Delhi District Court
State vs Vikram @ Bunty on 24 March, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
NEW DELHI
SC 185/2017
STATE Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors.
FIR No. 455/2016
PS: Sagarpur
U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC
DLND010083372017
STATE VS. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors.
SC No. : 185/2017
Date of offence : 20.12.2016
Accused : 1. Vikram @ Bunty
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 1 of 121
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals
Digitally
Syed signed by
Syed Zishan
Zishan Ali Warsi
Ali Date:
2026.03.24
Warsi 17:36:49
+0530
2
2. Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Damodar Prasad
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Subodh Kumar
S/o Sh. Damodar Prasad
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
4. Sh. Sharvan Kumar
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander
Paswan
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
5. Smt. Pushpa Devi
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 2 of 121
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals
Syed Digitally
signed by
Zishan Syed Zishan
Ali Warsi
Ali Date:
2026.03.24
Warsi 17:37:03
+0530
3
6. Smt. Bindu Devi
W/o Sh. Subhodh Kumar
R/o H. No. RZ 106/2,
Gali No. 11D,
Durga Park, Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
Offence : U/s. 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 21.03.2017
Plea of accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Accused No. 1, 2 & 3
are convicted u/s 304B,
498-A both r/w 34 IPC.
Accused No. 4, 5 & 6
are acquitted for all the
offences.
Date of committal : 27.05.2017
Date of arguments : 14.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.03.2026
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 3 of 121
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals
Syed Digitally signed
by Syed Zishan
Zishan Ali Warsi
Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:37:14
Warsi +0530
4
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons were committed for trial vide order dated 27.05.2017 by court of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. MM-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
2. On 02.06.2017, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was put before Sh. Rakesh Pandit, Special Judge:
MCOCA/TADA/POTA, ASJ-03, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi with a view to put accused on trial.
3. Brief facts on the basis of which charge sheet was filed in the present matter are as follows:-
3.1. The case of prosecution on 21.12.2016, SI Mohit was deployed on Emergency Duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM and upon receiving DD No. 4A he alongwith Constable Jagdish reached the spot i.e. DDU Hospital and he obtained MLC No. 12362/16 of Priyanka, w/o Vikram, R/o RZ-106/2, Durga Park, Gali No. 11D, Sagarpur and the doctor declared Priyanka State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 4 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:37:25 +0530 5 Brought Dead and doctor noted A/H/O Consumption of Unknown substance. The father-in-law of the deceased, Naresh Kumar was present at the hospital and the body of the deceased was preserved in the mortuary in proper condition. Upon inquiry, it was disclosed that Priyanka was married on 27 April 2016. These facts were reported to senior officers and SDM, Sh. S.K. Rawat was informed via telephone, who find the proceedings proper and ordered that Priyanka's parents and relatives be informed. After this, he along with Ct. Jagdish and the deceased's father-in-law, Naresh Kumar, reached the incident site at RZ-106/2, GALI NO. 11D, Durga Park, New Delhi and he rang the bell and the main door of the house opened. The Crime Team was informed and called to the spot. The crime team took photographs of the scene inside the house i.e. the area in front of the kitchen and bathroom. Upon inquiry, it was found that Priyanka had consumed insecticide from a plastic bottle labeled 'DYSAC', which has been taken into police custody as maal mukadma via a seizure memo and Priyanka's personal diary was taken into police custody from her bedroom via a seizure memo State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 5 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:37:44 +0530 6 and on 23.12.2016, the deceased Priyanka's brother, Balkrishna S/o Kedar Paswan, and Priyanka's sister's husband, Prem Prakash Kumar S/o Late Baijnath Manjhi, appeared, to whom he, took them to the office of Executive Magistrate Sh. S.K. Rawat at Najafgarh, where Sh. S.K. Rawat recorded their statements and statement of Bal Krishan Kumar is that he live with his family at the address mentioned above. Priyanka was his sister, whose marriage took place with Vikram @ Bunty on 27/4/2016. The marriage was conducted with the mutual consent of both families and with rites and rituals. In this marriage, Shravan played the role of the mediator. One day before the wedding, a demand for Rs.1,00,000/- was made by Vinod and Subodh, who are Vikram's paternal uncles. As he was not having the money, his maternal uncle (Vasudev Paswan) arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and it was given to Vinod and Subodh at their house Village Nandalalpur. At the time of giving one lakh rupees, besides them, Shravan, Vinod's wife, and Subodh's wife were also present. Only after giving one lakh rupees the barat come to his house. After the marriage, she was in Nandalalpur for one month. He had gone to Nandalalpur State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 6 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:37:54 +0530 7 to meet Priyanka, but he was not allowed to meet her there. While he was leaving from there, Priyanka did his farewell while crying from the roof. At his home, his father is suffering from paralysis and a serious illness and his mother, or he has to be present at home, that is why he used to occasionally call Priyanka to check her well-being. Priyanka was restricted from even talking to them. She did not seem happy in her in-laws' house. She told him that Vinod and Subodh's wife used to taunt her over small things and trouble her. About two months ago, Priyanka told him fearfully that Vikram is demanding two lakh rupees and was pressuring Priyanka to talk to him regarding those two lakh rupees. He made his situation clear to Priyanka that due to father's illness, no money is saved at home, and for this reason, he would not be able to give two lakh rupees. Priyanka was sensible and educated, she understood his situation well. Because of this, she out of hesitation never brought it up again and continued to tolerate all the atrocities herself. She often used to cry while talking on the phone but she never mentioned the mental torture she was undergoing and in the end, while suffering State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 7 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:38:05 +0530 8 the pain, she left this world. Vinod and Subodh had also asked him for two lakh rupees through Shravan. Shravan used to meet him often in the village and would pressure him to give two lakh rupees. He had clearly refused Shravan. Due to Vikram not receiving two lakhs in dowry, all these people, including Vikram, Vinod, and Subodh, mentally harassed Priyanka and wives of Vinod and Subodh mistreated Priyanka and forced her into a state for which her in-laws are entirely responsible. The post- mortem of the deceased Priyanka was conducted at DDU Hospital by the SDM. The SDM handed over the recorded copy of the statement to the SI and directed that immediate action be taken as per law. Subsequently, the PM exhibits were taken into police custody and deposited in the malkhana. Based on the aforementioned statement and the circumstances observed from the MLC, a case appears to be made out under Sections 304B/498A/34 of IPC. Consequently, he submitted a tahrir to the Duty Officer to register the case and took up the investigation. During the investigation, he i.e. SI Mohit, inspected the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 8 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:38:14 +0530 9 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He raided the house of accused Vikram and on his identification by Bal Krishan, the accused Vikram s/o Naresh Kumar, r/o H.No. RZ-108/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park, New Delhi, was arrested after recording his confession statement (fard inksaf) and all arrest-related documents were completed at the spot and information regarding his arrest was given to his family members. After conducting a medical examination of the accused, he was produced before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi. The learned Judge ordered the accused to be sent to J.C. After that a search was conducted for the co-accused in this case. Raids were conducted at the residences of the co-accused namely Vinod Kumar s/o Damodar, Subodh s/o Damodar, Smt. Pushpa w/o Vinod, Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Subodh and Sharvan s/o Shubhash Chand but they were not found at their homes. A draft scale site map of the case was prepared. Subsequently, their bail matter was attended in the Ld. Sessions Court, where, the Learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Thereafter, he summoned the aforementioned five accused persons and after questioning, the five accused they State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 9 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:38:28 +0530 10 were formally arrested in this case and and the exhibits (viscera) of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Upon receiving the final report, a final opinion obtained from the Doctor, and a separate supplementary charge sheet prepared and presented before the Hon'ble Court.
3.2. From the investigation conducted , based on the statements of witnesses, the MLC and the Postmortem Report, sufficient evidence has been found against the accused namely Vikram s/o Naresh Kumar, Vinod Kumar s/o Damodar, Subodh s/o Damodar, Smt. Pushpa w/o Vinod, Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Subodh, Sharvan s/o Shubhash Chand. The evidence was found sufficient to file a chargesheet under Sections 304-B/498A/34 of IPC. Therefore, the chargesheet against the accused namely Vikram s/o Naresh Kumar, Vinod Kumar s/o Damodar, Subodh s/o Damodar, Smt. Pushpa w/o Vinod, Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Subodh, Sharvan s/o Shubhash Chand under Sections 304B/498A/34 of IPC was submitted for further proceedings.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 10 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:38:41 +0530 11 3.3. On 03.10.2024 supplementary charge-sheet qua the subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death and manner of death filed by the IO / Inspector Neeraj Kumar. In the subsequent opinion, it was stated that as per FSL report dated 21.04.2017 Dichlorvos pesticide was detected in the blood and viscera of deceased. It was opined that cause of death was due to Dichlorvos poisoning as a result of its consumption and manner of death appears to be suicidal.
4. Charge under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC was framed against accused Vikram, Vinod Kumar, Subodh Kumar, Sarwan Kumar, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Bindu Devi IPC was framed against accused persons on 22.09.2017. On the facts that on 20.12.2016 between 9:00 pm to 11 pm at H. No. RZ-106/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park, within the jurisdiction of PS Sagarpur, they all in furtherance of their common intention had created circumstances and due to that reason, Smt. Priyanka was found dead at the aforesaid place otherwise than normal circumstances (died due to intake of poisonous substance). She was married to State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 11 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:38:51 +0530 12 Vikram on 27.04.2016. Immediately before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by all of you on account of demand of dowry and thus the death of Ms. Priyanka was "a dowry death". On account of the same, they all in furtherance of their common intention had committed offence punishable under section 304B/34 IPC. Further, on and before aforesaid date and time, at the above said place, they all in furtherance of their common intention subjected Ms. Priyanka to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and they all committed offences punishable under Section 498A/34 IPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses:
S. No. Name of PW Exhibit Nature of document
1. PW-1 Ex.PW1/A, Statement of Bal Sh. Bal Krishan Ex.PW1/B, Krishan Kumar Kumar Ex.PW1/C, recorded by SDM, State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 12 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:39:02 +0530 13 Ex.PW1/D arrest memo of Ex.P-1/1, accused Vikram, Ex.P-1/2, Dead Body Ex.P-1/3 identification & statement of Bal Ex.P-1/4 Krishan Kumar, receipt, diary, invitation card of marriage of his sister, photograph of his sister and photograph of his sister
2. PW-2 Ex.DX , Photograph, Smt. Sheela Devi Ex.PX, Statement u/s 161 Ex.DX1 to CrPC, Ex.DX6 Six photographs,
3. PW-3 Ex.PW3/A1 Seven photographs, Ct. Rakesh to A7 Negatives of & photographs Ex.PW3/B1 to B7.
4. PW-4 Ex.PW4/A, Statement of Sh. Prem Sh. Satish Kumar Ex.PW4/B, Prakash, directions to State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 13 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:39:13 +0530 14 Rawat and SHO, Ex.PW4/C request letter to the HOD, DDU Hospital to conduct postmortem on the dead body of deceased Priyanka
5. PW-5 Ex.PW5/A MLC of Priyanka Dr. Nishu Dhawan
6. PW-6 Ex.PW6/A Report dated Retired SI 21.12.2016 Surender Singh
7. PW-7 Ex.PW7/A, Seizure memo, Ct. Jagdish Ex.PW7/B, Seizure memo, Ex.PW7/C, Seizure memo,
8. PW-8 Ex.PW8/A True copy of DD No. ASI Balwan Singh 4A
9. PW-9 Ex.PW9/A PM report Dr. V.K. Ranga
10. PW-10 Ex.PW10/DA Statement u/s 161 Sh. Prem Prakash CrPC .... ?? to be Kumar mentioned or not ??
11. PW-11 Mark PW11/1 Copy of passbook Sh. Vasudev (colly) showing withdrawal State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 14 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:39:24 +0530 15 Paswan of Rs. 50,000/- on 27.04.2026 ...?? to be mentioned or not ??
12. PW-12 Ex.PW12/A, Memo, Bank W/HC Mintu Mark PW12/B statement and some bills/invoice
13. PW-13 EX.PW13/A Scaled site plan HC Ramesh Kumar
14. PW-14 Ex.PW14/A Personal search HC Banwari Lal memo of accused Vikram @ Bunty
15. PW-15 Ex.PW15/A, FIR, ASI Hari Ram Ex.PW15/B endorsement on rukka
16. PW-16 |Ex.PW16/A, Copy of road HC Pawan Ex.PW16/B, certificate, acknowledgment
17. PW-17 Ex.PW17/A, Endorsement /tehrir, SI Mohit Ex.PW17/B, Site plan, disclosure Ex.PW17/C, statement of accused Ex.PW17/D, Vikram, Inquest Ex.PW17/F1, papers including State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 15 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:39:33
Warsi +0530
16
Ex.PW17/F2, request of concerned Ex.PW17/F3, SDM addressed to Ex.PW17/F4, DDU hospital for Ex.PW17/F5, conducting post Ex.PW17/P1, mortem, arrest & memos of accused Ex.PW17/G persons namely Vinod Kumar, Subodh, Smt. Pushpa, Smt. Bindu Devi and Shravan, plastic container & pointing out memo
18. PW-18 Ex.PW18/A Subsequent opinion Insp. Neeraj of doctor Kumar
19. PW-19 Ex.PW19/A, Report Sh. Amit Rawat Already Detailed subsequent
20. PW-20 Ex. PW18/A opinion Dr. R.K. Chaubey After recording statement of accused, the following defence witness was examined.
1. DW-1 - -
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 16 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:39:42 +0530 17 Naresh Kumar
6. PW1 Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar deposed that he has three sisters. Name of his eldest sister is Renu Prakash. Deceased Priyanka was his youngest sister. His sister Priyanka married with accused Vikram @ Bunty (correctly identified by the witness) on 27.04.2016 according to Hindu Customs and Rites.
Accused Shravan (correctly identified by the witness) was the middle man of the said marriage. Shravan is brother in law (Jija) of accused Vikram @ Bunty. Prior to one day of the marriage, accused Vinod and Subodh (correctly identified by the witness) who are uncles of accused Vikram @ Bunty and Shravan had demanded Rs. 1 Lakh. He was not having the money as the demand was made suddenly. He went to his maternal uncle Sh. Vasudev Paswan who had arranged Rs. 1 Lakh for him. He went to village Nandlal Pur, native village of accused Vikram @ Bunty and he had handed over Rs.1 lakh to Vinod and Subodh. Wives of accused Vinod and Subodh (correctly identified by the witness) were also present there when he had handed over Rs. 1 lakh to Vinod and Subodh. After giving Rs.1 lakh, the barat had reached State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 17 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:39:53 +0530 18 at their house. For about one month after the marriage, Priyanka was in village Nandlal Pur. He went to Nandlal Pur to meet Priyanka but accused persons did not allow him to meet Priyanka. Even at that time he was see off by Priyanka and at that time she was standing on the roof and was crying. Accused persons had not allowed his deceased sister to talk to them. As and when her sister Priyanka tried to call them, he had heard the abusive language on telephone. Whenever they had asked the accused persons to send his sister to their house, accused persons had not allowed her to come to their house. After the marriage she was not allowed to come to their house. After the marriage, whenever Shravan and Subodh met them they had demanded Rs.2 lakh from him. His father was suffering from paralysis and brain hemorrhage at that time and for that reason, he or his mother had to stay at their house for taking care of his father. Priyanka had also told him that accused persons were demanding Rs. 2 lakhs, he had showed his inability to give the money as his father was in critical condition. His sister was not happy with her in laws. Accused persons used to taunt her for illicit demand of State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 18 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:40:07
Warsi +0530
19
dowry. His sister was educated and she knew his financial condition. His sister had not again asked him to give Rs.2 lakh to the accused persons. She used to cry on telephone. Accused Vinod and Subodh also demanded Rs. 2 lakh through Shravan.
Accused persons had harassed his sister mentally and physically.
6.1. Further, he deposed that he had received information from Delhi Police either on 20.12.2016 or 21.12.2016 that his sister had committed suicide. On 23.12.2016 he came to Delhi and met with the police officials. He went to the office of SDM where his statement was recorded by the SDM. Same is Ex.PW1/A. On his statement, the said FIR was recorded. Site plan was prepared and accused Vikram was arrested by the police vide his arrest memo Ex.PW1/B. He had identified the dead body of his sister. His identification statement is Ex.PW1/C. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them for her last rites vide receipt Ex.PW1/D. His sister had told him on telephone that accused persons used to beat her on petty issues. He also came to know that his sister was beaten by the accused persons just prior to her State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 19 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:40:17 +0530 20 death on 20.12.2016. He identified the handwriting of his sister in a diary which is on record. The witness after seeing the diary states that most of the handwriting in the aforesaid diary is of his sister. The diary is Ex.P-1/1.The invitation card of marriage of his sister is Ex. P-1/2 and the photographs of his sister are Ex. P- 1/3 and Ex. P-1/4.
6.2. PW1 during his cross-examination deposed that it is correct that he has no proof that he had borrowed Rs.1 lakh from his maternal uncle prior to the marriage. Accused Vinod had demanded Rs.1 lakh from him and at that time his mother was present there.
6.3. Further, he deposed that he had never made any complaint to any authority regarding the alleged demand of dowry or alleged harassment of his sister prior to his complaint Ex.PW1/A. Sonu is son of his elder sister's jeth.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 20 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:40:39 +0530 21
7. PW2 Smt. Sheela deposed that she is mother of deceased Priyanka. On 27.04.2016, her daughter Priyanka was married to Vikram. She had transferred rupees one lakh to the bank account of Vikram and rupees one lakh was given to Vinod in cash before marriage. They had demanded this money as a condition for marriage. Thereafter, one Sharvan was sent to them by Vinod for collecting rupees one lakh. They did not make the payment and She alongwith her son Bal Krishan Kumar went to Nand Lalpur, where Vinod and Subodh were residing and pleaded with them with folded hands to let the marriage of he daughter solemnize and they also touched their feet. However, they told them that the barat would not come if the money was not given. Thereafter, they returned to their house. Her brother, who had visited her at her house, asked them not to get agitated. Thereafter, her brother gave them rupees fifty thousand after withdrawing the money from his bank account and rupees fifty thousand was collected by them from here and there. Thereafter, she alongwith her son Bal Krishan went to Vinod and Subodh and handed over the amount of rupees one lakh to them. She also wish to tell that when she State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 21 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:40:53
Warsi +0530
22
alongwith her son had visited Vinod and Subodh for pleading that they could not arrange rupees one lakh, they also threatened to return rupees two lakhs, which they had earlier given and asked Sharvan to return it, threatening them that marriage would not take place. Thereafter, barat came and marriage was solemnized. Thereafter, Vikram and her daughter came to Delhi. In the month of Savan, she asked mother of Vikram on telephone to send her daughter to her house as in the first Savan after marriage, a married girl should visit her parental home. However, she told her that Vikram wanted Priyanka to visit her parental house only after Holi. She also again requested mother of Vikram to send her daughter to her house on Dusshera but she refused. She again requested her to send her daughter to her house on Chhat Puja, but they refused. Despite her insistence, they did not budge. Her daughter was kept well by Vikram for the first two months and thereafter, they started harassing her. Chachia saas of her daughter, named Pushpa used to taunt her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. Sharvan used to demand rupees two lakhs from them for expending their business. However, they told them State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 22 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:41:52 +0530 23 that they were not in a position to give this amount. Thereafter, they decided to send her son Bal Krishna to visit Priyanka at Delhi in the month of December. This was planned by them on the day of Monday. However on Tuesday, they were informed by the police that Priyanka had died. The phone was received by her son Bal Krishan whereby he was informed by the police about the death of Priyanka. Thereafter, her son Bal Krishan and her son-in-law Prem Prakash came to Delhi. Her husband and herself were unable to come to Delhi. Sharvan, who is related to her son-in-law Vikram, was making all the arrangements of marriage on behalf of the accused persons. Her daughter told her that her chachia sasurs Vinod and Subodh were demanding-rupees two lakhs. Before her death, her daughter had told her about a quarrel with her. She identified all accused persons. The accused keep sending different persons to her house for compromising the matter but she refused as that would not revive her daughter. The keep sending different persons even at odd hours.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 23 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi Ali 2026.03.24 17:42:05 Warsi +0530 24 7.1. PW2 during her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram, she deposed that she has two daughters, namely, Renu and Reena and one son, namely, Balkrishan. Her daughter Priyanka is already dead. Her other two daughters, namely, Sweety and Beauty are already dead. Her daughter Sweety died when she was in class seventh. Her other daughter Beauty died when she was in matriculation. She had solemnized a love marriage and she did not know whether she is dead or alive. She could not say as to how Sweety died. Sharvan had brought the proposal of marriage of Vikram with Priyanka. Sharvan is related to them through the younger brother of her husband. Vikram used to reside in Delhi and her son Bal Krishan had come to take a look on his house and his family in Delhi. She herself did not come. Her husband was overseer in Silk Department and was posted in Ranchi. He was a government official. Her husband suffered paralytic stroke in 2012. He had recovered but later on suffered brain hemorrhage. He used to keep remembering the deceased daughter Priyanka. They have no source of income except the pension of her husband. Her husband retired in 2010.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 24 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:42:22 +0530 25 Before marriage, no ceremony was conducted pertaining to the marriage. It is correct that five days before the marriage, the family members of Vikram had come to her house and they gave rupees three thousand one hundred, one gold ring and clothes to Priyanka as gift. No clothes etc. were given to her or her son. They had given due regard to them when they had come on the abovesaid occasion. It takes about one hour to reach Nandlal Pur by bike from their house. After the marriage, Priyanka had gone to Nandlal Pur. She did not recall it exactly. She did not tell police in her statement that she had asked mother-in-law of her daughter to send her daughter to her house in the first Saavan after marriage as married girls should visit their parental home. She had also not told police that she told her that Vikram wanted Priyanka to visit her parental house only after Holi. She also did not tell police that she had requested mother of Vikram to send her daughter to her house on Dusshera but she refused. It is correct that she also did not tell police that she again requested her to send her daughter to her house on Chhat Puja but they refused. She also did not tell police that despite her insistence State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 25 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed Syed by Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.24 17:42:38 +0530 26 they did not budge. She also did not tell police that chachia saas of her daughter namely Pushpa used to taunt her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. She also did not tell police that Sarvan used to demand Rs. 2 lacs from them for expanding their business. She also did not tell police that they told them that they were not in a position to give this amount. Court Question: Why did not you tell these facts to the police but chose to tell so in Court?
Ans. At the time of her examination by police, she was not in right mental frame.
7.2. Further, PW2 deposed that she had told the police that Sarvan, who is related to her son-in-law Vikram was making all arrangements of marriage on behalf of accused persons. Her attention has been invited to her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the same has been read over to him. It is correct that this fact does not find mention in her statement, Ex.PX.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 26 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:42:53 +0530 27 7.3. PW2 during her cross-examination by Ld. counsel for remaining accused and he adopted the aforesaid cross examination. It is correct that in-laws of her daughter were well off financially and that is why she agreed to marry her daughter in their family. They also have agricultural land. She deposed that Vipin Paswan is son of her cousin jethani. It is correct that she did not tell the police that her daughter told her that her chachia sasur Vinod and Subodh were demanding rupees two lacs. She did not accompany her brother to the bank when he had withdrawn rupees fifty thousand.
8. PW3 Ct. Rakesh deposed that on 21.12.2016, he was posted at Crime Team, South-West, New Delhi as constable/photographer. On that day, one information was received from Control Room regarding the fact that one woman had consumed something. He alongwith Incharge Crime Team SI Surender Singh, Fingerprint Expert ASI Kulbhushan went to the spot, that is, RZ-106/2, Gali No.11-D, Durga Park in an official vehicle driven by ASI/Driver Rajender. There IO/SI Mohit was State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 27 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:43:04 +0530 28 already present. He asked him to take photographs of the scene of occurrence. Accordingly, he took seven photographs. These photographs are Ex.PW3/A1 to A7. He has also brought their negatives, which are now Ex.PW3/B1 to B7.
9. PW4 Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat deposed that on 21.12.2026, he was posed as Executive Magistrate, Dwarka. On that day, he received a call from SI Mohit, PS Sagarpur that one lady named Priyanka had been reported to be dead by the doctors of DDU Hospital. It was also informed to him by him that her death had occurred within seven years of her marriage and, therefore, they had kept the body preserved in the mortuary of DDU Hospital. Accordingly, he issued directions to the police to send the crime team on the spot and called the parents/relatives of the deceased for recording their statements. On 23.12.2016, at about 10:30am, Sl Mohit came to her office alongwith the relatives of the deceased. One of them was the brother of deceased, namely Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar and another was Sh.
Prem Prakash, who was brother-in-law of the deceased. He State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 28 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:43:14 +0530 29 recorded their statements in his office. The statements are in his handwriting. The statement of Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar is already Ex.PW1/A and bears his signatures at point B. The statement of Sh. Prem Prakash is also in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A and is now Ex.PW4/A. After recording the aforesaid statements, he issued directions to the SHO, which are recorded below the statement Ex.PW1/A of Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar. The directions were in his handwriting, which bear his signatures at point A and are now Ex.PW4/B. His directions were to the effect that necessary proceedings be conducted as per law. He had also given a written request to the HOD, DDU Hospital to conduct postmortem on the dead body of deceased. His request letter bears his signatures at point A and is now Ex.PW4/C. Accordingly, postmortem was conducted on 23.12.2016 and he had himself inspected the dead body. However, he did not observe anything abnormal visible to the naked eyes.
9.1. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram and he denied the suggestion given by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 29 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi Ali 2026.03.24 17:43:26 Warsi +0530 30
10. PW5 Dr. Nishu Dhawan deposed that she has been deputed by Medical Superintendent, DDU Hospital to identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Pallavi, the then Senior Resident, Casualty, DDU Hospital, who has since left the hospital. She has been shown MLC of Pryinka, bearing No.12362, dated 20.12.2016. It is in the handwriting of Dr. Pallavi and bears her signatures at points A and B, respectively.
The MLC is Ex.PW5/A. She identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Pallavi as she had worked under her supervision and she has seen her writing and signing.
11. PW6 Retired SI Surender Singh deposed that on 21.12.2016, he was posted in Mobile Crime Team, South-West District, Dwarka, New Delhi as Incharge/Sub-Inspector. On that day, on being called, he alongwith Ct. Rakesh, Photographer, ASI Kulbhushan, Fingerprint Expert and ASI Rajender Singh, Driver reached the spot, that is, RZ-106/2, Gali No. 11-D, Durga Park, New Delhi, where IO SI Mohit Jakhar alongwith staff met him.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 30 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:43:36 +0530 31 They inspected the spot and, thereafter, the photographs of the spot were taken by Photographer, Ct. Rakesh. On the spot, one diary was also found, which was lying below the mattress of the bed and it was seized by the IO. One small bottle of 100 ml of poison was also lying in front of the kitchen and bathroom, which were adjoining. IO also seized the same. He prepared a report and handed over the same to the IO. He has seen his report dated 21.12.2016. It bears her signatures at point A. The report is Ex.PW6/A. 11.1. PW6 during his cross-examination deposed that it is correct that in his statement, he did not tell the IO that a small bottle containing poison was recovered. It is correct that in his statement, he did not mention the names of ASI Rajender Singh and ASI Kulbhushan.
12. PW7 Ct. Jagdish deposed that in the intervening night of 20/21.12.2016, he was posted in Police Station Sagarpur as constable. On that day, he was on emergency duty with SI Mohit.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 31 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:43:45 +0530 32 On receipt of DD No. 4A, he alongwith SI Mohit reached DDU Hospital. SI Mohit collected the MLC of deceased Priyanka. One Sh. Naresh Kumar, father-in-law of deceased, was also present there. The dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Mohit reached the spot, that is, RZ- 106/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park. SI Mohit called the crime team to the spot. Crime team reached the spot and inspected the scene of crime and took photographs of the spot. On the spot, one plastic bottle of insecticide was found lying in the bathroom. One diary was found lying below the mattress of double bed in the room of the said house. IO seized the plastic bottle vide a seizure memo, which bears his signatures at point A and is Ex.PW7/A, after sealing the same with the seal of MJ. IO also seized the abovesaid diary vide a seizure memo, which bears his signatures at point A and is Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, they returned to the police station, where brother and brother-in-law (jija) of deceased Priyanka also reached. Thereafter, they alongwith these two persons went to DDU Hospital. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Priyanka was conducted. The doctor handed over the State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 32 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:43:55 +0530 33 exhibits, collected during postmortem, to the IO, who seized the same vide a seizure memo, which bears his signatures at point A and is Ex.PW7/C. The Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of the brother and jija of deceased Priyanka. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased for last rites. He had seen the abovesaid diary, which was seized from the spot and annexed to the case file. The same is already Ex. P-1/1. He could identify the abovesaid plastic bottle of insecticide, if shown to him.
12.1. PW7 during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram, he deposed that he did not count the pages of the recovered diary. He also did not put his signatures anywhere on the diary.
12.2. Ld. counsel for remaining accused has adopted the aforesaid cross examination during cross examination of PW7.
13. PW8 ASI Balwan Singh deposed that on 21.12.2016 he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Sagar Pur from 12:00 midnight State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 33 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:44:04
Warsi +0530
34
to 8:00 am. On the said day, at about 12:20am, ASI Rohtash no.
1606/West made a phone call from DDU hospital that one Priyanka w/o Vikram aged about 23 years, R/o RZ-106/2, Durga Park, Gali no.11 has been hospitalized by her husband Vikram vide MLC по. 12362/16 and that she has been declared brought dead. He reduced the information into writing in his own handwriting in roznamcha as DD no. 4A. He informed SI Mohit on telephone regarding information as he was to take the further course of action into the matter. Subsequently he also handed over true copy of information to SI Mohit. The true copy of DD no.4A on record is Ex.PW8/A bearing his signatures at point A. Original roznamcha containing the said entry was seen & returned.
14. PW9 Dr. V.K. Ranga deposed that on 23.12.2016, he was posted as Specialist Department of Forensic DDU Hospital and had conducted the postmortem over the body of one Priyanka identified by Bal Krishan and Prem Prakash. He had found no external injuries present over the body. On internal examination State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 34 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:44:19 +0530 35 he had found lungs congested, oedematous and frothy fluid oozed out on cutting. Stomach was containing 100 ml of blackish paste, mucosa of stomach was congested and haemorrhagic. Small and large intestine containing gases, walls congested and haemorrhagic. Brain was congested and oedematous. The viscera and blood was preserved. Exhibits were packed with the seal of PM DDUH and was handed over to the IO with the sample seal. The cause of death was reserved pending the receiving of FSL. reports. The PM report is exhibited as Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at point A.
15. PW10 Sh. Prem Prakash Kumar deposed that deceased Priyanka was his sister in law (Saali). She was married with accused Vikram on 27.04.2016. On the day of marriage ie. 27.04.2016, he came to know from her in laws i.e. his brother in law (Saala) and mother in law that in the morning, the accused persons had sent accused Shrawan Kumar who is the brother in law (Jija) of Vikram, for collecting the cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was demanded by them as dowry. He alongwith State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 35 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:44:29 +0530 36 the uncle (mama) of the deceased arranged the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. They took out an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from Bank and arranged the other 50,000/- from the relatives. After arranging Rs. 1,00,000/-, it was given to his brother in law and mother in law to hand over the same to the in laws of the deceased. On the same day, at about 02.00 PM, they went to the in laws of the deceased and handed over the cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is only after the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid that the Barat came for the marriage. The marriage was solemnized and they all left for their respective places. Since he was the eldest son in law, he was in continuous touch with Priyanka and his in laws. In between, he came to know that Priyanka had informed her brother Balkrishan that her in laws were demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- for expansion of their business. Balkrishan had discussed about the same with him. He told the Balkrishan to ignore the same as the marriage was already solemnized. He told him that Priyanka is in joint family and they would look after themselves. Whatever was to be given in the marriage has already been given. However, accused Shrawan was State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 36 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:44:46
Warsi +0530
37
regularly following up with Balkrishan for the amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- as to why Balkrishan was not paying the amount to in laws of Priyanka. Prior to 1-2 months of the death of Priyanka, the in laws did not allow her to visit her parental house on the account of non payment of the demand of money. They used to say "pehle jo paison ki baat hui usse pura karo phir sochenge kab bidai karni hai" Priyanka was in regular touch with his daughter and wife. From her talks, they felt that she was under pressure of something, may be of demand of money. On 20.12.2016, he received the information about death of Priyanka from the mother of the deceased. On 22.12.2016, he reached at Delhi. He was called at the police station on 22.12.2016 and he went to the police station. O 23.12.2016, he alongwith Balkrishan were taken to SDM Court by the police. Their statement was recorded by the SDM which is already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A which bears his signature at point B and C. They went to DDU Hospital for the identification of the deceased. He identified the dead body of the deceased and his statement in this regard was recorded by the police which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C which bear his State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 37 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:44:57
Warsi +0530
38
signatures at point B and C. After postmortem, the dead body was released to them vide handing over memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/B which bears his signature at point B. He did not want to say anything else. He has met with all the accused persons but he know the name of accused Vikram and Shrawan Kumar. He did not know the name of the other accused persons but he can identify them as he has met them. At this stage, the witness has pointed towards all the accused persons and has correctly identified them.
15.1. PW10 during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram @ Bunty deposed that he work in Bank of India, Ranchi. The name of his wife is Renu Praksh. He got married on 13.02.2007. He also said that, it was in the year 2006. His wife is having one brother and three sisters including her. The other two sisters of his wife is Reena and deceased Priyanka. The eldest one is his wife. Thereafter, it is Reena and Priyanka was the youngest. Apart from the above brother and sister, his wife was not having any other sibling. It is correct that there were two State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 38 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:45:19
Warsi +0530
39
more real sisters namely Beauty and Sweety of his wife. The Sweety died due to some illness and Beauty is still alive who married as per her own wishes. It is within his knowledge that none of them has committed suicide. He is not aware where the Beauty is and where she got married but they consider her as deceased as there is no contact with her. He could not tell when Sweety died and when Beauty left her house. His statement was recorded twice in this case, one before the SDM and another in Sagarpur Police Station. He told in his statement before the Magistrate as well as before the police that he alongwith the uncle (mama) arranged the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Confronted with the statement in Ex.PW4/A as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He had stated to the police in his statement Ex. PW10/DA as well as his statement Ex. PW4/A that they had arranged Rs.50,000/- in cash from Bank and Rs. 50,000/- in cash from relatives. Confronted with the statement in Ex. PW4/A as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He has stated to the police in his statement Ex. PW 10/DA as well as his State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 39 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:45:29 +0530 40 statement Ex.PW4/A that after arranging Rs. 1,00,000/- it was given to his brother in law and mother in law to hand over the same to the in laws of the deceased. Confronted with the statement in Ex. PW4/A as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He had also stated to the police and the SDM that on the same day, at about 02.00 PM, they went to the in laws of the deceased and handed over the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Confronted with the statement in Ex.PW4/A as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He denied rest of the suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel.
15.2. PW10 during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for remaining accused persons deposed that he had told to the police as well as to the SDM that he came to know from his in laws ie.
brother in law (sala) and mother in law that in the morning, the accused persons had sent accused Shrawan Kumar who is the brother in law (jija) of Vikram for collecting the cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was demanded by the in laws of the deceased as dowry. Confronted with the statement in Ex. PW4/A State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 40 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:45:36
Warsi +0530
41
as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He had stated to the Police and to the SDM in his statement that accused Shrawan was regularly following accused Balkrishan for the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as to why Balkrishan was not paying the amount to the in laws of Priyanka. He had also further stated that prior to 1-2 months of the death of Priyanka, the in laws did not allow her to visit her parental house on the account of non-payment of the demand of money and they used to say "pehle jo paison ke baat hui, use poora karu fir sochenge kab bidai karni hai" Confronted with the statement in Ex.PW4/A as well as statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded. He denied rest of the suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel.
16. PW11 Sh. Vasudev Paswan deposed that he is residing at Munger, Bihar with his family. Earlier he was posted as HC RPF, West Bengal. He had retired in 2019. The marriage of daughter of his sister namely Priyanka was fixed for 27.04.2016 with Vikram s/o Naresh Kumar. One day before the marriage, his sister told him tht the groom family is demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and they State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 41 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:45:49 +0530 42 were saying that if, the arrangement of Rs. 1 lac was not made, they would not bring the baarat. Since the family of his sister was unable to make the arrangement, he arranged Rs.1 lac. He withdrew Rs.50,000/- from his account and remaining Rs. 50,000/- was lying in his house. In this way, he arranged Rs. 1 lac and gave it to his sister. Then the marriage of Priyanka and Vikram was performed. They copy of the passbook showing withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- on 27.04.2016 Mark PW11/1 (colly). He has not brought the original passbook. He did not want to say anything else.
16.1. PW11 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for all accused persons except Vikram deposed that he denied the suggestion that his sister never asked for Rs. 1 lac from him. He denied the suggestion that no demand of Rs. 1 lac was ever made by the groom side from his sister. He did not tell the IO that he withdrew Rs. 50,000/- from his account. He denied the suggestion that he did not tell the IO about withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- as he never withdrew such amount. He did not tell State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 42 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:46:01
Warsi +0530
43
the IO about the name, branch of his bank and the date when he withdrew the amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
16.2. PW11 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for the accused Vikram deposed that he did not know whether the police recorded his statement or not. He never came to Delhi for this case. The Delhi police officials never came to West Bengal where he was posted to make inquiry about the present case. There was no correspondence between him and the police officials regarding the present case.
17. PW12 W/HC Mintu deposed that in the 2017, she was posted at PS Sagarpur as Constable. On 06.02.2017, she joined the investigation of the present case. One lady namely Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Kedar Paswan produced some documents i.e. bank statement, marriage card, photographs of marriage before the IO. IO took the same into police possession vide memo Ex.PW12/A, bearing her signature at Point A. Marriage card is already State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 43 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi Ali 2026.03.24 17:46:11 Warsi +0530 44 Ex.P1/2, photograph Ex.P1/3 and Ex.P1/4. Bank statement and some bills/invoice are collectively Mark PW12/B. 17.1. PW12 during her cross-examination Ld. counsel for all accused persons except Vikram @ Bunty deposed that she did not remember the number of pages/documents produced by Sheela Devi.
18. PW13 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted as Asst. Draughtsman, Mapping Section, South-
West District, Dwarka Sector-17, Delhi. On 16.01.2017, on the information of the IO, he reached PS Sagarpur from where he accompanied IO/SI Mohit and they reached at the spot i.e. RZ- 106/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi. At the instance of IO, he took the measurements of the spot and later on prepared the scaled site plan and gave the same to IO on 17.01.2017. Scaled site plan Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signature at Point A. In cross examination he denied the suggestion given by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 44 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:46:21
Warsi +0530
45
19. PW14 HC Banwari Lal deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as constable. On 23.12.2016, he joined the investigation of the present case. He accompanied IO/PSI Mohit and reached at Durga Park, Gali No.11, Sagarpur, New Delhi, where one accused namely Vikram @ Bunty was found present there. He was arrested vide memo, already Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at Point B and conducted his personal search vide memo, Ex.PW14/A, bearing his signature at Point A. Accused Vikram is present in the court (correctly identified by the witness).
20. PW15 ASI Hari Ram deposed that on 23.12.2016, he was posted at Police Station Sagarpur and was Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 07:35 pm, SI Mohit handed over him the tehrir to him, on the basis of which he registered the FIR Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point A. The endorsement was made by him on rukka which is Ex.PW15/B State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 45 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:46:33 +0530 46 bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, the investigation was marked to SI Mohit.
21. PW16 HC Pawan deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as a conRawat stable. On 03.03.2017, he joined the investigation of the present case. On the instruction of IO/SI Mohit, he collected exhibits from MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL Rohini alongwith forwarding letter. After depositing the exhibits in FSL Rohini, he came back to PS and gave the acknowledgment / receipt of the same to MHC(M). Copy of the road certificate is Ex.PW16/A, bearing his signature at Point A. The acknowledgment is Ex.PW16/B, bearing his signature at Point A. Case property remained intact so long it remained in his custody.
21.1 PW16 during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram @ Bunty, he deposed that IO had recorded his statement on 03.03.2017. He did not remember that he had State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 46 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:46:45 +0530 47 stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that he so long the exhibits remained with him, no tampering was done to it.
21.2. Ld. counsel for remaining accused has adopted the aforesaid cross examination during cross examination of PW16.
22. PW17 SI Mohit deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as PSI. In the intervening night of 20/21.12.2016, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am. On that night, at about 12:20 am, a call vide DD No. 4A, he alongwith Ct. Jagdish reachrawa ed DDU hospital where one lady namely Priyanka w/o Vikram was found 'brought dead' in the hospital. He obtained her MLC. On the MLC, concerned doctor has recorded alleged history of consumption of unknown substance. Dead body of deceased Priyanka was got preserved in the mortuary. Sh. Naresh Kumar, father-in-law of deceased was found present in the hospital. On inquiry, it was revealed that Priyanka was married to Vikram on 27.04.2016. Abovesaid facts and circumstances were conveyed to senior officers and SDM Sh.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 47 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:46:56 +0530 48 S.K. Rawat to inform the parents and relatives of deceased. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Jagdish came back to the spot i.e. H. No. RZ-106/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi. Crime team was called at the spot. Crime team officials inspected the scene of crime and clicked the photographs thereof. On further inquiry, it was revealed that deceased Priyanka had consumed insecticide from a plastic bottle. The words "DYSAC" was found mentioned on the plastic bottle. He seized the said bottle vide memo, already Ex.PW7/A, bearing his signature at Point B. In the bed room of Priyanka, her personal diary was found and same was seized vide memo, already Ex.PW7/B, bearing his signature at Point B. On 23.12.2016, Sh. Bal Kishan (brother of deceased) and Sh. Prem Prakash (husband of sister of deceased) came to him in the PS. He took them before concerned SDM Sh. S.K. Rawat. They narrated the facts of the incident before the concerned SDM. He recorded their statement, already Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW4/A and marked the same to concerned SHO/IO for necessary action. Post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted in the mortuary and after post-mortem, he State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 48 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:47:04 +0530 49 obtained post-mortem report. He also obtained sealed exhibits from the mortuary vide memo already Ex.PW7/C, bearing his signature at Point B. He made his endorsement/tehrir for registration of FIR u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. The same is Ex.PW17/A, bearing his signature at Point A.
22.1. Further, he deposed that he gave the Ex.PW1/A alongwith tehrir to duty officer who registered the present FIR. After registration of the FIR, he visited the spot and in present of the witnesses he prepared site plan Ex.PW17/B, bearing his signature at Point A. He arrested accused Vikram (husband of deceased) vide memo, already Ex.PW1/B, bearing his signature at Point C and conducted his personal search vide memo, already Ex.PW14/A, bearing his signature at Point B. During interrogation, accused Vikram admitted his guilt and got recorded his disclosure statement voluntarily. The same is Ex.PW17/C, bearing his signature at Point A and signature of accused at Point B. Accused Vikram was produced before the court on 24.12.2016. He was sent to JC. Thereafter, efforts were made to State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 49 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:47:12 +0530 50 trace the co-accused persons but they were not found from their respective houses. Accused persons namely Vinod Kumar, Subodh, Smt. Pushpa, Smt. Bindu Devi and Shravan got anticipatory bail from PHC and joined the investigation. He arrested the co-accused personal formally on 22.02.2017 and released them in pursuance of their anticipatory bail. Sealed exhibits were got deposited at FSL Rohini. He got prepared the scaled site plan of the spot and the same is already Ex.PW13/A. Post mortem report is already Ex.PW9/A. MLC of the deceased is already Ex.PW5/A. Inquest papers including request of concerned SDM addressed to DDU hospital for conducting post mortem are collectively Ex.PW17/D, bearing his signature at Point A on each page. Photograph of the deceased is Mark PW17/E. Deceased is visible in the photographs. Arrest memos of accused persons namely Vinod Kumar, Subodh, Smt. Pushpa, Smt. Bindu Devi and Shravan are Ex.PW17F1 to Ex.PW17/F5, respectively, bearing his signatures at Point A and bearing signatures of respective accused at Point B. Mother of deceased produced marriage card, marriage photographs, bank statement State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 50 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi Ali 2026.03.24 17:47:22 Warsi +0530 51 and copy of bills pertaining to purchase of dowry articles. He seized the same vide memo, already Ex.PW12/A, bearing his signature at Point B. Aforesaid marriage card is already Ex.P1/2, photographs is already Ex.P1/3 and Ex.P1/4. Bank statement and bill/invoice are already Mark PW12/B. All the accused persons were present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). By that time FSL result was awaited. There was sufficient evidence against accused persons. Accordingly, he prepared charge-sheet against all the accused persons u/s 304-B/498A/34 IPC and filed the same before the concerned court. The diary containing hand writing of deceased is Ex.P-1/1 which was seized vide memo, already Ex.PW7/B. MHC(M) has produced one yellow colour sealed envelope 'Parcel A-2' bearing seal of FSL and particular of the FSL report and FIR details. Sealed is removed. On opening the parcel, one transparent plastic container containing plastic bottle bearing words "DYSAC INSECTICIDE DICHLORVOS is taken out. Plastic container is shown to the witness. He identified the same as seized vide memo, already Ex.PW7/A. The plastic container is Ex.PW17/P1.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 51 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:47:31
Warsi +0530
52
Further, he deposed that on 23.12.2016, accused Vikram took them to the spot i.e. H. No. RZ-106/2, Gali No. 11D, Durga Park, Sagarpur, and pointed towards the kitchen and bathroom of the said house and told that on 20.12.2026, he alongwith uncle Subodh, Vinod and his aunt gave beatings to Priyanka (deceased) and also administer poison to her at the said place. He prepared pointing out memo in this regard Ex.PW17/G, bearing his signature at point A. He correctly identified all the accused person present in the court.
22.2. PW17 during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Vikram @ Bunty, he deposed that he visited the spot twice i.e. on 21.12.2016 and on 23.12.2016. The house where above mentioned incident took place might be around 200 yards in area. The said house was constructed up to third storey. On the ground floor of above mentioned house, the deceased was residing with her husband and in-laws. On the first floor and second floor of said house, other in-laws i.e. uncle of the husband of the deceased were residing. He could not tell exactly who was State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 52 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:47:41
Warsi +0530
53
residing on the first floor and second floor of said house. He could not tell as to who were residing in the houses situated in front of the spot or houses adjacent to the spot. He conducted inquiry from the neighbors and the spot but none come forward to give their statements. He did not remember the names of the neighbors from which he conducted inquiry there. He did not issue any notice to the neighbors of deceased to join the proceedings. He did not seize the mobile phone of the deceased during the investigation of the present case. He also did not seize the mobile phone of the brother of the deceased namely Bal Kishan or of her mother or any other relative. He did not apply or collected CDRs of the mobile phones used by the deceased, her brother and mother or her other relatives during the investigation of the present case. It is correct that during investigation, it was clear that the deceased had committed suicide. He did not get perform psychological autopsy of the deceased. He was not fully aware about the term psychological autopsy, however, in his opinion, same is related to mental aspect. The parental house of the deceased was situated in Purva Ka Tola, Bhagalpur, Bihar. He State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 53 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:47:50
Warsi +0530
54
did not know the house number or gali number of the said address. He never visited the parental house of the deceased. The accused persons are permanent resident of Delhi, however, they are having domicile of Bihar. It is correct that native of accused persons is village Nandlal, District and Tehsil- Bhagalpur, Bihar. It is correct that parental house of the deceased was situated in village Naya Nagar, District and Tehsil- Bhagalpur, Bihar. He never visited the above mentioned native of the deceased or of the accused persons. He did not investigate about the demography of above mentioned native place of deceased and accused persons. He did not know whether the father of the deceased had retired from the agricultural department of Ranchi, Jharkhand. He was aware that the father of the deceased had suffered paralysis before the death of deceased and he was bed ridden since about four years prior to the death of the deceased. He did not come to know during the investigation that it was a small house / parental house at above mentioned native place of the deceased. He did not come to know during the investigation that the parental family of the deceased was not having any State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 54 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:48:00
Warsi +0530
55
agricultural land at their native place. He did not come to know during the investigation that the source of income of parental family of the deceased was only pension of her father.The deceased were five siblings. The deceased was having one brother and three sisters. He did not know the names of the siblings of the deceased. The brother of the deceased was doing job in a private company. He did not know the particulars of said company or about his salary, etc. The deceased might be a graduate. He did not come to know during the investigation of the present case that one of the sisters of the deceased had also committed suicide by consuming toxins. He did not come to know during the investigation of the present case that another sister of the deceased died under mysterious circumstances. He did not know whether both the above mentioned sisters of the deceased expired at their native place. He denied rest of the suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel.
22.3. PW17 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for remaining accused persons, he deposed that the uncle-in-law of State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 55 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:48:10
Warsi +0530
56
the deceased namely Vinod was residing with his wife Pushpa and children on the first or second floor of above mentioned building. It is correct that family of Vinod was residing on the first floor of above mentioned building and they were managing their affairs on their own. Accused Vinod was doing his private work but he did not know whether he was doing the work of denting and painting in Mayapuri, Delhi. He could not tell whether accused Vinod was having any concern with the business of accused Vikram @ Bunty or of his father Naresh. He did not conduct any investigation to the effect that whether there were any monetary transactions with regard to business between Vinod and accused Vikram and his father. He could not tell whether Vinod and his wife were having any interference in the family affairs of Vikram @ Bunty and his family. The uncle-in- law of the deceased namely Subodh was residing with his wife Bindu and children on the second floor of above mentioned building. It is correct that family of Subodh were managing their affairs on their own. Accused Subodh was doing his private work of crain but he did not know whether he was doing the said work State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 56 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:48:22 +0530 57 in Mayapuri, Delhi. He could not tell whether accused Subodh was having any concern with the business of accused Vikram @ Bunty or of his father Naresh. He did not conduct any investigation to the effect that whether there were any monetary transactions with regard to business between Subodh and accused Vikram and his father. He could not tell whether Subodh and his wife were having any interference in the family affairs of Vikram @ Bunty and his family. It is correct that accused Vikram is having two sisters out of which one was married. He did not know whether the name of the brother-in-law of accused Vikram was Kranti and he was residing in Jharkhand. The mediator of the marriage of deceased with accused Vikram namely Sarvan was residing in the area of Durga Park, Sagarpur. It is correct that Sarvan was in relation to the younger brother of the husband of the mother of the deceased.
Ld. counsel for remaining accused persons adopted the remaining cross-examination already conducted on behalf of accused Vikram @ Bunty.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 57 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:48:28 +0530 58
23. PW18 Insp. Neeraj Kumar deposed that on 04.09.2024, he was posted at PS Sagarpur as Inspector. On that day, he gave notice to doctor at DDU hospital to provide subsequent opinion on the post mortem report of deceased Priyanka D/o Kedar Paswan. On 05.09.2024, concerned doctor provided above stated subsequent opinion and he filed it in the concerned court through supplementary charge-sheet. The said subsequent opinion is on the case file and is Ex.PW18/A (Object to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the point of mode of proof).
23.1. PW18 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for all accused persons except Vikram @ Bunty, he deposed that the subsequent opinion was not received in any enclosed envelope.
24. PW19 Sh. Amit Rawat deposed that on 03.03.2017, he was posted at FSL Rohini as Assistant Director (Chemistry) FSL, Rohini. On that day, one sealed polythene bag and one sealed plastic container duly sealed were received at our office through Ct. Pawan Kumar in connection with case FIR No. 455/2016, PS State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 58 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:48:38 +0530 59 Sagarpur for examination. The same was marked to him for chemical examination. Out of one parcel which was marked as Parcel A-1, three exhibits were found and out of another parcel which was marked as Parcel A-2, one exhibit was found. The said exhibits were chemically examined by him and after examination, all the four exhibits were found to contain an Organophosphorus pesticide (dichlorvos). He prepared his report in this regard. After examination, all the exhibits were resealed with seal of "AR FSL DELHI" and the same was forwarded to concerned forwarding authority alongwith forwarding letter. His report is on the file. Same is Ex.PW19/A, bearing his signature at Point A. 24.1. PW19 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for all accused persons except Vikram @ Bunty, Ld. counsel put the following question:-
Q. What scientific method was used by you at the time of examining the above stated exhibits?
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 59 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:48:47
Warsi +0530
60
A. The same is already mentioned in my report Ex.PW19/A from Point B to B1.
He denied rest of the suggestions given by aforesaid Ld. defence counsel.
25. PW20 Dr. R.K. Chaubey deposed that on 05.09.2024, he was posted at DDU hospital as CMO, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. On that day, Insp. Neeraj Kumar, PS Sagarpur had moved an application alongwith post mortem report No. 2147/2016 dated 23.12.2016 and FSL report No. FSL2017/C-1589 dated 21.04.2017 and subsequent opinion regarding cause of death and manner of death of deceased Priyanka. He had perused the above stated post mortem report which was prepared by Dr. V.K. Ranga of our hospital and also perused the above stated FSL report. After perusing the same and after application of my mind, he gave subsequent opinion that the detected poisonous substance (Dichlorvos- organophosphorus pesticide) which is a very fatal poisonous substance and could result into death in the ordinary course of nature after its State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 60 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:48:55 +0530 61 consumption. He also opined that cause of death was due to Dichlorvos poisoning as a result of its consumption and manner of death appeared to be suicidal. His detailed subsequent opinion is on the judicial file and is already Ex.PW18/A, bearing his signature at Point A. 25.1. PW20 during his cross-examination Ld. counsel for all accused persons except Vikram @ Bunty, he deposed that subsequent opinion was provided by him as Dr. V.K. Ranga who had prepared the post mortem report was transferred at that time.
It is correct that the copy of post mortem report is not attached with his subsequent opinion. Voluntarily they attach the copy of post mortem report if asked by the IO. The copy of post mortem report is already on their record. He denied rest of the suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel. Voluntarily his report was based on the post mortem report prepared by Dr. V.K. Ranga and also the above stated FSL report.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 61 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:49:07
Warsi +0530
62
26. After completion of prosecution evidence, all
incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All accused persons have stated that on 27.04.2016 marriage between deceased Priyanka and accused Vikram was solemnized. Sharvan is not jija of Vikram and he was a mediator from the girl's side. Accused Vikram has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enimosity which had developed because of the death of her wife Priyanka. At the time of the marriage, Priyanka was still studying. Few days after the marriage, he had taken her to the examination centre at Bhagalpur for her examination. She was a graduate and was interested in taking up a job. She had also applied for taking up the banking job and had appeared in the examination. She was never harassed for or in connection with any dowry. She was never loaded with any responsibility of the household or any other thing. She was keeping herself busy pursuing her studies for the various competitive examination. Accused Sharvan State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 62 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:49:15 +0530 63 Kumar has stated that he was a middle man in the marriage from the side of deceased Priyanka. Priyanka was his niece (bhanji). He was never sent by Vinod for collecting Rs. 1 lakh or he demanded any amount at any point of time. He has been falsely implicated in the present case as he refused to become a prosecution witness. He was forced and compelled time and again by the prosecution to become a witness against Vikram and his relative but he refused. As such, he has been implicated in the present case and he is innocent. Accused persons namely Subodh, Vinod, Pushpa Devi and Bindu Devi have stated that they have falsely implicated in the present case due to animosity which had developed because of the death of Priyanka. Since long, it has become a tradition to implicate not only all the family members of the husband of the deceased's wife but also to implicate his other relatives. At no time, deceased Priyanka ever lived or stayed in their residence where they have been living with their family members. She was living in her matrimonial home with her husband and his family members. To the best of their knowledge, her husband and his family members treated her properly. They did not interfere in the house affairs and business of Vikram and his father. They all have State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 63 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:49:25 +0530 64 stated that Sharvan was never sent for any demand of money or any money demand was made or received.
26.1. Statement of accused Vikram @ Bunty u/s 233(2) CrPC was submitted and was taken on record.
27. DW1 Naresh Kumar deposed that he is father of accused Vikram @ Bunty. A marriage proposal for Vikram was received from the family of deceased Priyanka and they accepted the said marriage proposal, thereafter, on 27.04.2016, his son Vikram @ Bunty got married to Priyanka. They had not taken any dowry in the marriage of his son Vikram @ Bunty with deceased Priyanka. The marriage of Vikram @ Bunty and Priyanka took place at the native place of deceased Priyanka i.e. Kahalgaon, Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar. After the marriage, the deceased alongwith accused Vikram resided for about 02 months at their native place i.e. Nandlal Pur, Bhagalpur, Bihar. During the above mentioned period of two months during which the deceased resided at their native place, his son had also taken her to appear in competitive examination of Bank job at Bhagalpur.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 64 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:49:35 +0530 65 Accused Vikram @ Bunty had also taken the deceased 2-3 times at her parental house during the above mentioned period of two months. After residing at their native village for about two months, the deceased joined them in Delhi. In Delhi, in the year 2016, he alongwith Vikram @ Bunty, his younger son Vidyasagar, daughter Preeti Kumari and his wife Kalpana Devi were residing in Delhi and after the marriage of deceased with his son, she also joined them in Delhi. They are having their our own house in Delhi, which is build up to fourth storey. He alongwith his above mentioned family members are residing on the first floor of said house. On the second floor of said house, his brother Vinod Kumar is residing with his family. On the top floor of said building, his brother Subodh Kumar is residing alongwith his family. They all brothers are residing separately since 2010. He or his brothers have no concern with each other and they did not use to interfere in the affairs of each other. The deceased resided with them happily in Delhi. Once, his son Vikram had also taken her for her competitive exam in Delhi. On 20.12.2016, they were having dinner at around 10:30 pm and in State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 65 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:49:46 +0530 66 the meantime, they heard noise of falling from the side of their kitchen. They immediately ran towards our kitchen and he saw that the deceased Priyanka was lying on the floor of the kitchen and one bottle of pesticide / insecticide was lying near her in open condition. He alongwith his son Vikram and Vidyasagar immediately lifted the deceased and took her to DDU Hospital, Delhi in their car. After checking the deceased, the doctor declared her 'brought dead'. His son Vikram informed his in- laws by making a call to them about the death of deceased from the said hospital. The hospital had informed the police about the death of the deceased and police officials also reached in the hospital. The police had taken his son Vikram to the PS and thereafter, they also went to the PS. Police had obtained his signatures on 4-5 blank papers. His son and other family members were falsely implicated in the present matter. The deceased resided with them happily. They did not ask her to bring any dowry at any point of time. The deceased was not harassed in any manner or treated with cruelty by any of his family members.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 66 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:50:36 +0530 67 27.1. DW1 during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State deposed that the marriage between accused Vikram and deceased Priyanka was solemnized in a Baraat Ghar in NTPC, Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. The expenditure of Baraat Ghar was borne by the family members of deceased Priyanka. At the time of marriage, his son was running a mobile showroom in Sagarpur, Delhi and he used to run a Kirana shop in Sagarpur. It is correct that the above mentioned Kirana shop was being run by him. He used to run his kirana shop from 6:00 am in the morning to 10:00 pm in the night. His son used to earn generally Rs.
50,000/- per month from his showroom. He used to hand over him his income and used to take back money as per requirement. He is having three brothers. He with his three brothers reside in the same building. He is the eldest brother. A separation has taken place between him and his brothers in 2010. The building in which they reside is in the name of all three brothers. However, same was purchased in 1994 jointly. He has two daughters. One of them is married. He denied the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In the marriage talks he was participating State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 67 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:50:46 +0530 68 alongwith his jija namely Laldhari Paswan and 1-2 persons from his village. He denied the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. P;P for the State. His son had not taken any money from the family of deceased prior to marriage. It is correct that account No. 30250845574 is account number of his son namely Vikram @ Bunty. He could not affirm or deny the suggestion that account No. 31286755477 is in the joint name of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan. At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards Ex.PW12/B. After going through contents of Ex.PW12/B witness submits that it is correct that Ex.PW12/B shows the account No. 31286755477 is in the joint name of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan. It is correct that at entry dated 02.02.2016 shown on page No. 2 of Ex.PW12/B it is mentioned that Rs. 2 lakhs were transferred from account No. 31286755477 to 30250845574. Voluntarily he did not know about the abovementioned transaction. He also said that this was the money transferred to the account of Vikram as there was no account of Prinyanka. He denied the suggestion that on 02.02.2016 Rs. 2 lakhs was transferred from account of parents State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 68 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:50:58 +0530 69 of deceased Priyanka in account of his son Vikram @ Bunty to fulfill the dowry demand made by accused Vikram @ Bunty, accused Vinod, accused Subodh, accused Sarwan, accused Smt. Pushpa Devi, accused Smt. Bindu Devi. He denied rest of the suggestions given by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
ARGUMENTS BY THE LD. ADDL. PP AND LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS:
28. Ld. Addl. PP for the State during the course of arguments has submitted that the prosecution has been succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that due to demand of dowry and cruelty towards deceased Priyanka she has died within 08 months of her marriage i.e. within seven years by consuming pesticides, and her death , was unnatural in nature and soon before her ,marriage and death, she was subjected to cruelty with regard to demand of dowry and the live link was never disconnected as within 08 months whole incident of demand of dowry before marriage and after marriage occurred and on multiple occasions demand was made and she died under suspicious circumstances State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 69 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:51:15 +0530 70 and other than normal circumstances and the accused persons being her husband and relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. And, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted u/s 304B/498A/34 IPC.
29. Ld. Senior Counsel and Counsel for the accused persons in their arguments submits that, there has been material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar (complainant / brother of the deceased), PW2 Smt. Sheela Devi (mother of the deceased), PW10 Sh. Prem Prakash Kumar (brother in law of the deceased) and PW11 Sh. Vasudev Paswan i.e. maternal uncle of the deceased. It is also submitted that they had improved their version of testimony before the court as in 161 CrPC statement the allegation of beating Priyanka has not been recorded. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients of section 498A and 304B IPC is not proved by the prosecution. Lastly, it is submitted that the investigation was not conducted in proper manner as IO has not State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 70 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:51:29
Warsi +0530
71
investigated about the mental condition of the deceased or her back ground and no instances of demand of dowry was proved by the prosecution, the allegation with regard to deceased being beaten just prior to her death on 20.12.2016 is a material omission and indicates that the witnesses has materially improved their testimony during the course of trial. The allegation of cruelty soon before the death is the corner stone of Section 304B and the same was failed to mention by the witnesses. The allegation of Rs. 1 lakh arrangement through Sh. Vasudev Paswan PW11 maternal uncle of the deceased is not proved as he never joined the investigation and there is no documentary evidence to support the same. Lastly it is submitted that there is no proximate nexus between alleged cruelty and death, no cruelty soon before death was caused, no demand for dowry was ever made and FIR was delayed and no explanation was given. Lastly, it is submitted that no external injuries were present on the body of the deceased and the word "hoga" is used in tehrir i.e. Ex.PW1/A which means the complainant himself was not sure whether cruelty was occurred or not with the State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 71 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.24 17:51:46 +0530 72 deceased. For accused Sharvan it is submitted that he is not of the relative of the husband of the deceased so Section 304B is not attracted towards him. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and they are entitled for acquittal. Ld. Senior Counsel to strengthen his submissions, he file written submissions and relied upon following citations:-
(a) Juwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 (Supp) SCC
417.
(b) State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem Prakash (2025) 3 SCC 433.
(c) Suresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 17 SCC 243.
(d) Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2025 SCC Online SC 214.
30. APPRECIATION & ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE:
(Evidence has to be examined whether the alleged facts are proved, disproved or not proved on the anvil of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt).
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 72 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:52:06 +0530 73 30.1. In the criminal justice system, witness plays a paramount role for the administration of justice as by giving evidence linked to the offence. He performs the sacred duty of assisting the court to impart justice by discovering the truth.
Thus, the witness as such plays the most crucial role in the dispensation of justice. As also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla V Union Of India, Writ Pe- tition (Criminal) No. 156 / 2016 decided on 5 December, 2018, for witness the following observation was made:-
"Witnesses are important players in the judicial system, who help the judges in arriving at correct factual findings. The instrument of evidence is the medium through which facts, either disputed or required to be proved, are effectively conveyed to the courts. This evidence in the form of documentary and oral is given by the witnesses. A witness may be a partisan or interested witness, i.e., a witness who is in a near relation with the victim of crime or is concerned with conviction of the accused person. Even his testimony is relevant, though, stricter scrutiny is required while adjudging the credence of such a victim. However, apart from these witnesses or the witnesses who may themselves be the victims, other witnesses may not have any personal interest in the outcome of a case. They still help the judicial system".
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 73 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:52:17 +0530 74 ANALYSIS AND FINDING QUA OFFENCE U/S 304-B, 498-A IPC BOTH READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC:
31. To determine whether an act falls within the ambit of Section 304B IPC, it is relevant to mention here Section 304B of IPC which reads as:-
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 State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 74 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:52:27 +0530 75 but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] 31.1. In paragraph 9 of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC as follows:
"9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients and they are said to be:
(a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry."
32. So, for the purpose of Section 304B IPC, what is material is (i) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 75 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:52:36 +0530 76 under normal circumstances; (ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry.
33. Before proceeding further it is also relevant to consider definition and meaning of word "Dowry" , which as per Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961is as :
"Section 2 Definition of "dowry"-
In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before1[or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.--The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 76 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:52:44
Warsi +0530
77
Thus, Dowry is the property or valuable security given or agreed to be given by one party to the marriage to the other party or by their parents or by any other person to either party to the marriage or any other person.
34. Further, cruelty is also one of the essential ingredients for sec 304 B and also an independent offence under section 498 A IPC. The same reads as:
"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) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 77 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:52:54 +0530 78
(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.]"
35. In the present case, on perusal of the facts, the following instances of cruelty when deceased Priyanka was subjected to cruelty and harassment:
i) Demand of Rs.1 Lac one day prior to the marriage.
ii) Priyanka was not allowed to meet her brother when after marriage he went to meet her and she was crying from the roof at the time of see off.
iii) After the marriage, she was not allowed to come to their house.
iv) Shravan and Subodh demanded Rs.2 Lac from him and through accused Shravan.
v) Priyanka also told that accused persons were demanding Rs.2 Lacs and the accused persons used to taunt her for illicit demand of dowry.
vi) She used to cry on telephone and She was not allowed to speak on telephone
vii) Priyanka was beaten by the accused persons just prior to her death on 20.12.2016.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 78 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:53:04 +0530 79
36. Now coming to the present case, it is to be considered, that the death caused within seven years of marriage. In present case the date of marriage is 27.04.2016 and date of death is 20.12.2016 and as per the statement of the witnesses and statement of accused persons the marriage was solemnized on 27.04.2016 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Thus, there remains no iota of doubt that the death of the deceased Priyanka was caused within seven years of marriage i.e. in the eight months after marriage. Thus, first condition for Section 304B is satisfied in the present case i.e. death must occur within seven years of marriage.
36.1. The second condition of section 304 B IPC i.e. the death was by suicide in her matrimonial house has to be appreciated and analysed in the light of the evidence on record. The statement of PW8,ASI Balwan Singh he deposed that on 21.12.2016 he was posted as duty officer at PS Sagarpur on the said day at about 12:20 am, ASI Rohtash, No. 1606/West made a phone call from State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 79 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:53:18
Warsi +0530
80
DDU hospital that one Priyanka wife of Vikram has been hospitalized by her husband Vikram vide MLC No. 12362/16 and she has been declared brought dead. The information was recorded by him as DD No. 4A (Ex.PW8/A). He also informed inspector Mohit and handed over the information to SI Mohit. As per statement of IO/PW17,SI Mohit he stated that on 20/21.12.2016 he was on emergency duty and at about 12:20 am, a call vide DD No. 4A, he alongwith Ct. C.T. Jagdish reached DDU hospital where one lady namely Priyanka w/o Vikram was found brought dead in the hospital. He obtained her MLC. The testimony of PW17, SI Mohit is corroborated by PW7, Ct. Jagdish in his deposition before the court. Further, other police witness PW3, Ct. Rakesh has also corroborated each other testimony in material terms. Further, IO PW17, SI Mohit has stated that on the MLC of deceased Priyanka concerned doctor has recorded alleged history of consumption of unknown substance and during enquiry it was revealed to him that deceased Priyanka had consumed insecticide from a plastic bottle and the words "DYSAC" was found mentioned on the plastic State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 80 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:53:32 +0530 81 bottle and he seized the said bottle vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He obtained post mortem report. In the testimony of PW9, Dr. V.K. Ranga ,he deposed that On internal examination he had found lungs congested, oedematous and frothy fluid oozed out on cutting. Stomach was containing 100 ml of blackish paste, mucosa of stomach was congested and haemorrhagic. Small and large intestine containing gases, walls congested and haemorrhagic. Brain was congested and oedematous. The viscera and blood was preserved. Exhibits were packed with the seal of PM DDUH and was handed over to the IO with the sample seal. The cause of death was reserved pending the receiving of FSL. reports. The PM report is Ex. PW9/A. In the testimony of PW18 Inspector Neeraj Kumar he stated that the subsequent opinion on the post mortem report of deceased Priyanka is filed through supplementary chargesheet and the same is Ex.PW18/A. The subsequent opinion was given by PW20, Dr. R.K. Choubey, he deposed, that he had perused the above stated post mortem report which was prepared by Dr. V.K. Ranga of his hospital and also perused the above stated FSL report. After perusing the same and State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 81 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:53:43 +0530 82 after application of my mind, he gave subsequent opinion that the detected poisonous substance (Dichlorvos- organophosphorus pesticide) which is a very fatal poisonous substance and could result into death in the ordinary course of nature after its consumption. He also opined that cause of death was due to Dichlorvos poisoning as a result of its consumption and manner of death appeared to be suicidal. In the statement of DW1, Sh. Naresh Kumar, i.e. father of the accused /husband Vikram, he has stated that on 20.12.2016, they were having dinner at around 10:30 pm and in the meantime, they heard noise of falling from the side of their kitchen. They immediately ran towards our kitchen and he saw that the deceased Priyanka was lying on the floor of the kitchen and one bottle of pesticide / insecticide was lying near her in open condition. He alongwith his son Vikram and Vidyasagar immediately lifted the deceased and took her to DDU Hospital, Delhi in their car. After checking the deceased, the doctor declared her 'brought dead'. Thus, the conjoint reading of the statement of the prosecution witness as well as defence witness there is no doubt that the death of deceased State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 82 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:53:54 +0530 83 Priyanka was unnatural due to consumption of poison / pesticide and suicidal in nature 36.2. For proving the third condition "soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband". On perusal of the third condition, the following ingredients of the third condition has to be proved:
(i) soon before her death,
(ii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband,
(iii) or any relative of her husband.
37. It is essential to consider the meaning of soon before her death before analyzing and application of the term "soon before death" to the case at hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satbir Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana 2021 6 SCC 1, has explained the term "soon before her death". Relevant paras are reproduced as follows:
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 83 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:54:06 +0530 84 "14. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails. The aforesaid position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the three-Judge Bench held that:
"15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and nostraitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. ... In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. ....
Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough."
(emphasis supplied) State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 84 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:54:17 +0530 85 A similar view was taken by this Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477.
15. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim.
16. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption. Section 113B, Evidence Act reads as under:
"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 has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
17. This Court, in the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359, emphasized the mandatory application of the presumption under Section 113-B of State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 85 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:54:28 +0530 86 the Evidence Act once the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC stood proved:
"19. It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'shall' thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. ...Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. ...
20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Therefore, once all the essential ingredients are established by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act mandatorily operates against the accused. This presumption of causality that arises can be rebutted by the accused.
19. The usage of rebuttable presumption of causality, under Section 113-B, Evidence Act, creates a greater responsibility on Judges, defense and prosecution. They need to be extra careful during conducting criminal trials relating to Section 304-B, IPC. In order to address this precarious situation, State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 86 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:54:42 +0530 87 procedural law has some safeguards, which merits mentioning herein.
20. It is a matter of grave concern that, often, Trial Courts record the statement of an accused under Section 313, CrPC in a very casual and cursory manner, without specifically questioning the accused as to his defense. It ought to be noted that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it is based on the fundamental principle of fairness. This provision incorporates the valuable principle of natural justice-"audi alteram partem", as it enables the accused to offer an explanation for the incriminatory material appearing against him. Therefore, it imposes an obligation on the part of the Court to question the accused fairly, with care and caution. The Court must put incriminating circumstances before the accused and seek his response. A duty is also cast on the counsel of the accused to prepare his defense, since the inception of the trial, with due caution, keeping in consideration the peculiarities of Section 304-B, IPC read with Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
21. Section 232, CrPC assumes importance, which reads as, "If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal". Once the Trial Court decides that the accused is not eligible to be acquitted as per the provisions of Section 232, CrPC, it must move on and fix hearings specifically for 'defence evidence', calling upon the accused to present his defense as per the procedure provided under Section 233, CrPC, which is also State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 87 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:54:55
Warsi +0530
88
an invaluable right provided to the accused. Existence of such procedural right cohesively sits with the rebuttable presumption as provided under Section 113-B, Evidence Act.
22. The second contentious part relating to Section 304-B, IPC is that it does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental, as was done earlier. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. However, the Section 304-B, IPC endeavors to also address those situations wherein murders or suicide are masqueraded as accidents.
......iii. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B, IPC cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'. The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives."
37.1. Thus, in terms of above observation ,it is clear that the term "soon before" is a relative term depending on the specific circumstances of a case and instead of time limit, the court has to consider proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 88 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:55:07 +0530 89 37.2. Now, in present case, In the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar, he deposed that prior to one day of the marriage, accused Vinod and Subodh who are uncles of accused Vikram @ Bunty and Shravan (brother-in-law i.e. Jija of accused Vikram @ Bunty) had demanded Rs.1 Lac as he was not having the money, the demand was made suddenly, he went to his maternal uncle Sh. Vasudev Paswan who had arranged Rs.1 Lac for him and then he went to village Nandlal Pur, native village of accused Vikram @ Bunty and he handed over Rs.1 Lac to Vinod and Subodh. He also stated that after the marriage, he went to meet Priyanka to Nandlal Pur but accused persons did not allow him to meet Priyanka. Even at the time of see-off by Priyanka she was standing on the roof and was crying and the accused persons had not allowed his deceased sister to talk to them. Whenever Priyanka tried to call him, he heard abusive language on the telephone. After the marriage, she was not allowed to come to their house and Shravan and Subodh met them and demanded Rs.2 Lac from him. Priyanka also told him that accused persons were demanding Rs.2 Lacs and the accused persons used to taunt State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 89 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:55:17 +0530 90 her for illicit demand of dowry. She used to cry on telephone. Accused persons has harassed his sister mentally and physically and he also came to know that his sister was beaten by the accused persons just prior to her death on 20.12.2016. It is also stated by him in cross-examination that when accused Vinod had demanded Rs.1 Lac from him, at that time, his mother was present there. The testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by testimony of PW-2 Smt. Sheela i.e. mother of deceased Priyanka that she had transferred Rs.1 Lac to the bank account of Vikram and as they had demanded money as condition of marriage. It is also stated by her that her brother gave them Rs.50,000/- after withdrawing the money from his bank account and Rs.50,000/- was collected by them from here and there. She alongwith her son Bal Krishan went to Vinod and Subodh and handed over the amount of Rs.1 Lac to them. She also stated that after keeping well for 2 months they started harassing her daughter. Her daughter told her that chachiya's sasurs Vinod and Subodh were demanding Rs.2 Lacs. Before her death, her daughter had told her about a quarrel with her. The testimony and PW-1 Sh. Bal State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 90 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:55:29
Warsi +0530
91
Krishan and PW-2 Smt. Sheela is further substantiated by PW-11, Sh. Vasudev Pawan. He stated that one day before the marriage, his sister told him that the groom family is demanding Rs.
1,00,000/- and they were saying that if, the arrangement of Rs. 1 lac was not made, they would not bring the baarat. Since the family of his sister was unable to make the arrangement, he arranged Rs.1 lac. He withdrew Rs.50,000/- from his account and remaining Rs. 50,000/- was lying in his house. In this way, he arranged Rs. 1 lac and gave it to his sister. Then the marriage of Priyanka and Vikram was performed. Even, further corroboration of giving money, as can be seen, from the cross-examination of DW-1 Naresh Kumar i.e. father of accused Vikram @ Bunty in which he stated that, it is correct that account No. 30250845574 is account number of his son namely Vikram @ Bunty. He could not affirm or deny the suggestion that account No. 31286755477 is in the joint name of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan. At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards Ex.PW12/B. After going through contents of Ex.PW12/B witness submits that it is correct that Ex.PW12/B shows the account No. 31286755477 is State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 91 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:55:41 +0530 92 in the joint name of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan. It is correct that at entry dated 02.02.2016 shown on page No. 2 of Ex.PW12/B it is mentioned that Rs. 2 lakhs were transferred from account No. 31286755477 to 30250845574. Voluntarily he did not know about the abovementioned transaction. He also said that this was the money transferred to the account of Vikram as there was no account of Priyanka. Thus, considering the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, it is established that the demand of money before marriage was made and the same has been given by the deceased Priyanka's family and accepted by the family of Vikram @ Bunty. Further, The demand of Rs. 2 lakh was stated to be specifically made by accused Vinod and Subodh (i.e. uncles of accused Vikram) and Rs.2 Lacs by accused persons and the amount from the account of Rs.2 Lacs were received in the account of Vikram i.e. money amounting to Rs.2 Lacs were transferred from joint account of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan (father and mother of deceased Priyanka) to the accused of accused Vikram and the same is also established by bank statement. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 92 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:55:49 +0530 93 the demand of dowry was made before marriage and after two months of marriage and the same was continued as she committed suicide within 08 months of marriage and on the day of suicide she was also given beatings as PW 17, IO SI Mohit has deposed of beatings by accused on the date of incident i.e. 20.12.2016 and no cross examination or suggestion challenging the said testimony is made by accused persons on this aspect of evidence. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that soon before her death deceased Priyanka was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry.
37.3. On the basis of the above discussion, it is clear that accused Vikram @ Bunty, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar have harassed and committed cruelty to deceased Priyanka with regard to demand of dowry which is proved before the marriage, during the marriage as well as till the day of the death of her i.e. deceased Priyanka was subjected to cruelty and reasonable proximity and live link for cruelty soon before her death is established and which was due to the wilful conduct, by demand State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 93 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:56:03 +0530 94 of dowry amounting to cruelty and harassment, by Accused Vikram @ Bunty, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar.
37.4. However, the prosecution evidence has not clearly established that accused Pushpa Devi and Bindu Devi have demanded the dowry amount and as regard accused Pushpa Devi and Bindu Devi, there are no direct allegations except, as Stated by PW1, Balkishan that:
"Wives of accused Vinod and Subodh (correctly identified by the witness) were also present there when he had handed over Rs. 1 lakh to Vinod and Subodh."
Their name is also used in omnibus manner that accused persons used to taunt deceased priyanka. Thus, prosecution has not brought any specific demand of dowry or act of cruelty or harassment by them to deceased Priyanka.
38. Before proceeding further, it is relevant that for the purpose of conviction and sentence u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC, the accused has to be relative of husband. It is also relevant to rely State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 94 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:56:15 +0530 95 on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijeta Gajra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi, AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2712, 2010 AIR SCW 4290 decided on 08.07.2010, which is as follows:
"7. Shri U.U. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr.[(2009) 6 SCC 757], it was specifically held that in order to be covered under Section 498A, IPC one has to be a `relative' of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. He pointed out that the present appellant was not in any manner a `relative' as referred to in Section 498A, IPC and, therefore, there is no question of any allegation against her in respect of the ill-treatment of the complainant. The Court in this case examined the ingredients of Section 498A, IPC and noting the specific language of the Section and the Explanation thereof came to the conclusion that the word `relative' would not include a paramour or concubine or so. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word `relative' and further relying on R. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 3rd Edition, the Court went on to hold that Section 498A, IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162]. A reference was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P.[(2007) 15 SCC 369]. After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word `relative' in Section 498A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.
8. Relying heavily on this, Shri Lalit contended that there is no question of any trial of the appellant for the offence under Section State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 95 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:56:24 +0530 96 498A, IPC. The argument is undoubtedly correct, though opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the State. We are of the opinion that there will be no question of her prosecution under Section 498A, IPC. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, also did not seriously dispute this proposition. Therefore, we hold that the FIR insofar as it concerned Section 498A, IPC, would be of no consequence and the appellant shall not be tried for the offence under Section 498A, IPC.."
39. With regard to Accused Shravan, the evidence is omnibus and not established beyond reasonable doubt that he is Jija/Brother in law of accused Vikram. And for the purpose of Section 304 B IPC it is necessary the the cruelty has to be caused by Husband or his relative. Though in the deposition of PW1 Sh.Balkishan, PW 10 Sh. Prem Prakash Kumar they stated that Accused Shravan is brother in Law (Jija) of Accused Vikram but PW2 Smt. Sheela Devi in her testimony has referred him as "one Shravan was sent to us.." and at another place as " Sharvan, who is related to my son in law Vikram , was making all arrangements of marriage on behalf of the accused persons"[not specifying the relation between accused Vikram and Shravan] and in her cross examination she stated that " Sharvan had brought the proposal of marriage of Vikram with Priyanka.Sharvan is related to us State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 96 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:56:34 +0530 97 through the younger brother of my husband." Thus, the testimony of PW2 Smt. Sheela Devi has cast a shadow of doubt on the relationship between Accused Vikram and Accused Sharvan . on the contrary she claimed Accused Sharvan is related to the brides side through younger brother of her husband i.e. father of deceased Ms. Priyanka. However in the statement of accused persons they have denied Shravan as jija of Accused Vikram but claimed him to be a mediator from the girl's side who had brought the proposal of marriage . Further in the deposition of D.W. 1, Sh. Naresh Kumar Father of Accused Vikram he stated that he has two daughters, one of them is married. This statement Clarifies that the other daughter is unmarried. And he also denied that, accused Sarwan is his son in law. IO PW 17, SI Mohit has stated in his cross examination that, it is correct accused Vikram is having two sisters out of which one was married. He do not know whether name of brother in law of accused Vikram was Kranti and he was residing in Jharkhand. The mediator of the marriage of deceased with accused Vikram namely Sarvan was residing in the area of Durga Park, Sagarpur.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 97 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:56:47 +0530 98 It is correct that Sarvan was in relation to the younger brother of the husband of the mother of the deceased. Further in his defence i.e. under the statement of accused Shravan, he stated that He was a middle man in the marriage from the side of deceased Priyanka . Priyanka was his niece ( bhanji). Thus as per prosecution evidence itself when there is a doubt on the brother in law relationship of Accused Shravan with Accused Vikram and the same relationship is denied by the father of accused Vikram and Vikram himself along with the other accused, then the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof of Shravan being relative of accused Vikram beyond reasonable doubt and where there is a doubt on relationship as alleged by prosecution then Section 304 B IPC against accused Shravan is not attracted as the alleged relationship of brother in law(jija) is not established beyond reasonable doubt. And for attracting Section 304 B IPC cruelty or harassment is by husband or relative and Shravan has not proved to be brother in law of accused Vikram , thus Section 394 B IPC is not attracted towards Shravan.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 98 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:57:04 +0530 99
40. As the prosecution has shown that soon before her death deceased Priyanka has been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry, then the presumption against the accused Vikram, Subodh and Vinod u/s 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arises, which read as follows:
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman 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 purpose of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]."
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana (supra) has reiterated the observation made in Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, as follows:
"16. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 99 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:57:19 +0530 100 accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption. Section 113B, Evidence Act reads as under:
"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 has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
17. This Court, in the case of Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 359, emphasized the mandatory application of the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act once the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC stood proved:
"19. It may be mentioned herein that the legislature in its wisdom has used the word 'shall' thus, making a mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. ...Therefore, in view of the above, onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts exclusively and heavily on the accused. ...
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 100 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:57:31 +0530 101
20. Therefore, in case the essential ingredients of such death have been established by the prosecution, it is the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused has caused the dowry death."
(emphasis supplied)"
42. From the above discussion, the prosecution is successful that the death of deceased Priyanka was due to consumption of pesticide within 08 months of her marriage and the nature of death is unnatural and suspicious circumstances. It has been further proved that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in pursuance to demands of dowry By accused Vikram, Vinod and Subodh and the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act has shifted the onus on the accused and the accused has to rebut the presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.
43. To discharge the burden, the accused persons has taken the defence that they were implicated falsely due to enimosity which was developed after the death of deceased Priyanka and she was State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 101 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:57:43 +0530 102 never harassed for or in connection with any dowry. However, the evidence laid by defence i.e. DW-1 Sh. Naresh Kumar- He himself has stated that on 20.12.2016, when they were having dinner at around 10:30 pm, on hearing noise from the side of their kitchen, they immediately ran towards their kitchen and saw that deceased Priyanka was lying on the floor of their kitchen and one bottle of pesticide / insecticide was lying near her in open condition and when they took her to DDU Hospital, she was declared 'brought dead'. He has also admitted that from the joint named account of Kedar Paswan and Sheela Paswan, Rs.2 Lacs were transferred from their account to the account of Vikram as there was no account of Priyanka. Thus, the defence has failed to explain that the purpose for which Rs.2 Lacs were transferred from the account of father of mother of deceased Priyanka to the account of accused Vikram as well as suspicious circumstances due to which her death was caused and why the witnesses have deposed against them and no evidence of animosity was brought by the defence on record except for the bald statement. Further, absence of external injuries can not lead to deny the suicidal State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 102 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:57:56
Warsi +0530
103
death and testimony of witnesses with regard to continues cruelty and harassment to the victim of in her matrimonial house.
Further, the use of the word "hoga" is indicating of the term that may be the reason and the same has to be seen and appreciated in totality of facts and circumstances and in the light of the discussion held above the only reason is harassment and cruelty to which deceased Priyanka was subjected in her matrimonial house. Thus, This court is not able to agree with the submissions made by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the accused persons and the case law relied by them is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the same being different. Further, the submission of material contradictions and omissions is not acceptable as some minor discrepancies are natural in the testimony of witnesses due to multiple factors like loss of memory, court pressure, nervousness etc. Further, the case laws relied by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances of the present case are different. It is also essential to rely on the observation made in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 103 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
17:58:06
Warsi +0530
104
(1983) 3 SCC 217 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
"5. ... We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 104 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:58:19 +0530 105 (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 105 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:58:30 +0530 106 subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him--perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
44. Now coming to offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. As per discussion above, the dowry demand due to which cruelty and harassment has been proved against accused Vikram, Subodh and Vinod and accordingly they are also convicted for offence punishable u/s 498 A IPC along with Section 304 B IPC.
45. However, there is no evidence against other accused persons that they had committed cruelty within meaning of S. 498A IPC. Therefore offence u/s 498 A as well as 304 B IPC is not proved out against them beyond reasonable doubt.
46. It is also relevant to consider Section 34 IPC, which reads as:
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 106 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:58:47 +0530 107 "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
47. It is settled that, Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create any substantive offence. The law is explained by the superior courts as in "Krishnan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala, decided on 2 September, 1996 AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 383, 1996 (10) SCC 508 "Question is whether it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish commission of overt act to press into service section 34 of the Penal Code. It is no doubt true that court likes to know about overt act to decide whether State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 107 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:59:04 +0530 108 the concerned person had shared the common intention in question. Question is whether overt act has always to be established? lam of the view that establishment of an overt act is not a requirement of law to allow section 34 to operate inasmuch as this section gets attracted when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all". What has to be, therefore, established by the prosecution is that all the concerned persons had shared the common intention. Court's mind regarding the sharing of common intention gets satisfied When overt act is established qua each of the accused. But then, there may be a case where the proved facts would themselves speak of sharing of common intention : res ipsa tlquitur, Now, take this case, The appellant is a school teacher. He is sup-posed to be armed with a pen and not a knife. He would be normally found in his school and not on a road at night, and that too in the company of another who is also armed with knife. Not only this, seeing the deceased coming, the appellant and the co-accused came out from State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 108 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:59:28 +0530 109 behind a tree and proclaimed to the deceased they were waiting for him. Thereafter, the deceased is be- laboured, and let it be conceded, only by the co-accused. Question is whether the appellant had also the intention which had animated the co- accused in causing the death? According to me, it would definitely be permissible to draw the inference that both the accused had shared a common intention and the criminal act in question had been done in furtherance of the intention. Section 34 does not require anything more to get attracted.
Lest it be thought that this view is being taken for the first time by this Court, reference may be made to ChiniaPulla Reddy v. State of Andhra SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996] SUPP.5 S.C.R. Pradesh, [1993] Supp, (3) SCC 134. There also A-l, out of the two accused, alone had stabbed the deceased twice which had resulted in the death of the concerned person. But then, having noted that A-2 Was also armed with knife and had gone to the house of the deceased and was present in the middle of the night at the spot, this State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 109 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed by Syed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:59:36 +0530 110 Court upheld the conviction of A-2 under section 302/34, even though he had not by himself caused any specific injury to the deceased. (See para 11). May it be pointed out that Chinta Pulla's case is incidentally very close on facts to the one at hand.
So, even if it were to be conceded that appellant Vijay Kumar had not caused the head injury, his conviction under section 302/34 does not suffer from any infirmity."
48. Now coming to case at hand the manner in which the demand for Dowry was made by accused Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar as well as receiving of money in the account of Accused Vikram, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have made the demand of dowry due to which cruelty and harassment to deceased Priyanka was caused soon before death and the same was in furtherance of their common intention and accused Vikram @ Bunty, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar are liable to be convicted for Sec 304-B, 498-A both r/w 34 IPC as the same has been proved against them beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 110 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 17:59:58 +0530 111 CONCLUSION The accused persons namely Sharvan Kumar, Pushpa Devi and Bindu Devi are acquitted for all the offences in the present case.
Accused Vikram @ Bunty, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar are convicted for the offence u/s 304-B, 498-A both r/w Section 34 IPC.
The bail bonds of accused persons are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
Let the accused persons namely Vikram @ Bunty, Vinod Kumar and Subodh Kumar be heard on the point of sentence on next date of hearing.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 24th of March, 2023 Digitally signed Syed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.24 18:00:12 +0530 (SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 Patiala House Courts New Delhi/24.03.2026 State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 111 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 112
(i) Chart for witnesses examined Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No.
1. Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar Complainant / Brother of Victim
2. Smt. Sheela Devi Mother of Victim
3. Rakesh Constable, Photographer, participated in investigation
4. Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat Executive Magistrate, recorded statement of Sh. Prem Prakash, issued directions to the SHO and request letter to the HOD, DDU Hospital to conduct postmortem on the dead body of deceased Priyanka.
5. Dr. Nishu Dhawan MLC of Priyanka
6. Surender Singh Retired SI, Report dated 21.12.2016
7. Jagdish Constable, participated in investigation
8. Balwan Singh ASI, Duty Officer State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 112 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
18:00:28
Warsi +0530
113
9. Dr. V.K. Ranga Post Mortem Report
10. Prem Prakash Kumar Witness brother in law
of deceased Ms.
Priyanka .
11. Vasudev Paswan Witness , Maternal
uncle ,Mama of
deceased Ms. Priyanka.
12. Mintu W/Head Constable,
participated in
investigation
13. Ramesh Kumar Head Constable,
participated in
investigation
14. Banwari Lal Head Constable,
participated in
investigation
15. Hari Ram ASI, Duty Officer
16. Pawan Head Constable,
participated in
investigation
17. Mohit SI, Investigating Officer
18. Neeraj Kumar Inspector, Subsequent
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 113 of 121
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed Syed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.24 18:00:39 +0530 114 opinion of doctor
19. Sh. Amit Rawat Report of FSL (Chemistry)
20. Dr. R.K. Chaubey Detailed subsequent opinion.
Defence Name of witness Description Witness No.
1. Sh. Naresh Kumar Witness, father of the accused Vikram @ Bunty State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 114 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 18:00:51 +0530 115
(ii) Chart for exhibited documents Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested No. by
1. Ex.PW1/A, Statement of Bal PW-1, Sh. Bal Krishan Kumar recorded by Krishan Kumar SDM.
Ex.PW1/B, arrest memo of accused Vikram.
Ex.PW1/C, Dead Body
identification statement of Bal
Krishan Kumar.
Ex.PW1/D, receipt of handing
over of dead body.
2. Ex.DX, Statement u/s 161 PW-2, Smt. Sheela
CrPC.,.......photograph of Devi
deceased Priyanka and accused
Vikram.
Ex.DX1 to Ex.DX6, six
photographs of deceased
Priyanka.
3. Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A7, PW-3 Ct. Rakesh
seven photographs.
Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B7,
negatives.
4. Ex.PW4/A, Statement of Sh. PW-4, Sh. Satish
Prem Prakash. Kumar Rawat
Ex.PW4/B, directions to the
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 115 of 121
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.24
18:01:01
Warsi +0530
116
SHO.
Ex.PW4/C, request letter to the
HOD.
5. Ex.PW5/A, MLC of Priyanka PW-5, Dr. Nishu
Dhawan
6. Ex.PW6/A, prepared report. PW-6, Retired SI
Surender Singh
7. Ex.PW7/A, seizure memo of PW-7, Ct. Jagdish plastic bottle.
Ex.PW7/B, seizure memo of diary.
Ex.PW7/C, seizure memo of exhibits collected during post mortem.
8. Ex.PW8/A, true copy of DD PW-8, ASI Balwan No. 4A Singh
9. Ex.PW9/A, post mortem report PW-9, Dr. V.K. Ranga
10. Ex.PW10/DA, statement u/s PW-10, Sh. Prem 161 Cr.P.C. Prakash Kumar
11. Mark PW 11/1 (colly), copy of PW-11, Sh. Vasudev the passbook. Paswan
12. Ex.PW12/A, memorandum of PW-12, W/HC Mintu possession.
Mark PW12/B, bank statement and some bills/invoices.
State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 116 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 18:01:08 +0530 117
13. Ex.PW13/A, scaled site plan. PW-13, HC Ramesh Kumar
14. Ex.PW14/A, personal search PW-14, HC Banwari memo of accused Vikram @ Lal Bunty.
15. Ex.PW15/A, FIR, PW-15, ASI Hari Ram Ex.PW15/B, endorsement on rukka
16. Ex.PW16/A, copy of road PW-16, HC Pawan certificate.
Ex.PW16/B, acknowledgement.
17. Ex.PW17/A, endorsement / PW-17, SI Mohit tehrir for registration of FIR.
Ex.PW17/B, site plan.
Ex.PW17/C,disclosure statement of accused Vikram, Ex.PW17/D, Inquest papers.
Mark PW17/E, photographs of the deceased.
Ex.PW17/F1 to Ex.PW17/F5, arrest memos of accused Vinod Kumar, Subodh, Smt. Pushpa, Smt. Bindu Devi and Shravan respectively.
Ex.PW17/G, pointing out memo.
18. Ex.PW18/A, Subsequent PW-18, Insp. Neeraj State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 117 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 18:01:18 +0530 118 opinion on the post mortem. Kumar
19. Ex.PW19/A, Report of FSL PW-19, Sh. Amit (Chemistry) Rawat
20. Ex.PW18/A, detailed PW-20, Dr. R.K. subsequent opinion proved Chaubey signature at Point A. Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested No. by
1. ---- DW1, Sh. Naresh Kumar State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 118 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 18:01:29 +0530 119
(iii) Chart for material objects / muddamals Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested by Object No.
1. Ex.P-1/1, diary of deceased PW1 Sh. Bal Krishan Priyanka. Kumar Ex.P-1/2, invitation card of marriage.
Ex.P-1/3 and Ex.P-1/4, photographs of deceased Priyanka.
2. Ex.DX, photograph of PW2 Smt. Sheela Ms.Priyanka and Vikram, Ex.DX1 to Ex.DX6, six photographs
3. Ex.PW3/A1 to A7, Seven PW-3 Ct. Rakesh photographs, Ex.PW3/B1 to B7, negatives of photographs
4. ---- PW-4, Sh. Satish Kumar Rawat
5. ---- PW-5, Dr. Nishu Dhawan
6. ---- PW-6 , Retired SI Surender Singh State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 119 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi +0530 18:01:41 120
7. ---- PW-7, Ct. Jagdish
8. ---- PW-8, ASI Balwan Singh
9. ---- PW-9, Dr. V.K. Ranga
10. ---- PW-10, Sh. Prem Prakash Kumar
11. ---- PW-11, Sh.Vasudev Paswan
12. ---- PW-12, W/HC Mintu
13. ---- PW-13, HC Ramesh Kumar
14. ---- PW-14, HC Banwari Lal
15. ---- PW-15, ASI Hari Ram
16. ---- PW-16, HC Pawan
17. Ex.PW17/P1, plastic PW-17, SI Mohit container.
18. ---- PW-18, Insp. Neeraj Kumar
19. ---- PW-19, Sh. Amit Rawat
20. ---- PW-20, Dr. R.K. Chaubey State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 120 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.24 Warsi 18:01:54 +0530 121 Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested by Object No.
1. ---- DW1, Sh. Naresh Kumar Digitally signed Syed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Zishan Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.24 18:02:07 +0530 (SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 Patiala House Courts New Delhi/ 24.03.2026 State Vs. Vikram @ Bunty and Ors. Page no. 121 of 121 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals