne mujhe koday se pita aur bakray ki bali bhi di gai ", that after 2 days, accused Lokesh came at her house and took back her daughter Kirti to her matrimonial home, that on that day, at about 01:30 pm, accused Lokesh made a phone call to her and told her that " Kirti ko FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 6 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:09 +0530 main tantrik baba ke paas lekar aya hu, lekin vo baba ke paas nahi ja rahi hai, aur mujhse jhagra kar rahi hai ", that on which, she asked Lokesh that why he had taken her daughter to tantrik while he told her that he will take her daughter to her matrimonial home, that on that day, at about 02:00 pm, her daughter told her while crying that accused was toturing and abusing her, that she also heard abusing words on the phone uttered by accused when she was talking with her daughter on mobile phone, that she asked her daughter to give the mobile phone to Lokesh as she had to talk to Lokesh, then accused Lokesh took the mobile phone and she asked Lokesh that " meri beti jaisi bhi hai, mere ghar chor do", that thereafter, accused Lokesh cut the phone call, that at about 03:00 pm, her daughter Kirti made a phone call to her and informed her that she had reached at her matrimonial home, that when she asked her daughter telephonically when she will come back, she told her that she will come back to her home at about 05:00 pm, that at about 05:30 pm, she made a phone call on mobile phone of her daughter to know as to why she did not come back to her home but she did not pick her phone, that she also made phone call on the mobile phone of accused Lokesh he also did not pick her phone, that at about 05:45 pm, she received two bells on her mobile phone, that thereafter, she called back on the said number, the phone was received but receiver did not reply anything, that after some time, she again made phone call on the mobile phone of Lokesh but he did not pick the phone, that then she made phone call on the mobile phone of her daughter Kirti which was received by accused Lokesh and he told her that her daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself, that thereafter, she alongwith her younger daughter and son in law went to Government hospital Burari, that her son Abhishek also came to the hospital from his office, that in the hospital, she saw dead body of her daughter Kirti, that she saw local police officials already present in the hospital, that from the hospital, she FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 7 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:29:13
+0530
went to police station Burari, where SDM recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A.
13. She further deposed that she correctly identified dead body of her daughter Kirti (deceased) in the mortuary and police recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/C, that after postmortem examination of the dead body of her daughter Kirti, she received dead body for cremation vide dead body handing over memo which is Ex.PW2/D, that she handed over photocopy of marriage certificate of her daughter Kirti Marked as Mark PW2/E and a printout of 4 photographs of marriage ceremony to police which are Mark PW2/F (colly), that police seized aforesaid document vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW2/G. She further deposed that she spent Rs.50,000-60,000/- on the occasion of marriage of her daughter, that she also gave 2 gold ornament as well as 2 silver ornament on the account of her marriage.
14. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW-2 admitted that she was living in her rental home. She further deposed that at the time of marriage, her daughter Kirti (deceased) was 24 years old and age of Lokesh at the time of marriage was not known to her. She further deposed that she did not file any police complaint against Lokesh prior to the incident. She voluntarily deposed that her daughter was denying regarding police complaint against Lokesh. She admitted that after marriage, one day, she alongwith accused Lokesh took her daughter Kirti to Bawana for " jhard/fukk" by tantrik. She deposed that she has not given bills of gold ornament to police as she got prepared said ornament at her native village, that SDM recorded her statement in her presence on her dictation and after that she put her signature on the same, that she did not accompany accused to Vimhans Hospital Lajpat Nagar Delhi, that she did not make PCR call after getting knowledge about suicide incident of her daughter. She volunteered that she directly went to the hospital. She further deposed FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 8 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:17 +0530 that no reception or other marriage party/functions were organized by her after marriage of her daughter, that she never told to parents of accused Lokesh that accused Lokesh was harassing her daughter, that after marriage, accused Lokesh himself never made demand of dowry from her. She denied that her daughter Kirti was mentally disturbed and she was in depression, due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself. She denied that at the time of marriage of her daughter with accused Lokesh, she was aware that accused Lokesh was 10 years elder from her daughter Kirti.
15. PW-3/Sh. Abhishek deposed that his sister Kirti (deceased) learnt dance in the dance academy of accused Lokesh for about 2 years and thereafter, she started giving dance classes in the dance academy of accused Lokesh on monthly basis at salary of Rs. 4,500/-, that marriage of his sister Kirti (deceased) was solemnized with accused Lokesh on 20.01.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir in the presence of her family members as well as family members of accused Lokesh, that he also signed marriage certificate of his sister Kirti issued by Arya Samaj as a witness, that at the time of marriage of his sister Kirti neither accused Lokesh nor his family member made any demand of dowry, that after marriage, his sister Kirti remained ill, that after marriage, his sister Kirit used to visit his house, that one day, when his sister was present at his house, she told him, in the presence of his mother, that Lokesh taunt her by saying " mere bhaio ko shadi mein bahut sara saman aur dahej mila hai, mujhe kuch nahi mila ", that on the asking of his sister Kirti, he purchased one washing machine for her and promised her to give her one almirah on the occasion of her birthday, that in the month of April, 2024, during Navratra Lokesh came at his house and took his sister to his another house in Moti Bagh, that when accused Lokesh came at his house for taking back his sister Kirti his younger sister Anuradha told to Lokesh that " doctor ko FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 9 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:21 +0530 dikhao jhar fukk mat karo", that accused Lokesh assured them that he will take Kirti to his house for her medical treatment at hospital, that after 4-5 days accused Lokesh dropped his sister Kirti at his house and at that time her health condition was very bad, that he came to know through his mother that his sister Kirti had told her that she was suffering from pain in back portion of her body and when his mother checked her back portion, she found signs of hunter/koda on her back portion, that on asking about the injuries on her body part, she told his mother that "Lokesh ne tantrik bulaya tha, jisne mujhe koday se pita aur bakray ki bali bhi di gai", that he also told to accused Lokesh that "meri bhen ko idhar udhar jhar fukh mat kara, usko hospital mein dikha", that accused Lokesh insisted him to bear medical treatment expenses of his sister Kirti, that on 21.04.2024, he left his house at about 10-10:00 am for office and at that time his sister Kirti was present at his house and she was normal at that time, that on that day, at about 06:00 pm, he was informed by his wife that his sister Kirti had committed suicide in her matrimonial home, that thereafter, he immediately reach to Burari hospital, where he saw his mother alongwith his younger sister and his brother in law were already present there, that he also saw the family members of accused Lokesh over there and police as well, that statement of his mother was recorded by SDM in the police station in his presence and he read over the content of statement of his mother to her, that he also signed statement of his mother which is Ex.PW2/A as well as Mark PW2/B.
16. He deposed that he correctly identified dead body of his sister Kirti (deceased) in the mortuary of Subzi Mandi, that after postmortem examination of the dead body of his sister Kirti, he received dead body for cremation vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW2/D.
17. He also deposed that he and his mother handed over photocopy FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 10 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:26 +0530 of marriage certificate of his sister Kirti Mark PW2/E and a printout of 4 photographs of marriage ceremony to police Mark PW2/F (colly), that police seized aforesaid document vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/G, that his mother also gave reply to notice under Section 91 Cr.PC served by police upon them, Ex.PW3/B (running into3 pages), that they spent Rs.50,000-60,000/- on the occasion of marriage of his sister, that his sister committed suicide because she was harassed and tortured by accused for dowry.
18. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused. During cross examination this witness has deposed that he was married and living with his mother in rented accommodation, that he was withdrawing Rs.20,000-25,000/- per month as salary. At the time of marriage of his sister no furniture and electronic items were given to her by them. He volunteered that they gave gold jewelry, utensils and clothes to his sister on the occasion of her marriage. He further deposed that he did not hand over bills of jewelry to the police, that he never took his sister Kirti to hospital for her medical treatment, that accused Lokesh personally/individually never demanded dowry from him, that he never made a police complaint against accused Lokesh in PS prior to alleged incident, that no medical treatment of his sister Kirti (deceased) was going on prior to her marriage, that he did not make PCR call after getting knowledge of death of his sister Kirti, that he was aware that his sister Kirti and accused Lokesh were having love affair and they wanted to get marry, that parents of accused Lokesh never demanded dowry from him. He denied that his sister Kirti committed suicide due to depression as she was ill from long time.
19. PW-4/Sh. Mohd. Yasin has deposed that he was running a tailoring shop situated in said Aksa Masjid. He was tantrik and he used to treat patient suffering from jaundice and other minor physical FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 11 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:29:30
+0530
complications, that on 21.04.2024, at about 01:00 pm, accused Lokesh came at said Masjid alongwith his wife (deceased), that Lokesh came to his shop while his wife was sitting on the scooty in front of his shop, that Lokesh asked his wife to go inside the Masjid but his wife denied to go inside the masjid, that thereafter, wife of Lokesh started weeping while saying that she was suffering from head-ache, that thereafter, she came at his shop. He further deposed that "मैंने उसका सर दर्द का झाड़ा लगाया", that he also offered water to her as she was thirsty.
He advised Lokesh to get her wife treated by doctor, that thereafter, both Lokesh and her wife left his shop and Lokesh noted down his mobile number which was mentioned on his shop, that after one hour Lokesh informed him telephonically that his wife has committed suicide by hanging herself, that police met him and made inquiry from him.
20. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW-4 admitted that he is a tailor by profession as well as doing 'Jhaad phook' He deposed that Lokesh met him on 21.04.2024 for 1st time, that he observed that the condition of wife of Lokesh was normal but she was denying to enter inside the Masjid and she broke her wearing bangles, that no quarrel took place between Lokesh and his wife in his presence, that he was doing 'Jhaad phook' for last 7 years.
21. PW-5/Doctor Neeraj, Medical officer (Causality) has deposed that on 21.04.2024, he was posted as CMO in the department of causality Burari Hospital, Delhi, that on that day patient Kirti was brought to causality and she was attended by him, that after medical examination he declared her brought dead, that he observed Ligature mark present on anterior aspect of neck extending from angle of mandible of one side to another side, that hprepared MLC of deceased Ex.PW5/A, that he also issued a separate death certificate regarding the death of deceased Kirti Ex.PW5/B. FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 12 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:29:34
+0530
22. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW-5 has admitted that he did not find any fresh external injury on the body of deceased except ligature mark.
23. PW-6/Doctor Poonam Kirtani, Senior consultant gynecologist, has deposed that in the year 2024, she was posted in care diagnostic centre as Senior consultant gynecology, that one day police official came to said centre to verify medical document pertaining to patient Kirti, that as per record patient Kirti had visited their said centre on 10.04.2024 and her ultrasound was conducted at said centre wherein she was found to have retained products in her uterus, that after procedure she again visited their centre on 17.04.2024 to follow up, that she verified documents pertaining to patient Kirti Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B.
24. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-6 deposed that she knew the deceased before her treatment at said centre through her sister in law as her sister in law got delivered a baby. She admitted that patient Kirti took MT pills by herself 15 days prior to visit the centre.
25. PW-7/Doctor Mausumi Sinha, Senior consultant psychiatrist, deposed that on 09.04.2024, patient Kirti was brought to OPD by her husband and her mother in law for her psychiatric treatment, that medical history of the patient was given by her husband and her mother in law which was incomplete history because the patient did not speak anything despite her best efforts, that she advised some medicine to her and prepared her MLC Ex.PW7/A.
26. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-7 deposed that she prescribed medicines/stress medicine to patient Kirti FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 13 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:39 +0530 based upon her symptoms which she observed at that time, that she visited the Vimhans hospital only once.
27. PW-8/Retd. Executive Magistrate Sh. Raman VR, deposed that on 22.04.2024, he was posted as Executive Magistrate Civil Lines, Delhi, that on that day, he was directed by the then SDM Civil Lines, Delhi to attend the call and conduct the inquest proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C, that thereafter, he went to PS Burari, where SI Shyam Bihari met him alongwith family members of deceased Kirti, that SI Shyam Bihari narrated entire incident to him and informed him that he had already got preserved dead body of deceased Kirti in the mortuary of Subji Mandi, that he made inquiry from the mother of deceased namely Smt. Uma Devi and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A, that he also made endorsement on statement of Smt. Uma Devi and forwarded the same to SHO PS Burari for necessary action from point X to X1, that thereafter, he alongwith SI Shyam Bihari and family members of deceased went to mortuary Subji Mandi, where family members of deceased correctly identified dead body of deceased Kirti, that he recorded dead body identification statement of brother of deceased namely Abhishek and mother of deceased namely Smt. Uma Devi Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW2/C, that he made an application before Medical superintendent AAA hospital for postmortem examination Ex.PW8/A, that he also filled up form for postmortem examination Ex.PW8/B, that after postmortem examination, dead body of deceased was handed over to her relative for cremation vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW2/D, that he recorded true and correct statement of Smt. Uma Devi.
28. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-8 deposed that no videography of the spot was conducted by the police officials in his presence.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 14 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:43 +0530
29. PW-9/Doctor A.S. Bajwa, M.D. Specialist has deposed that on 22.04.2024, he was posted as M.D. Specialist, Aruna Asaf Ali, Govt. Hospital, GNCT of Delhi in the Department of Forensic Medicine, that on that day, he received request for postmortem examination of a deadbody of female deceased, that he conducted postmortem examination of female deceased and opined that cause of death was asphyxia as result of ante-mortem, time since death was about 12 to 24 hours, that he prepared his detailed postmortem report Ex.PW9/A (running into 4 pages)
30. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW-9 admitted that he did not find any other external injury on the body of deceased except ligature mark present on the neck of deceased described as injury no.1 in postmortem report.
31. PW-10/Sh. Naval Kishore Joshi, Senior Scientific Officer, has deposed that on 07.05.2024, he was posted at FSL as Senior Scientific Officer, (chemistry), that on that day, two sealed plastic jar and two sealed parcels were received at case unit counter of FSL and the same were marked to him for examination in respect of case FIR No. 263/2024, PS Burari, that he tallied seals of both plastic jars and both parcels with sample seals and the same were found to be intact, that upon opening plastic jar he found that one plastic jars Ex.1 was containing stomach and pieces of small intestine with contents and another plastic jar Ex.2 was containing pieces of Liver, Spleen and Kidney, that upon opening one parcel Ex.3 the same was found containing blood sample, Volume Approx. 10 ml, that he did not open 4th parcel and the same was sent to department of biology in original condition, that after examination of aforesaid exhibits he opined that on chemical, Microscopic & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 15 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:53 +0530 tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1,2 &3, that after examination the remnants of the exhibits 1 & 2 had been sealed with the seal of "NKJ FSL DELHI" impression as per specimen provided below & the remnants of exhibits 3 & 4 had been sealed with the seal of "S.B.P. FSL DELHI", that he prepared his detailed report Ex.PW10/A.
32. PW-10 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
33. PW-11/Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer, deposed that on 29.07.2024, she was posted at FSL Rohini as Senior Scientific Officer, (Biology), that on that day, two sealed parcels were received in Biology division from Chemistry division for examination and the same were assigned to her for examination, that as per forwarding letter the seals were intact, that she opened the parcel and found parcel no.3 was found containing Ex.3 i.e. Crusty Black Brown material in a glass bottle described as blood of deceased and parcel no.4 was found containing Ex.4 i.e. two strand of hair described as from spot, that blood was detected on Ex.3 and Ex.4 was directly subjected to DNA isolation, that during examination DNA profile could not be generated from Ex.3 & Ex.4 due to non availability of root/degradation/inhabition, that she prepared her detailed report Ex.PW1a/A.
34. PW-11 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
35. PW-12/Sh. Parveen Kumar, has deposed that he was posted as Nodal officer in Reliance Jio and his office is situated at Plot No.1, 4 th floor, Reliance Mall, A-Block, Vikash Puri, Delhi, that on 25.05.2024, one notice u/s 92 Cr.P.C was received in his office with forwarding FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 16 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:29:57 +0530 letter of concerned DCP with which Inspector Jaspal Singh, PS Burari had sought certified copies of CDR, CAF and location chart of mobile numbers 9613666660 & 9625400361 w.e.f 14.04.2024 to 22.04.2024, that copy of notice u/s 92 Cr.P.C Mark PW12/A, that as per their record the subscriber of SIM card of mobile numbers 9613666660 & 9625400361 was Jhikan Giri, R/o WZ2149, 1st floor, Rani Bagh, New Delhi. E-KYC of customer application form of both mobile numbers Ex.PW12/B and PW12/C, that CDR of mobile number 9613666660 of the period 14.04.2024 to 22.04.2024 Ex.PW12/D (running from page no. 120 to 133), that CDR of mobile number 9625400361 of the period 14.04.2024 to 22.04.2024 Ex.PW12/E (running from page no. 135 to 148), that he issued certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in this respect Ex.PW12/F.
36. PW-12 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
37. PW-13/Sh. Rajiv Vashisht deposed that he was posted as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd. and his office was situated at 224, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, Delhi, that on 31.05.2024, a notice under Section 91 Cr.PC was received in his aforesaid office and sought certified copies of CDR and CAF pertaining 7042170975 from 14.04.2024 to 22.04.2024, that his colleague Ajay Kumar provided aforesaid requisite documents to the police on 31.05.2024, Ex.PW13/A, that as per their record, the SIM card of mobile no. 7042170975 was issued in the name of Lokesh, S/o Ram Pal, R/o D-501, Shakarpur, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, that attested copy of Customer Application Form supported with Aadhar Card of subscriber Ex.PW13/B (running into 5 pages), that attested copy of CDR of mobile no. 7042170975 from 14.04.2024 to 22.04.2024 Ex.PW13/C (running into 5 pages). Attested copy of cell ID Chart of Mobile No. 7042170975 of relevant period Ex.PW13/D, that his FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 17 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:01 +0530 colleague Ajay Kumar issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW13/E, that he was working with his colleague Ajay Kumar since 2019 and well acquainted with signature of his colleague Ajay Kumar, that aforesaid documents bears signatures of his colleague Ajay Kumar as the same were provided by him to the police.
38. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused PW-13 has deposed that his company i.e. Airtel has no such technology to retrieve WhatsApp chat and call recording.
39. PW-14/Ct. Amit Kumar deposed that on 23.04.2024, he was posted as Assistant Draughtsman in Mapping Section, West District, PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, that on that day on the asking of IO/Insp.
Jaspal Singh he went to PS Burari, from where he alongwith IO/SI Shyam Bihari Yadav reached at the spot i.e. house at the end of Gali No.45, B Block, Kaushik Enclave, Burari, that he inspected and measured the spot at the instance SI Shyam Bihari Yadav and prepared rough notes as well as rough scaled site plan, that on 25.04.2024, he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to the IO, Ex.PW14/A, that he destroyed rough notes after preparing scaled site plan.
40. PW-14 was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity being given for the same.
41. PW-15/HC Sukhveer deposed that he was posted in CPCR as IC Record. He further deposed that he had brought attested copy of PCR call form dated 21.04.2024, that as per record PCR call was made by Lokesh through his mobile number 9899385420, that attested copy computer generated PCR call form Ex.PW15/A. Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:16 +0530 FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 18 of 48
42. PW-15 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
43. PW-16/SI Shyam deposed that on 21.04.2024, he was posted at PS Burari as SI, that on that day, he was on day emergency duty from 08:00am to 08:00pm alongwith Ct. Sachin, that on that day, on the receipt of DD no. 142 regarding hanging, he alongwith Ct. Sachin reached at the spot i.e. gali no.45, B-Block, Kaushik Enclave, Burari, that some public person met him at the corner of said gali and they told him that the lady who committed suicide by hanging had been taken to hospital by her husband, that thereafter, he entered into the said house and found that two rooms were constructed in right side and one lath bath was constructed on left side, that thereafter, he entered into the first room of right side and saw that one green color stall/chunni was hanging in the room and one end of the said chunni was tied with iron grill of the window made in the wall of the room about 7ft in the height from the floor, that he saw that knot of one end of the chunni was untied and another end of chunni was tied with the grill of the window of the wall, that thereafter, he went to Burari hospital after leaving HC Sachin at the spot, that in the hospital he saw said lady who committed suicide and came to know her name as Kirti, that she was already declared brought dead by the concerned doctor, that her husband/accused was found present at the hospital alongwith deceased, that he collected MLC of deceased Kirti, that hospital staff handed over belonging of deceased i.e. 7 bangles, 2 anklets, 5 rings of silver color and 2 ears ring of golden color, one nose pin of golden color to me in the presence of concerned doctor, that thereafter, he returned to the spot alongwith accused Lokesh, that at the spot Lokesh told him that his wife Kirti hanged herself by said chunni. He prepared site plan at the spot on his own observation Ex.PW16/A. Digitally signed FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 19 of 48 SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:20 +0530
44. He further deposed that he called mobile crime team at the spot, that mobile crime team came to spot, inspected the spot and clicked photographs of the spot, that IC Incharge of mobile crime team SI Sombir prepared SOC report at the spot and handed over the same to him.
45. He further deposed that he removed said chunni from the grill of the window and found said chunni was containing two hair strands, that he segregated hair strands from chunni and kept the same in white color envelop and sealed the same with the seal of SBY, that he seized hair strands vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B, that he kept said chunni in transparent plastic bag and sealed the same with the seal of SBY and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/C, that accused Lokesh produced mobile phone of deceased make of Redmi-9A in black color, that he kept said mobile phone in transparent plastic box and wrapped the same with doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of SBY and took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/D.
46. He further deposed that he along with HC Sachin, members of mobile crime team and accused Lokesh went to Burari hospital, where he got clicked photographs of deceased through mobile crime team, that he also informed concerned SDM regarding the death of deceased as her death was caused within 3 months of her marriage, that in the hospital mother of deceased namely Uma Devi and her sister Anuradha met him, that he handed over aforesaid belonging to her mother vide handing over memo Ex.PW16/E, that he got preserved dead body of deceased in Subji Mandi mortuary through HC Sachin, that on 22.04.2024, accused Lokesh handedover medical documents of deceased Kirti to him which he took into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/F, that on same day SDM Raman V.R. came FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 20 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:25 +0530 to PS and he recorded statement of mother of deceased Smt. Uma Devi which was endorsed by brother of deceased namely Abhishek, that thereafter, he alongwith mother of deceased, brother of deceased, SDM and HC Sachin went to Subji Mandi mortuary for inquest proceedings and postmortem examination of deadbody of deceased, that SDM got conducted postmortem of deceased and prepared inquest paper of deceased, that SDM made endorsement on the statement of Smt. Uma Devi and handedover the same to him for registration of FIR, that he placed original statement of Smt. Uma Devi with inquest proceedings and kept one copy of her statement with me, that after postmortem examination concerned doctor handedover Viscera petti of deceased in sealed condition and he took the same into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/H, that he deposited Viscera petti in malkhana.
47. He further deposed that he prepared rukka on the basis of statement of Smt. Uma Devi recorded by SDM Ex.PW16/I, that he produced rukka before the then duty officer for registration of FIR, that after registration of FIR investigation was handedover to 2 nd IO/Inspector Jaspal, that on 23.04.2024, he alongwith IO/Inspector Jaspal visited the house of deceased, from where IO interrogated and arrested accused Lokesh @ Yogesh vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/J, that personal search of accused was carried out by IO, as per personal search memo Ex.PW16/K, that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Lokesh vide memo Ex.PW16/L, that he got conducted medical examination of the accused and after that he produced accused before concerned court to send him to JC, that on 23.04.2024, ACP Mahesh Kumar took measurements and prepared rough note of the spot at his instance for preparing site plan, that on 30.04.2024, he produced chunni/stall before autopsy surgeon for subsequent opinion and he collected subsequent opinion, that autopsy surgeon returned FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 21 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:29 +0530 said chunni to him after resealing the same and he deposited the same in the malkhana.
48. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW-16 he deposed that no suicide note was recovered till the investigation of the case remained with him. He further deposed that it was not within his knowledge if any previous complaint was lodged at PS Burari either by deceased or by her parents prior to the incident regarding domestic violence, torture, harassment or demand of dowry against accused. He denied that he had not carried out fair investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
49. PW-17/Ct. Buru Tatang deposed that on 07.05.2024, he was posted at PS Burari as constable, that on that day, on the direction of IO, he took 4 sealed pullandas from MHC(M) Burari for depositing the same with FSL Rohini vide RC No.67/21/24, that he deposited aforesaid pullanda in FSL Rohini vide FSL number FSL(DLH)/5552/CHEM/1683/24, that he handed over acknowledgment issued by FSL, to MHC(M), that sealed pullandas were intact while remained in his custody.
50. PW-17 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
51. PW-18 /HC Vikas deposed that on 21.04.2024, he was posted in mobile crime team, north District as HC/photographer, that on that day, on the receipt of information through control room, he alongwith incharge of crime team SI Somveer reached at the spot i.e. ground floor Khasra No.39/3/1 last house at the end of gali no.45, C-B Block, Kaushik Enclave, Burari, Delhi, where SI Shyam Bihari met them with staff alongwith husband of deceased, that they entered into 1 st room of house where he saw one green color chunni was hanging FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 22 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:32 +0530 through window of the room which one end was hanging down to the ground and another end was tied with grill of the window, that he saw that one blue color stool was kept near the toilet, that SI Sombir inspected the spot and prepared his SOC report, that on the direction of IO/SI Shyam Bihari he clicked 30 photographs of the spot from different angle, that thereafter, he alongwith IO and accused went to Burari hospital, where he clicked 10 photographs of deceased on the direction of IO, that he copied photographs clicked by him in a CD from digital camera and handed over the same to IO along with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW18/A, that he had clicked photographs Ex.PW18/B1 to Ex.PW18/B40 through digital camera on 21.04.2024 on the direction of IO.
52. PW-18 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
53. PW-19/ASI Manoj has deposed that on 21.04.2024, he was posted at PS Burari as an ASI. On that day, he was working as MHC(M), that on that day SI Shyam Bihari deposited one mobile phone make Redmi-9A in sealed condition, hairs strands in sealed condition and one chunni in sealed condition in the malkhana and he made entry in register no. 19 in this respect serial no. 2467, that on 22.04.2024, SI Shyam Bihari deposited Viscera Petti of deceased Kirti in sealed condition in the malkhana and he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.2470, that copy of register no. 19 Ex.PW19/A (OSR) (running into 4 pages), that on 07.05.2024, on the direction of IO, he handedover 4 sealed pullanda to Ct. Buru Tatanag for depositing the same with FSL Rohini vide RC No.67/21/24, that Ct. Buru Tatanag handedover copy of acknowledgment to him issued by FSL Ex.PW19/C (OSR), that Case property was intact while remained in his custody.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 23 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:36 +0530
54. PW-19 was not cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused despite opportunity being given for the same.
55. PW-20/Inspector Jaspal Singh deposed that on 22.04.2024, he was posted at PS Burari, that on that day, after the registration of FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him, that he recorded the statement of Uma Devi i.e. mother of deceased, Sh.
Abhishek i.e. brother of deceased, Ms. Anuradha i.e. sister of deceased as well as of other witnesses, that on 23.04.2024, accused Lokesh @ Yogesh, was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/J and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW16/K and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW16/L, that accused Lokesh was remanded to judicial custody, that during investigation, he served notice under Section 91 Cr.PC to Smt. Uma Devi and in response to the said notice, she produced the photographs of marriage and certificate of marriage, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G, that during investigation, he got verified the factum of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir, that he collected postmortem report and also obtained subsequent opinion in respect of ligature material, that on 07.05.2024, the exhibits were sent to FSL, that he recorded the statement of MHC(M). , that on 23.04.2024, Assistant Draftsman Ct. Amit Kumar took measurements and prepared rough notes of the places of occurrence and also prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to him, that he also collected PCR form, that he also verified the medical documents of deceased Preeti, that he also obtained the CDR of mobile number 9625400361 of deceased Preeti and CDR of mobile number 9613666660 of Uma Devi and also the CDR of mobile number 7042170975 of accused Lokesh, that upon completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and upon receipt of FSL report, he prepared the supplementary chargesheet.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 24 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:30:40
+0530
56. In cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, PW-20 deposed that no suicide note was recovered during investigation. He denied that he had not correctly recorded the statements of relative of deceased. He deposed that during investigation, he had not recorded the statements of the neighbours of the matrimonial house of Preeti. He denied that he had not carried out the fair investigation. He deposed that no complaint was lodged by Kirti or by any of her family member prior to the death of Kirti at PS Burari.
57. During trial statement of accused u/s 294 CrPC was recorded wherein accused has admitted the factum of registration of FIR No. 263/24 as Ex.A1, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.A2, GD No. 0142A as Ex.A3 and marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Temple, Harit Vihar Delhi as Ex.A4 and accordingly, PW DO/ ASI Raj Kumar, DO/SI Banwari Prasad and Pandit Yash Dev were dropped from list of witnesses vide order dated 03.03.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
58. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.09.2025 wherein accused has submitted that he has been falsely implicated and infact it was a dowry less marriage being love marriage. He had not demanded any dowry at any point of time. At the time of marriage he came to know that his wife Kirti was suffering from depression and she used to take medicines and used to consult tantriks. Being under depression she committed suicide on her own and her family members got registered false FIR against him in order to extort money from him. Accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence and therefore, defence evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE PARTIES FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 25 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:44 +0530
59. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Amit Khanna, Ld. Counsel for accused. This Court has duly considered the rival contentions, relied upon citations and perused the record carefully.
60. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that death in the present case took place within seven years of marriage of deceased and since there was demand of dowry presumption under Sec. 113B of The Indian Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. He further argued that deceased was being tortured for the demand of dowry. He further argued that PW-1 Ms. Anuradha, PW-2 Ms. Uma Devi and PW-3 Sh. Abhishek have specifically deposed about the harassment and cruelty caused to the deceased by the accused for the purpose of dowry. He also argued that PW-1and PW-2 are witnesses of sterling quality. He also argued that the complete chain of circumstances has been proved by the prosecution. He also argued that due to the harassment and cruelty caused to the deceased, the deceased committed suicide which was abated by the accused. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted under all sections of law in which charges has been framed against him.
61. Per Contra, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his point, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that prior to alleged incident there was no complaint pertaining to dowry FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 26 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:30:52
+0530
demand ever lodged against the accused. He further argued that after deliberations, the mother of deceased got the present FIR registered. He further argued that no previous complaint was ever made by PW-1 and PW2 to any Authorities regarding cruelty and harassment done to the deceased. He further argued that no evidence pertaining to cruelty soon before death has been produced by the prosecution and hence presumption under Sec. 113B is not applicable in the present case. He further argued that no incident with respect to dowry death, cruelty and harassment has been proved by the prosecution. He further argued that testimonies of PW-1,PW-2 and PW3 are suffering from material contradictions. He further argued that it was a love marriage between accused and deceased and no dowry was given in the said marriage. He further argued that PW-1 and PW-2 had not mentioned any dowry articles allegedly given by them at the time of marriage in their statements. He also argued that in the MLC of deceased, no signs of fresh external injuries were found on her body. He also argued that deceased committed suicide as she was sick and under depression . He also argued that deceased was taken to the hospital by accused immediately and if he had any such intention, he would not have taken her to hospital for treatment. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt, accused should be acquitted under all the sections of law in which charges have been framed against him.
APPRECIATION AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS AND FINDINGS
62. In the present case, charges Sec. 498A/304B IPC have been framed against the accused. In case of offence punishable under Sec. 304B IPC, the presumption under Sec. 113B of Indian Evidence Act is also applicable. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 27 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:30:58 +0530 Section 498A and 304B stipulates that:
"498A 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 purposes of this section, "cruelty means"
(a) anywilful 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."
"304B Dowry death:-
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
63. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 28 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:03 +0530
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
64. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that:
"dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC."
65. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of wife of the accused Lokesh occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:
"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 FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 29 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:06 +0530 shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
66. The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
67. In the present case, the prosecution has to prove that the accused subjected deceased Kirti to cruelty under section 498A IPC and caused her death for the purpose of dowry under Sec. 304B IPC .
68. To bring its case within the purview of Section 304B IPC, a valid marriage between deceased Kirti and accused Lokesh@ Yogesh has to be proved by the prosecution. In the present case, the marriage between deceased and accused has not been disputed on behalf of accused during the trial. As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PW-1/Ms. Anuradha, PW-2/Smt. Uma Devi and PW-3/Sh. Abhishek, the marriage between accused and deceased took place on 20.01.2024 and the death of deceased took place on 21.04.2024 and hence the death of deceased took place within seven years of her marriage with the accused .
69. To prove its case under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is also required to prove that the death of deceased Kirti was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise other than the normal circumstances. Such death may be suicidal as well as homicidal. The death in normal circumstances will not be covered under Sec. 304B IPC.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 30 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:10 +0530
70. Perusal of the record reveals that after the deceased was admitted to Burari Hospital, in unconscious state, her MLC, Ex. PW-5/A was prepared by PW-5/Dr. Neeraj. PW-5/Dr. Neeraj deposed that he examined the patient namely Kirti vide MLC, Ex. PW-5/A and declared her brought dead. In the MLC of deceased , no external injury on her body showing the signs of cruelty done to her soon before her death have been mentioned. PW-9/Dr. A. S. Bajwa conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased and proved his report Ex. PW-9/A and as per his expert opinion, death was caused due to asphyxia. He also not deposed regarding any external injury on body of deceased Kirti. During cross examination he admitted that he did not find any other external injuries on the body of deceased except ligature mark present on the neck of deceased. The death of deceased Kirti was not caused due to any burn or bodily injury but the death had taken place in circumstances other than the normal circumstances and the death had taken place due to commission of suicide by hanging. Thus, it is a clear cut case of suicide and this Court has to determine whether the deceased Kirti committed suicide due to the cruelty caused upon her soon before her death by the accused for the purpose of demand of dowry.
71. To establish its case under Sec. 304B IPC, one of main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death, the deceased Kirti was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.
72. Soon before death does not mean at any time before or immediately before death. The expression soon before death cannot be given a narrower meaning.
73. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu cited as (2004) 9 SCC 157' while dealing with the expression soon before death FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 31 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:14 +0530 observed as under:-
"5. a conjoint reading of Section 113 B of Evidence Act and Section 304 B 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 natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise then in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before death' is very relevant where Section 113 B of Evidence Act and Section 304 B of 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 presumption operates. Evidence in this regard has to be led in by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fix period, and that brings in the importance of proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising presumption u/s 113 B of Evidence Act. The expression 'Soon before death' used in the substantive section 304 B IPC and Section 113 B of Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'Soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'Soon before' used in Section 114 illustration (a) of Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that Court may presume that a man who is in possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief who had 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 the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that 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 proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on the dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequences."
74. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2010) 12 SCC 350' observed as under:-
"19. we have already referred to the provisions of Section 304 B of Code and most significant expression used in the FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 32 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:18 +0530 Section is 'Soon before her death'. In our view, the expression 'Soon before her death' cannot be given a restricted or narrower meaning. They must be understood in the plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and therefore, cannot be given a such narrower meaning which would defeat the very purpose of provisions of the act. Of course, these are the penal provisions and must receive strict construction. But, even the rule of strict construction requires that the provisions have to be read in conjunction with each other relevant provisions and the scheme of the Act. Further, the interpretation given should be one which would avoid absurd results on the one hand and would further the object and cause of law so enacted on the other.
20. we are of considered view that concept reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for appreciation and examination of such cases"
75. PW-5/ Dr. Neeraj who prepared MLC of deceased Kirti, Ex. PW-5/A and PW-9 Dr. A. S. Bajwa who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and proved the postmortem report, Ex. PW-9/A have categorically admitted that they did not find any other external injury marks on the body of deceased except ligature mark thereby giving an inference that there was no external injury marks found on the body of deceased which could have been caused due to the cruelty done to her soon before her death. This has weakened the case of the prosecution with respect to the cruelty caused to deceased Kirti soon before her death.
76. PW-1/Ms. Anuradha(sister of deceased) has deposed that her sister told her that accused Lokesh used to taunt her by saying that he has not received any dowry in the marriage and on one occasion Kirti told her that accused Lokesh is demanding money from her. The said aspect of her testimony does not inspire confidence of the court as it is admitted by PW-1 that marriage between deceased and accused was love cum arrange marriage and no dowry was demanded either before or at the time of marriage. She further admitted that after marriage she FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 33 of 48 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:23 +0530 met accused Lokesh twice but her testimony nowhere reveals that accused Lokesh in the said meetings ever taunted her or demanded any dowry from her. PW-1 has categorically admitted that neither Lokesh nor his parents made demand of dowry from her. On the contrary, her testimony further reveals that when she met her sister(deceased) she was found sick and under depression and she was on antidepressant medicines and she even asked her sister about the reason of said depression and sickness but her sister(deceased) replied that there is nothing wrong with her. Thus, the overall impact of the testimony of PW-1 is that her sister has committed suicide not because of demand of dowry but due to sickness and depression.
77. PW-2 /Smt. Uma Devi (mother of deceased) deposed that her daughter Kirti fell in love with accused Lokesh. She further deposed that prior to the marriage of her daughter with accused Lokesh, no demand was made by accused Lokesh and his family members. She further deposed that on 20.01.2024, marriage of her daughter Kirti was solemnized with accused Lokesh in Arya Samaj Mandir and at the time of marriage, no dowry demand was made by accused and his family memebers. She further deposed that her daughter (Kirti) told her that accused Lokesh started harassing her on account of dowry demand by saying "mere bhaiyo ko bahut kuch mila, tumhare ghar walo ne kuch nhi diya". She also deposed that after marriage, health condition of her daughter became worse, her daughter was in depression and accused used to take her to tantrik/baba for "jhar fukk"
as he was suspecting that deceased was suffering from paranormal activities. In the cross examination, PW-2 deposed that she did not file any police complaint against lokesh prior to the incident. She admitted that after marriage, one day, she alongwith accused took her daughter to bawana for "jhar fukk" by tantrik. She further deposed that she did not make PCR call after getting knowledge about suicide incident of FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 34 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.01
16:31:27
+0530
her daughter. She also deposed that she never told to parents of accused lokesh that accused was harassing her daughter. She also deposed that after marriage, accused never demanded any dowry from her.
78. In view of the aforesaid, it emerged that it was a love cum arrange marriage and no dowry was demanded prior to marriage, at the time of marriage or after the marriage. It is also emerged that no complaint was filed before the police from the date of marriage till the death of Kriti regarding dowry demands. PW-2 has even admitted that after marriage the health condition of her daughter got deteriorated and she was under depression and accused also used to take her to tantrik and after marriage even on one occasion she along with accused took her daughter Kirti to Bawana for "Jhadd Fukk" by Tantrik and she categorically admitted that after marriage accused Lokesh himself never made any demand of dowry from her. Thus, the overall impact of the testimony of PW-2 shows that the cause of death of her daughter was not demand of dowry by accused, but her daughter was suffering from depression and her health got deteriorated after marriage and she even accompanied accused to a tantrik for "Jhadd Fukk"/ treatment purposes.
79. PW3/ Abhishek who is brother of deceased Kirti deposed that marriage of his sister Kirti (deceased) was solemnized with accused Lokesh on 20.01.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir in the presence of her family members as well as family members of accused Lokesh. He further deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister Kirti neither accused Lokesh nor his family member made any demand of dowry. He also deposed that after marriage, his sister Kirti remained ill and one day, when his sister was present at his house, she told him, in the presence of his mother, that Lokesh taunt her by saying "mere bhaio FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 35 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:31 +0530 ko shadi mein bahut sara saman aur dahej mila hai, mujhe kuch nahi mila". He also deposed that on the asking of his sister Kirti, he purchased one washing machine for her and promised her to give her one almirah on the occasion of her birthday. He also deposed that in the month of April, 2024, during Navratra Lokesh came at his house and took his sister to his another house in Moti Bagh. When accused Lokesh came at his house for taking back his sister Kirti his younger sister Anuradha told to Lokesh that " doctor ko dikhao jhar fukk mat karo". He also deposed that he came to know through his mother that his sister Kirti had told her that she was suffering from pain in back portion of her body and when his mother checked her back portion, she found signs of hunter/koda on her back portion. On asking about the injuries on her body part, she told his mother that " Lokesh ne tantrik bulaya tha, jisne mujhe koday se pita aur bakray ki bali bhi di gai". He also told to accused Lokesh that " meri bhen ko idhar udhar jhar fukh mat kara, usko hospital mein dikha". Accused Lokesh insisted him to bear medical treatment expenses of his sister Kirti. He deposed that on 21.04.2024, he left his house at about 10-10:00 am for office and at that time his sister Kirti was present at his house and she was normal at that time. On that day, at about 06:00 pm, he was informed by his wife that his sister Kirti had committed suicide in her matrimonial home.
80. In the cross examination PW-3deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister no furniture and electronic items were given to her by them, that he never took his sister Kirti to hospital for her medical treatment, that accused Lokesh personally/individually never demanded dowry from him, that he never made a police complaint against accused Lokesh in PS prior to alleged incident, that he did not make PCR call after getting knowledge of death of his sister Kirti, that he was aware that his sister Kirti and accused Lokesh were having love affair and they wanted to get marry, that parents of accused FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 36 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:35 +0530 Lokesh never demanded dowry from him.
81. It is evident from the testimony of PW3/Abhishek that at the time of marriage neither accused Lokesh nor his family members made any demand of dowry. After marriage his sister Kirti remained ill. He also deposed that when accused Lokesh came to their house for taking Kirti to his house, her younger sister Anuradha told to accused Lokesh for taking Kirti to a doctor and accused Lokesh even assured that he will take Kirti for medical treatment to a hospital thereby giving an inference that deceased was suffering from illness. Even during cross-examination this witness has categorically admitted that accused Lokesh personally/ individually never demanded any dowry from him and he never made a police complaint against accused Lokesh prior to the incident and even parents of accused Lokesh never demanded any dowry from him. Thus, the overall impact of testimony of PW-3 is that it was a dowryless marriage and accused never demanded any dowry from this witness either prior to marriage, or at the time of marriage or after the marriage and this witness has even admitted that after marriage deceased Kirti remained ill and even they insisted for taking Kirti to hospital. This witness has also admitted that when accused Lokesh dropped Kirti at her house though she was ill but he never took her to hospital rather he told accused to take Kirti to hospital and thus from the testimony of PW-3 it could not be established that Kirti committed suicide, because of demand of dowry.
82. Now, it is appropriate to discuss the testimony of PW-4 Mohmd Yasim. This witness has deposed that on 21.04.2024 at about 01.00 pm accused Lokesh brought Kirti and he made inquiries from Kirti and she replied that she was suffering from headache and he made "sar dard ka jhadda"' and he even advised Lokesh to get his wife treated by doctor, that thereafter, accused Lokesh and his wife left the shop, that after about 01 hour, Lokesh informed him telephonically FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 37 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:41 +0530 that his wife has committed suicide. During cross-examination he deposed that no quarrel took place between Lokesh and his wife in his presence. This witness has nowhere deposed that Kirti ever told him that she was subjected to cruelty for the sake of dowry, rather this witness has deposed regarding the physical condition of Kirti that she was ill and thus the testimony of this witness is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish that Kirti was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.
83. PW-7/Dr. Mausumi Sinha deposed that on 09.04.2024, patient Kirti was brought to OPD by her husband and mother-in-law for psychiatric treatment. Medical history of the patient was given by her husband and her mother-in-law because patient did not speak anything despite her best efforts, she advised some medicines to her and prepared MLC of Kirti Ex.PW7/A. During cross-examination this witness has deposed that she prescribed medicines/ stress medicines to patient Kirti based upon her symptoms which she observed at that time. Thus, the testimony of PW-7 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner rather this witness has testified that Kirti was ill and she prescribed stress medicines to Kirti based upon her symptoms. This witness has also nowhere deposed that Kirti ever told her that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry.
84. PW-8/Sh. Raman, Executive Magistrate is a formal witness who has not deposed anything incriminating qua accused.
85. PW-10/Sh. Naval Kishor who exhibited the FSL report as Ex.PW10/A has deposed that on chemical microscopic and other tests, methyl poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1, Ex.2 and Ex.3. Accordingly, nothing incriminating came on record in testimony of this witness also.
86. PW-11/Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, who exhibited the FSL report as Ex.P11/A deposed that no DNA profile could be generated from FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 38 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:45 +0530 the exhibits and thus her testimony is of no consequence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
87. PW-12/Praveen Kumar and PW-13/Rajeev Vashisht exhibited the CDR of mobile no. 9613666660 as Ex.PW12/D and CDR of mobile no. 7042170975 as Ex.PW13/C respectively. Nothing incriminating has come out from their testimonies against accused.
88. PW-16/ SI Shyam deposed to have conducted investigation and seized certain exhibits and also deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW16/I. This witness during cross-examination has categorically admitted that no suicide note was recovered till the investigation of the case remained with him and he also deposed that it is not within his knowledge if any previous complaint was lodged at PS Burari either by deceased or by her parents prior to the incident regarding domestic violence, harassment or demand of dowry against accused. Admittedly, he has not recorded the statement of any independent public witness from the neighborhood from the matrimonial house of deceased and thus his testimony does not connect the accused with the commission of offence in any manner.
89. PW-20/Inspector Jaspal Singh deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and arrest of accused and also about verification of the factum of marriage. During cross-examination this witness has deposed that no suicide note was recovered during investigation and he categorically admitted that he has not recorded the statements of the neighbors of the matrimonial house of Kirti. He also admitted that no complaint was lodged by deceased or by any of her family members prior to the death of Kirti at PS Burari. Thus, the testimony of this PW does not incriminate accused in respect of the commission of offences charged against him.
90. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304B shows that there must be material to show that soon FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 39 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:49 +0530 before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman are required to be established to bring home the application of section 498A IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt under Sections 498A/304B is highly scanty. The statements given by the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, discrepancies and improvements which affect the core of the prosecution case particularly when all these allegations have been leveled only after the unfortunate incident of death. It is certain that the prosecution was unable to bring on record cogent and reliable testimony to establish that the accused was solely responsible or were instrumental in her death.
91. Further, in view of the evidence on record, I am of the view that the allegation of demand of dowry as leveled by the witnesses i.e. by PW-1 to PW-3 was an afterthought and an over reaction to the death of Kirti. No complaint of demand of dowry was made prior to the death of Kirti but it was made only after the unfortunate death of Kirti.
92. Further, there is no evidence showing any persistent dowry demand or the conduct of the accused subjecting Kirti (deceased) to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry.
93. Perusal of the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Mausumi Sinha further damaged the case of the prosecution as PW-7 has categorically deposed that she prescribed medicines/ stress medicines to patient Kirti based upon her symptoms and even PW-1 to PW-3 in their respective testimonies have admitted that after marriage Kirti fell ill and was subjected to treatment.
94. It has been established during the investigation that Kirti was FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 40 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:54 +0530 ill and was subjected to treatment.
95. No prosecution witness has deposed that the deceased was ever beaten up at her matrimonial house by accused for the sake of dowry. Admittedly, no neighbour who could have seen any cruelty or harassment has been examined by the prosecution. PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 are not the eyewitnesses of any of the alleged incidents of harassment at matrimonial house of deceased and their evidence in this regard is hearsay in nature which is not admissible under the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
96. Thus, the prosecution has neither produced any medical or scientific evidence nor any other admissible evidence like suicide note to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the purpose of dowry soon before her death. The prosecution has not brought specific dates or months of alleged incidents of cruelty on record. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased kirti was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death.
97. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. cited as (2000) 5 SCC 207 has observed as under:-
"16. No presumption u/s 113 B of Evidence Act would be drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty thereafter. Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the woman."
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 41 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:31:58 +0530
98. PW-2 deposed that she performed love marriage of her daughter with accused on 20.01.2024. She also deposed that accused and deceased wanted to marry each other and on their request, their marriage was solemnized. Thus, the marriage between accused and deceased was a love marriage. PW-1 to PW3 have admitted that accused never demanded any dowry from them.
99. PW-1 to PW3 miserably failed to depose as to when and what dowry articles were demanded by the accused from the deceased specifically. PW 1 and PW2 deposed that deceased told her that accused demanded money from her and asked her to bring the same from her parents and brother. But they failed to depose any specific date , time and amount of such money demand and accordingly these allegations are general, vague and hearsay in nature and therefore cannnot be relied upon so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 also deposed that PW3 gave washing machine to deceased as accused pressurized her for demanding the same from her parents. However PW3 deposed that she gave the same on asking of her deceased sister. PW3 nowhere deposed that her deceased sister was pressurized by accused to bring the same thereby contradicting testimony of each other materially regarding demand of washing machine by the accused as dowry. Furthermore, no specific date, time and place of said demand is disclosed by any prosecution witness so as to ascertain the correctness of such version and therefore, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that accused has ever demanded money or washing machine as dowry. Perusal of testimony of PW2/mother of deceased reveals that she is completely silent about any such dowry demand in the form of washing machine by the accused. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW-2 and PW3 with respect to demand of specific things as dowry.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 42 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:02 +0530
100. PWs in their cross-examination has specifically admitted that they had not given any complaint in the PS regarding harassment and torture of deceased by accused in connection of demand of dowry prior to incident in question.Prosecution has also not proved any medical document pertaining to any injury caused to deceased in the past by accused for the purpose of demand of dowry. Non-production of any medical evidence and non-production of any previous complaint has weakened the case of the prosecution.
101. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident of cruelty and harassment took place at the matrimonial house of deceased . PW-1 to PW-3have not deposed that they had witnessed any such incident. Prosecution has not examined any other independent witness who may have witnessed the alleged incidents of cruelty. This has weaken the case of the prosecution with respect to the alleged cruelty and harassment.
102. In the present case, no specific date, time and place of alleged cruelty or harassment has been brought on record by the prosecution. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kans Raj (Supra), the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is not applicable in the present case.
103. Accused has taken the defence that deceased has committed suicide as she was suffering from depression and was not well. PW1 to PW3 have also admitted this fact of her illness and advised accused to take the deceased to a doctor for treatment in their testimony. Through, this defence, accused has put a dent on prosecution story and he has been successful in creating a doubt in this regard.
104. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 43 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:06 +0530 testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
105. In case titled as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 44 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:10 +0530 intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
106. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :-
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not find her evidence to be of such quality."
107. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
108. Due to material contradictions in testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW3, giving of different versions , coupled with non-examination of any independent witness of the alleged incidents of cruelty, absence of suicide note, allegations being general and vague in nature and not specific, serious doubts have been created upon the versions of PW-1,PW-2 and PW3 as well as on prosecution story. The versions of PW-1 to PW-3 are not natural one. The things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material evidence.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 45 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:14 +0530 The testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused.
109. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
110. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
111. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is FIR No. 342/2016, PS: Subzi Mandi State Vs. Lalit Anand @ Rahul Page No. 47 of 49 prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 46 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:18 +0530
112. In the present case, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused.
113. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and appreciation of evidence, it is established that the deceased Kirti committed suicide by hanging herself, however, the prosecution has miserably failed to relate the same to any dowry related harassment caused to her by the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish any proximity or live link between the death of deceased or any misconduct by the accused. The allegations made by the family of the deceased regarding demand of dowry are totally vague and non specific in relation to time and place. It is an admitted fact that no complaint was ever made to any authority relating to demand of dowry prior to incident in question. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the role of the accused Lokesh @ Yogesh in the commission of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt nor there is anything on record to show that the deceased had taken the extreme step of committing suicide on account of abetment by the accused relating to demand of dowry. Hence, benefit of doubt goes to the credit of accused and accordingly, accused Lokesh @ Yogesh is hereby acquitted for the offence under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code.
114. Necessary BB with surety along with latest passport size photograph and residence proof furnished in compliance of Section 437A CrPC. Same is accepted for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 47 of 48 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:23 +0530 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.01 16:32:29 +0530 Pronounced and Signed in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) st on 1 day of April, 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CERTIFICATE:
The judgment contains 48 pages and each page has been singed Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN by me. JAIN Date:
2026.04.01 16:32:33 +0530 (Shilpi Jain) Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 01.04.2026 FIR No. 561/2015 State Vs. Lokesh @ Yogesh. Page No. 48 of 48