Delhi District Court
State vs Krishan Kumar Raut on 20 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN:
ASJ-02 :SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Session Case No.269/2021
State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors.
FIR No: 126/2021
PS : Jaitpur
U/s : 498A/304B/34 IPC
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 126/2021
Date of Institution : 22.07.2021
Offence complained of : U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 01.04.2021
Name of the complainant : Smt. Anju
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Raut
R/o H.No.2/22, Roshan Garden Part-II,
Kakrola Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi 110043
Name of the accused : (1) Krishan Kumar Raut
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
(2) Ram Kumar Raut
S/o Late Sh. Kusheshwar Raut
(3) Kundan Kumar Raut
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
(4) Phuleshwari Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Kumar Raut
All R/o H.No.D-2/85, Hari Nagar
Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi
(5) Sunita
W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 1 of 114
R/o H.No.A-75, Ground Floor, Dayal
Bagh, Near Lakkarpur, Faridabad,
Haryana
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Judgment Reserved on : 07.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.05.2026
Decision : All accused persons
stands acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut, Kundan Kumar Raut, Phuleshwari Devi and Sunita faced trial for offences, punishable u/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution story, as per chargesheet is that on 01.04.2021, statement of complainant Anju was recorded by the concerned SDM, in the statement, Smt. Anju (mother of deceased Soni) stated that:-
"व्यान दिनाक 01/04/2021 में अंजू पत्नि श्री राम अवतार राउत, पता 2/22 रोशन गार्डन पार्ट-2 ककरोला रोड नजफगढ़ दिल्ली 110043 उसे 64 वर्ष में ये व्यान करती हूँ कि मेरे चार बच्चे है जिसमे तीन लड़की और लड़का और में ये ब्यान करती हूँ कि मेरी दूसरी पुत्ररी जिसका नाम सोनी जिसकी उम्र 28 साल थी जिसकी शादी 9 मार्च 2018 को जैतपुर निवासी श्री राम कु मार राउत के पुत्र श्री कृ ष्ण कु मार राउत से हुआ था। जो कि मकान न० D-2/85, हरी नगर एक्सन जैतपुर दिल्ली-110044 में रहते है मेरे व्यान के अनुसार मरी पुत्री और दामाद से शादी के दो तीन महीने के बाद से दहेज लेने का झगडा चल रहा था और मेरी पुत्री ने शादी के एक साल बाद एक बच्ची को जन्म दिया जिसका (प्राची ) नाम है अभी होली के दिन मेरी पुत्री और दामाद मेरे निवास स्थान नजफगढ आये हुए थे और दामाद होली के दिन ही FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 2 of 114 शाम को अपने घर जैतपुर चला गया और मेरी पुत्री ने शाम को जाते समय बताया की मुझे लग रहा है कि ये लोग मुझे मार देगे फिर मैंने अपनी पुत्री को 30/03/2021 को शाम 8.30 बजे बात हुई और बतलाया की में अपने घर जैतपुर पहुँच गयी हूँ दिनाक 31/03/2021 को समय 2.30 पर मेरी पुत्री से विडियो कॉल पर बात हुई तब तक सब ठीक था फिर मेरे बेटे (शिवम) ने उसी रात 8.41 से 8.50 Pm तक अपनी बहन (सोनी) से बात की उस वक्त भी सब नार्मल था फिर उसी रात मेरे बेटे के मोबाइल पर फोन 11.30 बजे आया जिसमे श्री कृ ष्ण (दामाद) से बात हुई और उन्होने बताया की आप लोग पुरे परिवार के साथ होली फै मली अस्पताल जल्द पहुँचे क्योकि आपकी पुत्री सोनी खतम हो गयी है और में थे व्यान करती हूँ कि मेरी पुत्री की मृत्यु नहीं बल्कि साजिस के तहत दहेज उत्पीडन के कारण रामकु मार राउत फु लेशवरी देवी सुनीता कृ ष्ण कु मार राउत और कु न्दन कु मार राउत ने मिलकर मेरी पुत्री की हत्या कर दी है और इसे फाँसी का नाम दे दिया अत: श्री मान जी से नम् निवेदन है कि मेरी पुत्री के ससुराल वालो पर सक्त से सक्त कार्यवाही करे । इनका व्यवहार बहुत ही गलत रहा मेरी पुत्री के साथ वदिदात में मैं कार्यवाही चाहती हूँ। मेने अपना ब्यान पढा व सुना जो कि सत्य है और मैं यह ब्यान विना किसी दबाव के दे रही हूँ"
3. On the aforesaid statement of Smt. Anju mother of deceased Soni, FIR was registered on 01.04.2021, U/s 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the mobile phone of deceased Soni was seized and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Exhibits were collected and sent for FSL. Accused persons were interrogated and their statements were recorded. IO during investigation also collected one multicolour chunni which was used as ligature material was also seized. Site plan was prepared and scene of crime was got inspected. Statement of witnesses/family members of deceased were also recorded. The postmortem report of deceased no.480/2021 reveals that "The cause of death to the best of my knowledge and belief is asphyxia due to ligature compression of FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 3 of 114 neck. Any subsequent opinion regarding the case can be obtained by the IO, after submitting the circumstantial and investigative findings." Bank account statement of accused Krishan Kumar Raut was also obtained and it was found that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited in his account on 19.02.2018 by a cheque which belong to the sister of the deceased namely Meena and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited on 21.02.2018 from the bank account of father of deceased namely Ram Avtar and another amount of Rs.50,000/- on 17.02.2018 from the bank account of father of the deceased.
4. The CDR/CAF record pertaining to mobile phone of deceased, the mother of the deceased and all the accused persons as well as father of deceased was also collected. Further, on 31.03.2021, there are three continuous incoming calls on the mobile phone of deceased from the mobile number of mother of deceased at 15:03 pm and thereafter, from accused Sunita to the deceased at 08:17 pm and third call from the brother of the deceased at 08:41 pm.
5. Further, on 311.03.2021, the location of mobile phone of accused Kundan Kumar Raut at 14:55 to 22:21 pm is at Greater Noida and he was not present at the time of the incident at his house at Hari Nagar Ashram. Further, there is an incoming call made by accused Krishan Kumar Raut to his brother accused Kundan Kumar Raut at 22:14 for 29 seconds and an outgoing call from accused Kundan Kumar Raut to accused Krishan Kumar Raut at 22:24 for 91 seconds.
6. FSL report pertaining to inspection of scene of crime was also FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 4 of 114 collected which stated "on preliminary examination of the above said room, no biological clues were observed at the scene of crime. On the basis of dust disturbances found on the fan, the possibility of hanging could not be ruled out."
7. From the investigation, IO ascertained that on the day of incident accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut, Kuleshwari Devi, deceased Soni and her minor daughter Prachi were present at home at the date and time of incident.
8. Further, accused Krishan Kumar Raut had brought the deceased Soni to Holy Family Hospital by cab at 11:05 pm and the doctor had mentioned on alleged history "found in unconscious state today at 09:30 pm at home with dupatta around neck. Patient was lying down at first floor, noticed by her husband. Brought to casualty and having oblique ligature mark around the neck."
9. Supplementary chargesheet qua the viscera report was also filed. In the postmortem report Ex.A23, upon the queries asked by the IO, Q.1. Whether the ligature compression of neck of deceased Soni is due to strangulation or hanging?
Q.2 Whether the ligature compression of neck of deceased Soni is antemortem, or otherwise?
Opinion for Query no.1 and 2 :- "After perusal of submitted documents, we are of the considered opinion that cause of death in this case is asphyxia due to ligature compression of neck in this case could be due to antemortem hanging. The investigating officer is advised to corroborate with circumstantial evidences".
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 5 of 114
10. After filing of the chargesheet, Court took cognizance of the offences against accused persons. Proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded. Arguments on charge were heard and based on the contents of chargesheet, accused persons was charged with offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC on 23.11.2021 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11. Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in support of its case: -
Serial Name of the Crux of deposition Number Witness PW-1 Smt. Anju To prove the material essentials of the (complainant - complaint filed by her. She tendered the mother of following documents in evidence :-
deceased) a) Complaint/statement dated 01.04.2021
- Ex.PW1/A This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-2 Ram Avtar Raut To prove the material essentials of the (father of the offences alleged. He tendered the deceased) following documents in evidence :-
a) Statement regarding identification of dead body of deceased Ex.PW2/A
b) Statement recorded by SDM Ex.PW2/B
c) Dead body receipt Ex.PW2/C FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 6 of 114
d) Seizure memo of marriage card and marriage photograph Ex.PW2/D
e) Marriage photograph of deceased and accused/husband Ex.X (Colly) This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-3 Meena (sister of To prove the material essentials of the the deceased) offences alleged.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-4 Ct. Om Prakash Witness joined the investigation with IO and deposed regarding different stages of investigation carried out with IO. He tendered the following documents in her evidence:
a) Seizure memo of sealed exhibits handed over by doctor in hospital Ex.PW4/A and request form for keeping the dead body in mortuary Ex.PW4/B This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-5 Ct. Kamarjeet Witness joined the investigation with IO and deposed regarding different stages of investigation carried out with IO. He tendered the following documents in her evidence:
a) Seizure memo of mobile phone of FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 7 of 114 deceased Soni Ex.PW5/A This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-6 Shivam (brother of To prove the material essentials of the deceased) offences alleged. He tender the following documents:-
a) Statement recorded by SDM on 01.04.2021 Ex.PW6/A
b) Statement of identification of dead body of deceased Ex.PW6/B This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-7 Ct. Tota Ram Witness joined the investigation with IO and deposed regarding different stages of investigation carried out with IO. He tendered the following documents in her evidence:
a) Arrest memo & personal search memo of accused Ram Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/A & Ex.PW7/B respectively
b) Arrest memo & personal search memo of accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively
c) Arrest memo & personal search memo of accused Kundan Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F respectively
d) Disclosure statement of accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 8 of 114 and Kundan Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/G to Ex.PW7/I respectively
e) Seizure memo of mobile phone make Lenovo of accused Kundan Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/J
f) Seizure memo of mobile phone make Samsung of accused Krishan Kumar Raut Ex.PW7/K
g) Seizure memo of chunnia Ex.PW7/L This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-8 Deepshikha Witness deposed that she got issued sim (witness pertaining number 7669572878 of Vodafone and to ownership of given for use to accused Sunita who was mobile number of her neighbour.
accused Sunita)
PW-9 SI (Retd.) Kanhiya To prove the various stages of
Lal investigation being carried out by the
witness.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav To prove the various stages of
investigation being carried out by the
witness. He tendered the following
documents in her evidence:
a) Endorsement on statement of father of
deceased Ex.PW10/A
b) Seizure memo of broken pieces of
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 9 of 114
bangle Ex.PW10/B
c) Site plan Ex.PW10/C
d) Arrest memo, personal search and
disclosure statement of accused
Phuleshwari Devi Ex.PW10/D to
Ex.PW10/F respectively
e) Seizure memo of list of dowry articles
Ex.PW10/G
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW11 Tarun Kumar Witness proved the personal loan
Bharti, Legal account statement of Ramavtar Raut
Officer HDFC Ex.PW11/A (Colly) alongwith certificate
Bank U/s 63 BSA Ex.PW11/B and substitute
power of attorney Ex.PW11/C (Colly).
PW-12 Pankaj, Alternate Witness proved the CAF and CDR
Nodal Officer alongwith location chart of mobile
Vodafone Idea no.7669572878 issued in the name of
Deepshikha for the period from
01.10.2020 to 01.04.2021 already
Ex.A10 (Colly) alongwith certificate u/s
65 B of Indian Evidence Act
PW-13 Binod Kumar Witness proved the bill of gold jewellery
which was in the name of deceased Soni
Ex.PW13/A
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-14 Inspt. Subhash Witness deposed that he had issued
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 10 of 114
Bhatt notice to Central Bank of India for
investigation of account no.1021733232
of Ramavtar Raut. He received
certificate copy of said account from the
concerned bank and he had also received
FSL report from FSL. Thereafter he
prepared and filed the supplementary
chargesheet before the concerned court.
12. Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 13.02.2025 & 08.01.2026, the accused persons have admitted the genuineness of the following documents: -
S. Documents Admitted
No.
1. FIR No. 126/2021, PS Jaitpur recorded by Ex. A
HC Devender Singh.
2. Scene of crime report preapred by ASI Ravi Ex.A1
Kumar who visited at spot alongwith Ct.
Baljeet.
3. Postmortem report of deceased Soni dated Ex.A2
01.04.2021.
4. DD No. 7A dated 01.04.2021 recorded by Ex.A3
HC Tulsi Ram.
5. DD No. 4A dated 01.04.2021 recorded by Ex.A4
HC Tulsi Ram.
6. MLC of deceased Soni prepared in the Holy Ex.A5
Family Hospital by Dr. Trupati Ranjan
Shukla.
7. Recording the statement of Smt. Anju, Ram Ex.A6
Avatar and Shivam by the then SDM, dated
(colly)
01.04.2021 and Endorsement by SDM Sh.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 11 of 114
Praveer Singh, SDM Sarita Vihar.
8. FSL Report dated 22.02.2022 prepared by Ex.A7
Dr. Monika Sahi.
9. FSL Report dated 31.08.2021 prepared by Ex.A8
Dr. Santosh Tripathi.
10. FSL Report and DNA Report dated Ex.A9 (colly). 27.01.2022 preapaed by Dr. Saravjeet Singh.
11. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A10 (colly) Evidence Act, of mobile no. 7669572878 from page no.
23 to 33
12. Statement of account submitted by the then Ex.A11 (colly) Branch Manager peratining to the account of from page no.
Ram Avatar Raut. 47 to 54
13. Statement of account of Meena of Punjab Ex.A12
National Bank.
14. Statement of account of Krishna Kumar Ex.A13
Raut of Axis Bank.
15. Statement of account of Ram Avatar Raut of Ex.A14 (colly) Central Bank of India. from page no.
74 to 78
16. FSL/ Crime Scene Visit Report dated Ex.A15 02.06.2021 by the FSL Team prepared by Dr. Ajay Kumar Gautam, Sr. Scientific Officer (CSMD), FSL.
17. Nodal Officer, JIO pertaining to CDR and Ex.A16 CAF of mobile no. 7011842463 alongwith (colly) certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Evidence from page 129 Act. to 144
18. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A17 Evidence Act, of mobile no. 9560287061 (colly) and 9717399384 of Bharti Airtel. from page 146 to 154.
19. CDR/CAF/ certificate u/sec. 65B of Indian Ex.A18 Evidence Act, of mobile no. 9999102131, (colly) 7669572878, 9718470860, 9716983581 and from page 157 9899367258 of Vodafone. to 186.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 12 of 114
20. Sketch Site Plan prepared by Draftsman Ex.A19 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain.
21. Statement of Ct. Arun, who deposited sealed Ex.A20 parcel in the FSL.
22. Statement of HC Man Singh, who deposited Ex.A21 sealed parcel in the FSL.
23. Statement of W/HC Sunita, who was the Ex.A22 witness of arrest of accused Phuleshwari Devi and accused Sunita.
24. Subsequent opinion bearing no.480/2021 Ex. A23 (Colly) prepared by Dr. Abhishek Varun, Senior Resident AIIMS Delhi
13. Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:
PW-1 Smt. Anju (complainant/mother of the deceased) deposed that she had three daughters and one son. Deceased Soni was her second daughter. They knew family of accused persons for the last 20-25 years as they were residing at Jaitpur, Delhi. The marriage of her daughter Soni was solemnized on 09.03.2018 with Krishan Kumar Raut S/o Ram Kumar Raut as per Hindu Rights. It was arranged marriage. The marriage was solemnized at her native place at District Madhubani, Bihar. After the marriage of her daughter, she started living with her in laws house with the family of her husband at Jaitpur, Delhi. Her daughter Soni lived happily for three months with her in laws but after three months of the marriage, mother in law of her daughter namely Phuleshwari Devi and Nanad Sunita had started demanding jewellary by saying that "apne maike se maang ke lao". All the accused persons namely Phuleshwari Devi, Sunita, Ram FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 13 of 114 Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut started torturing to bring jewellary from her parental home. After one year of the marriage, they started demanding Rs.2 Lacs from her. Her daughter Soni usually told her regarding the demand of dowry, but she did not tell anything to other family members. Whenever her daughter Soni came to her house. She told her regarding demand of dowry. She used to tell her that not to tell regarding said fact to any of the family members " wo mujhe kasam dilati thi ki ghar me kisi ko nahi batana, me apne aap samhal lungi". On 16.04.2019, one baby girl was born out of the said marriage of her daughter Soni at Safdarjung Hospital. She came to her house when she was in a family way for about 7 months. She came to her house because her in laws and other family members used to torture her at her matrimonial home. Before one year of her death, the above mentioned accused persons demanded Rs.5 Lacs. Whenever her daughter came to her home, she used to tell her regarding the demand of dowry. She told her that whenever accused had demanded dowry from her she would say that "me kaha se laungi. Mere baap ki teen betiya hai aur kamane wale sirf mere papa hai". On the occasion of Holi, Last year ie. 2021 her daughter came to her house with her elder daughter Meena in her car and her son in law namely Krishan Kumar Raut came on his motorcycle. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut had left on the same day saying that "mere bhai ko naukri pe jana hai. Me nahi ruk sakta". Her daughter Soni left on the next day. Before leaving her home, she disclosed her that "mummy mujhe lagta hai ki ye log mujhe marna chahte hai". By "Ye log, she mean above mentioned accused persons". Her daughter Soni told her that she was educated and she told her that "kya mai tere papa se baat karu ki who tere sasur se baat kare?, upon this, her daughter told her that "mai samhal lungi" her FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 14 of 114 daughter Soni told her that her mother in law had hit with soap on her head. This fact was told by her daughter Soni prior to 7/8 days of her death. Her both the daughter namely Soni and Meena had left from her house on the next day of Holi in the year 2021. Soni called her when she reached at her matrimonial home. On 31.03.2021 at about 02.30 pm her deceased daughter namely Soni made a video call on her mobile phone. At that time, her grand-daughter namely Prachi was doing childish activities and was disturbing their talk. Around 08.41pm, on 31.03.2021 her son made a call to her deceased daughter Soni and he talked till 08.50pm. Whenever her daughter used to call or they used to call her, her in-laws used to disturb by asking her to do household activities, so that she could not talk to them. On 31.03.2021 also, when her daughter talking to son, she was asked by her husband to prepare food. Thereafter, due to said reason her son disconnected phone and came downstairs as he was talking on the roof of their house with her daughter. Around 11.30pm accused Kishan called her son telephonically and informed him that her daughter Soni has died and he should come to Holy Family Hospital. Accused Kishan also told her son Shivam do not tell the said fact. Her son Shivam did not believe what he had heard and asked accused Kishan to not joke around. His son called her daughter Soni on her mobile phone but she did not pick her phone. Thereafter, her son Shivam and her husband reached Holy Family Hospital. Thereafter, she went before the concerned Magistrate along with her son and husband, where her statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, her daughter was taken to AIIMS hospital for identification of dead body of her daughter. Her daughter used to tell her that her in-law used to harass her by making comments "aurat toh ek khilona hai, jo hum bazar se FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 15 of 114 laate hai aur khel ke badal dete hai ." Her daughter always used to get checked by her in-laws with regard to the persons, she used to talk on phone as her in-laws always used to stand near her whenever she used to make call anybody including them. Further, she used to tell her that her in laws used to demand dowry from her and those in-laws included her Devar namely Kundan, husband Krishan, mother in law Fuleshwari Devi, Sasur Ram Kumar Raut and Nanad Sunita.
During examinational PW1 was asked following court questions:-
Court Question: Whenever your daughter Soni used to tell you that she was harassed by her in-laws, what used to be your response? Ans: I used to suggest her to share the said information with her father and mother but my daughter used to avoid it by saying that she was interested in continuing with her matrimonial life and does not want to give tension to her father and brother. She used to prepare for various exams and had appeared in Navodya Vidyalaya in one of the exam. I do not know exactly as to in what exams she used to appear and prepare.
Court Question: Did you give any dowry in the marriage of your daughter Soni?
Ans: Yes. We had given Rs.2.5Lacs in cash and Rs.2.5Lacs through cheque in favour of husband of my daughter Soni. Court Question: After the marriage can you specify any specific dowry demand made by accused persons? If yes, give details. Ans: After the marriage accused persons did not demand any dowry from me, my husband and my son.
Court Question: Can you specify the details of dowry demands which your daughter used to tell you?
Ans: My daughter used to tell me that her father in law used to tell her FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 16 of 114 "beti dahej le jaati hai aur bahu dahej lekar aati hai". My daughter was asked by her inlaws that accused persons that she should bring Rs.5 Lacs from us as dowry so that in laws of my daughter can get construction of their home done as their house below the ground level. Court question: Did you ask in laws of your daughter about the reason of death of your daughter?
Ans: I had not myself asked in laws of my deceased daughter but husband had asked accused Kishan about the cause of death of my daughter and in response to the same, accused Kishan had replied "Jo sochna hai soch lo".
During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons PW1 deposed that Smt. Phuleshwari Devi was mother in law of her daughter namely Soni. She had met Smt. Phuleshwari Devi, for the first time on 02.10.2017 when there was a function of Chaurasiya Samaj. She lastly met her in Safdarjung Hospital when her daughter Soni delivered baby girl on 16.04.2019. She had talked to Smt. Phuleshwari Devi on 29.03.2019 when there was Holi Festival on phone. Smt. Phuleshwari Devi had called me on phone for giving wishes of Holi. She had met Smt. Sunita on the day when my daughter had married. Subsequently, she never met Smt. Sunita. It was correct that she knew that Smt. Sunita was married, at the time of marriage of her daughter. She had come, prior to marriage of her daughter, at her house for seeing her daughter for marriage purposes. It was correct that she never went to the matrimonial house of her daughter Soni. Kundan was brother in law (devar) of she daughter. She had met him in Chaurasiya Samaj function in the year 2017. He had come to her home on various occasions with her daughter after marriage of her daughter. She could not tell when she had last met FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 17 of 114 him. She did not remember as to how many days prior to incident in question, Kundan had come at her residence. She did not use to talk to Kundan at length. She was acquainted with the in laws of her daughter for the last 20/25 years due to Chaurasiya Samaj function where they used to come. She did not call any of the accused persons to her house prior to marriage of her daughter. She did not know what Mr. Ram Kumar Raut, father in law of her daughter, was doing prior to marriage of her daughter. She made inquiry prior to marriage and she was told that the accused Krishan Kumar Raut studied upto B.A. She was also told that accused Krishan was working in a Company. She did not remember the name of the company her son in law was working. Again said, later on she came to know that her son in law was working in Samsung Company. It was correct that she did not visit the house of accused persons for the talk of marriage of her daughter Soni. She maintained/used mobile prior to marriage of her daughter. She did not know how to operate whatsapp and SMS. She knew how to make video call. Her mobile has whatsapp after the marriage of her daughter Soni. Her daughter Soni used to send the photographs of her daughter on her whatsapp number. It was correct that her daughter never sent any whatsapp message on her mobile. Whenever she inquired her daughter for anything on a call, she used to tell her that she can not tell on phone. She was not sure whether any message sent by her daughter was available on her phone as her phone was already damaged. Her daughter Soni studied upto B.Com. She did not remember whether she had completed her M.Com but she had cleared first part of CA and left the studies. She could not tell when her daughter appeared in CA entrance. She could not say whether her daughter appeared in CA entrance in the year 2011. Her daughter FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 18 of 114 dropped the studies of CA by saying that she had two other younger children and bearing the expenses for her studies would be overburden and that her father is the only earning member. It was correct that her daughter had taken the admission in IGNOU University for M.Com Course in the year 2014. It was also correct that she stopped the study of M.Com later on. She dropped her studies of M.Com because of marriage of her elder daughter Meena. It was correct that after marriage, her daughter told her that she joined the course of M.Com from IGNOU university. It was correct that she completed her M.Com in the year 2019. It was correct that her daughter completed her studies of M.Com while staying in her matrimonial home. It was correct that her son in law Krishan might have borne the expenses of her M.Com as she was living in her matrimonial house. It was correct that her daughter was also applying for government jobs. It was correct that her daughter appeared in entrance examination for the Post of Stenographer in Bihar Vidhansabha as well as for the post of Teacher in Sarvodya Vidyalaya. She did not know whether her son in law Krishan was also applying for the government job alongwith her daughter. Her daughter Soni was also having her money. Her daughter had no bank account, in her name, prior to her marriage. It was correct that before marriage, her daughter used to give tutions. It was correct that cheque of Rs. 2.5 Lac was given by them in the name of husband of her daughter, prior to marriage of her daughter. It was wrong to suggest that because her daughter was not having the bank account, therefore, the amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs belongs to her daughter, was given in the name of husband of her daughter. His daughter had mobile phone in her name, prior to her marriage. She could not tell the said mobile number of her daughter. She had not taken the said FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 19 of 114 mobile number with her, after her marriage. She did not know whether, husband of her daughter had purchased and had given a mobile phone to her daughter, after marriage. Initially, after marriage of her daughter, she used to talk to her from the mobile number of her husband. Later on, her daughter got mobile phone in her name. She had not given any mobile to her daughter after her marriage. She did not know who had given the said mobile phone to her daughter. She cannot affirm or deny the suggestion that her daughter received mobile phone after her marriage, from her in-laws. It was correct that she used to be in touch of my daughter through WhatsApp call/ message/ normal call on mobile phone, after her marriage. She never received any WhatsApp message or normal message from her daughter, vide which, she had told her about her in-laws harassing her on account of dowry demand. It was correct that her daughter had knowledge about surfing the internet. It was correct that one case of her husband was pending, as on date, in Hon'ble High Court of Bihar. It was correct that her husband used to ask her daughter about the status of the said case online. It was correct that in the month of October 2020, her daughter told her that she alongwith husband and in-laws were going for a tour to Haridwar. She did not remember whether her daughter had made WhatsApp video call from Badrinath and had shown her site of Badrinath. It was correct that her daughter came to her house to give prasad of Badrinath. After marriage, on first Raksha Bandhan festival, her daughter was at her home. It was correct that after Raksha Bandhan, they used to go by taking Kawad for pilgrimage. During cross examination PW1 was asked is it correct that you and your son stated on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan in the year 2020, to your daughter "hum nahi chod sakte, wo khud le jayega, FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 20 of 114 jis per soni bahut gussa ho gyi thi, ki uske saamne uski pati ki ijjat nahi kar rahe hain" to which she replied no. She did not remember that whether her daughter visited her house in the month of January 2020.
During cross examination PW1 was asked following court questions.
"Court Q.1 : Who was elder, amongst your son and husband of deceased ?
Ans : My son-in-law i.e. husband of deceased. Court Q.2 : Whether your son used to address your son-in-law by name ?
Ans : No. He had cordial relations with his brother-in-law and used to respect him."
On 31.03.2021, around 2.30 pm, when her daughter was present at her matrimonial house, she made WhatsApp Call to her as her grand daughter (daughter of her daughter) was insisting to talk to her. During cross examination PW1 was asked is it correct that her daughter left for matrimonial house on 31.03.2021 to which she replied it was wrong. At the time of marriage of her daughter, she was not having any regular bank account in her name. It was correct that she had given Rs.2.5lacs to her daughter in the name of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. It was correct that she had given said money as her daughter was not having any bank account in her name and that money belong to her daughter. She had told police that she had borne all the educational expenses of her daughter. It was correct that she daughter was having one mobile phone with her after her marriage. She did not know the make of mobile phone, her daughter was maintaining after her marriage. She did not know the make of her mobile phone. Her statements were recorded before SDM and twice FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 21 of 114 by police. The statement recorded before SDM was read over to her by the staff of SDM. The statement recorded by police outside the office of SDM was not read over to her by anybody and she had also not read it. The statement recorded by police in police station Jaitpur was read over to her, by the son of her sister.
During cross examination PW-1 was asked following court questions:-
"Court Q.1 In your testimony, recorded before this court, you have deposed certain facts told by your daughter viz. 1."main kahan se laungi. Mere baap ki teen betiyan hai aur kamane wale sirf mere papa hai" 2. "main Samhal lungi" 3. "aurat toh ek khilona hai, jo hum bazar se laate hai, khelke badal dete hai".....Those facts are not mentioned in your previous statements. What is the reason? Ans: I had told all the said facts before SDM and police. I do not know why those facts are not mentioned in my previous statements recorded before SDM and police.
Court Q.2 After initial three months of marriage of your daughter, as per your testimony, accused persons started harassing her to bring dowry. What did you do, to solve the situation? Ans: I had met the middle man and he assured me with the passage of time, issues in the marriage of my daughter will end. Based on said assurance, I did not file any complaint and did not meet accused persons, to solve the situation. Court Q.3 How many times, your daughter told you that accused persons were demanding dowry, specifically or approximately? Ans: My daughter had told me more than once said fact of dowry demand being raised by accused persons but I cannot specifically or approximately tell the number of times, she had told FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 22 of 114 me about the said fact.
Court Q.4 As per your testimony, about seven-eight days prior to her death, she had told you that she was hit with soap on her head by her mother in law. What did you do to solve the said issue? Ans: I did not do anything. (Vol. That is my fault. I am suffering for the said mistake today. My daughter always told me to not interfere in her matrimonial home. She told me that she will handle the situation, by herself.)"
She had told the fact regarding her daughter telling her, seven to eight days prior to her death, about she being hit with a soap by her mother-in-law, to the police. She did not know about the educational qualification of father in law and mother in law of her deceased daughter Soni. She did not know as to whether her daughter used to book railway tickets or gas booking and online shopping for purchasing articles for daily use in her matrimonial home. She knew that her daughter used to go as a parent to the college of her brother in law Kundan. She did not know as to whether her daughter Soni used to accompany her husband, for purchasing articles from market. It was correct that her daughter was very sensitive. She had not filed any complaint regarding dowry demands, made by in laws of her deceased daughter, after three months of her marriage. She did not know how many times, her daughter visited her house. Her daughter had come to her home as she was finding it difficult to work in her matrimonial home. She had talked to the Mediator, who had got the marriage of her daughter conducted with accused Krishan Kumr Raut regarding the fact that her daughter used to complaint about her being harassed by her in laws. No meeting took place between us and in laws of her FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 23 of 114 deceased daughter, in the presence of mediator, as in laws of her daughter refused to join any such meeting. She did not file any complaint when in laws of her daughter refused to join such meeting.
PW-2 Ram Autar Raut deposed that his daughter namely Soni (since deceased) got married to accused Krishan Kumar on 09.03.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Bihar. His daughter living peacefully for about 2 months after marriage. Thereafter, the father-in-law of his daughter namely Ram Kumar Raut and her mother in law namely Smt. Kuleshwari Devi and sister in law namely Sunita and husband Krishan Kumar and dever Kundan Kumar started harassing his daughter and asked her to bring dowry. In the marriage of his daughter he had given her daughter gold ornaments almost around 65 grams. After marriage on the festival of badh savitri when his daughter was wearing her jewellery which he had given her in her marriage, accused Sunita told his daughter that the jewellery given in marriage belonged to them, thereafter, they demanded his daughter to bring more jewellery from him. Thereafter, accused Kundan Kumar had to take admission in B. Tech and for the same they asked my daughter Soni to bring Rs.2 Lakh from him so that admission of accused Kundan Kumar could be done. Thereafter, they again demanded Rs.5 Lakh from his daughter for re-construction of the house since the same was in dilapidated condition. Thereafter his daughter was pregnant and after six months of her pregnancy accused persons had left his daughter with me at her parental home and she remained with them. His daughter was blessed with a girl child on 16.04.2019. Thereafter, all accused persons had taken his daughter FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 24 of 114 back to the matrimonial home but soon after they all started torturing and harassing his daughter Soni since she had given birth to a baby girl. Thereafter, on the festival of Holi in the year 2021, his daughter alongwith accused Krishan Kumar visited me in the parental home alongwith the baby girl child. Thereafter, accused Krishan Kumar went back and left his daughter with me. On 30.03.2021, when he asked his daughter to go back to her matrimonial house, she informed his wife (her mother) that if she would return back to her matrimonial house, accused persons shall kill her since they were unhappy with the jewellery given in the marriage and have been harassing her for the same and also for the reason that the demand of accused persons of Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs. 5 Lakhs was not fulfilled by his. However, he convince his daughter after making her understand to go to her matrimonial home and on 30.03.2021, she went back to the house of the accused persons. On 31.03.2021, his wife received a video call from his deceased daughter Soni. Thereafter, on the same night when his son Shivam had given a call to his deceased daughter Soni to inform her about his result, and was talking to him, accused Krishan Kumar was heard by him from behind by saying " khana nahi banaogi". At that time his son Shivam had spoken to his daughter from 08:41 pm to 08:50 pm. On the same night at around 11:30 pm accused Krishan Kumar gave a call on the phone of his son Shivam and told him "aap sab log, holly family hospital aa jao, kyonki aap ki beti soni khatam ho gayee hai". Thereafter, he alongwith his son Shivam reached at Holly Family Hospital. He was not allowed to meet his daughter Soni since she had expired. Accused persons had not informed the police and had not called the PCR van. His daughter was not to brought by hospital by the ambulance but was brought in OLA FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 25 of 114 Cab which was booked by accused Kundan from Noida. However, in the night he had made a call at 100 number to the police from the mobile phone of his son. Police officials had reached at Holi Family Hospital and had taken the body in their possession. On 01.04.2021, the body of his daughter was taken to AIIMS hospital by police officials. He had identified the dead body of his daughter and his statement regarding identification of the dead body of his daughter was Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, they were asked to appear before the SDM by the police officials and their statement was recorded before the SDM concerned. In the SDM office he was accompanied with his wife and son. The postmortem of his daughter was also conducted. His statement recorded before SDM was Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter, dead body of his daughter was handed over to them and cremation was performed. The dead body receipt was Ex. PW2/C. To his belief his daughter was killed by all the accused persons in connivance with each other. He had seen the ligature mark on the neck of his daughter which he believe she was killed by strangulation. He had handed over the marriage card and colored photographs on photocopy paper of marriage to the IO and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D and marriage card and photographs was Ex. X1 (Colly). Police had inquired matter from me and also recorded my statement. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW2 deposed that the cremation of his daughter was performed in his presence and in the presence of accused persons. The jewellery articles worn by his deceased daughter at the time of her death were handed over to them by the police officials after her death. Sh. Laxman Rao was the mediator in the marriage between his deceased daughter and accused Krishan Kumar Raut. He did not inform to the mediator regarding the FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 26 of 114 fact that his deceased daughter was being harassed by the accused persons for demand of dowry. He had handed over the police officials the bills pertaining to the purchase of dowry articles given in marriage of his daughter. Judicial record perused, the aforesaid bills for purchase of jewellery articles were not available on record. He had met accused Sunita who was the sister in law of his deceased daughter several times after marriage of his daughter. He had met accused Sunita on the occasion of one pooja ceremony performed in the house of the accused persons and also on the retirement of accused Ram Kumar. It was correct that the marriage of accused Sunita was solemnized prior to the marriage of his daughter. It was correct that accused Sunita was residing after her marriage in her matrimonial home. He did not know if at the time of admission of accused Kundan in college his deceased daughter had visited the college being the parent/guardian of accused Kundan. His deceased daughter Sunita had informed him and his wife regarding demand of Rs.2,00,000/- for the admission of accused Kundan in college on the phone as well as when she had visited them in parental home. He had informed regarding the same to the mediator of marriage namely Laxman Rao when he had met him regarding the demand of accused persons but he told him later that the accused persons were not taking his calls. He had not informed regarding demand of Rs.5 Lakh for the construction of house by the accused persons from his deceased persons to the mediator Laxman Rao because soon after the present incident of death of his daughter had occurred. He had visited the house of accused persons before his daughter getting married in their family and the house of the accused was owned by them and was not a rented accommodation. The house of the accused persons was old FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 27 of 114 construction. It was correct that he was employed at Bihar Bhawan, Delhi at the time of marriage of my daughter. The matter has been decided in his favour by a double bench. It was correct to check the status of the aforesaid case of Bihar, he used to call his daughter to seek her assistance. It was correct that his daughter had taken admission for pursuing CA before her marriage. His daughter had already completed her B.Com prior to her marriage. His daughter had taken admission in IGNOU for pursuing M.Com. It was correct that his daughter was preparing for government job. It was correct that his daughter and accused Krishan Kumar had appeared for an exam conducted by Bihar Government and had gone to Patna for the same. Before marriage his daughter was having a bank account. However, the same was closed by her just prior to her marriage. The name of his younger daughter is Indu. His younger daughter was working in AXIX Bank Ltd. He did not know whether the job of his younger daughter was got on the recommendation of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. He had not lodged any complaint against husband of his daughter and in laws against harassment in the matrimonial house prior to the present case. He visited to the matrimonial house of his daughter after her marriage on the retirement of her father-in-law. He had given the invoice of the jewellery which was purchased by him for the marriage of my daughter, to the police. It was not completely constructed. The matrimonial house was already constructed as constructed but the same is down from the road level. There was no birth celebration of the child of the deceased as there was lock down period. There was no complaint lodged by his about threat which his daughter told that "sasural wale maar denge". They had tried to get understand his daughter but thereafter next day, she had expired. He FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 28 of 114 had no time to contact the mediator of the marriage to explain about the information given my daughter against the in-laws. It was correct that his deceased daughter Soni was accompany with his elder daughter namely Meena and she had dropped her at Jaitpur Bridge where accused Krishan Kumar Raut had come to pick my deceased daughter Soni. He did not know if after marriage his daughter had opened two bank accounts in her name. He did not know if his daughter used to make all her expenses after withdrawing money from the aforesaid bank accounts. After two months of the marriage of his deceased daughter she had narrated that she was being harassed by the accused persons and she had shared the same with her mother who told him regarding the same. They had not filed any complaint with the police upon knowing the same, however, he had spoken regarding the same to the mediator of marriage. Thereafter, mediator told him that he had tried to contact the accused persons but the accused persons were not taking his calls. It was correct that whenever my daughter visited the parental home she would only stayed for one or two days with them. It was correct that his daughter used to visit the parental home and used to be dropped by her husband. He did not know what mobile number his daughter was having at that time. His statement was recorded once before SDM concerned and once before the police officials. They had cordial relations with the accused persons till the death of his daughter. The distance between the house of accused Sunita and the matrimonial house of his daughter was very less and she used to often visit the matrimonial house of his daughter. He had not seen any quarrel between my daughter and accused Sunita.
PW-3 Meena deposed that she was the sister of the deceased namely FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 29 of 114 Soni. Her deceased sister Soni got married to accused Krishan Kumar Raut on 09.03.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, her deceased sister went to her matrimonial home which was situated at Jaitpur and she started residing with the accused persons i.e. accused Krishan Kumar Raut (husband of deceased), accused Ram Kumar Raut (father-in-law), accused Phooleswari Devi (mother-in-law), accused Kundan Kumar (Devar). Accused Sunita (sister-in-law) of the deceased used to live separately as she was already married. Her father in the marriage of her deceased sister had given her dowry as per his own capacity. Her father had given a cheque amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs to accused Krishan Kumar Raut and also given cash of Rs. 2.5 to the accused persons at the time of marriage. Apart from said amount, her father had also given to her deceased sister around 60-65 grams of Gold, household articles, clothes including other articles. Her father had also given a gold chain and gold ring to accused Krishan Kumar Raut. In the beginning of the marriage of deceased, she was kept well by the accused persons. However, she had less occasion to talk to the deceased as she was already married and used to remain busy in my matrimonial home. However, when she spoke to her sister almost after six months of her marriage when they both were at their parental home for the function of Rakhi that the accused persons used to dislike her talking on phone and restricted her to talk. On the occasion of Rakhi, her sister was wearing her gold articles given in her marriage. At that time, she told her sister to be careful as she had visited the parental home by wearing jewellary and it was not safe but she said that she want to wear it as it was given in her marriage. At that time, her sister also told her that accused Phooleshwari Devi and accused Sunita used to claim their right on her jewellary and told her FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 30 of 114 sister that the jewellary did not belong to her and that her deceased sister should hand over her jewellary to them. Her deceased sister Soni also told her that the accused persons namely accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Phooleshwari Devi, Kundan Kumar and Sunita Devi were unhappy with the articles given in her marriage and used to claim that her father had given insufficient dowry in the marriage. Whenever, she had spoken to her deceased sister, she had told her the aforesaid things. She hardly used to talk to her. She had met her sister last on 29.03.2021 on the festival of Holi as she had visited the parental home along-with her in her Car as she had a small child and we had reached our parental home. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut had also accompanied us on the same day while he was on the bike. On 29.03.2021, accused Krishan Kumar Raut left our parental home as they had some work. On 30.03.2021, she along- with her deceased sister Soni came back and she dropped her at Meethapur Chowk and thereafter, she was taken by accused Krishan Kumar Raut. On 31.03.2021 at around 11.30 pm in the night, she received a call from her younger brother Shivam who informed that he had a received a call from accused Krishan Kumar Raut that her sister Soni had expired. Upon hearing the same and since she was residing in Faridabad, she immediately reached Holy Family Hospital. In the hospital, she met accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Sunita. Her statement was recorded by the police. Her deceased sister Soni could not have committed suicide and she had suspicion on the accused persons that they have killed her sister. Her sister was educated and could not have taken such an adverse step. She was not suffering from any ailments and therefore could not have died. Her sister used to be harassed by the accused persons for FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 31 of 114 demand of dowry and used to taunt her for demand of dowry and therefore she was killed by accused persons.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW3 deposed that they have four brother and sisters and now deceased Soni had already expired. She was the eldest, thereafter was deceased Soni, then her sister Indu and thereafter her younger brother namely Shivam. Her date of birth was 10.02.1991. Her deceased sister Soni was born on 13.11.1992. She was B.Ed. from Bihar, Graduation from Delhi University and also have done Masters from IGNOU. It was correct that she got married on 03.07.2014 and the same was performed in Delhi. Her husband was a Mechanical Engineer and he hails from Bihar. It was correct that they belong to Chaurasia Community and even her husband belongs to the same community. Accused persons also belong to Chaurasia Community. She was a Teacher by profession and she was teaching at Patwal Public School, Faridabad, Haryana since 2016. Her deceased sister Soni had completed her Graduation and was pursuing her Masters. Her deceased sister had also cleared her examination of CPT Course and had also cleared one part of IPCC examination. It was correct that her sister had completed her graduation in Commerce stream from Delhi University. She was not sure if deceased was pursuing her Masters from IGNOU. She did not know if her deceased sister had completed her M.Com. She must have completed it after her marriage but she was not knowing about the same as she hardly used to talk to her. She was enquired about the present mater by the police. Her statement was recorded by the police and she had narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. Her statement was read over to her by the police. She had informed the police in her statement that " apart from said amount, my FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 32 of 114 father had also given to my deceased sister around 60-65 grams of Gold, household articles, clothes including other articles. My father had also given a gold chain and gold ring to accused Krishan Kumar Raut." During cross-examination statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the aforesaid facts are not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had also informed the police in her statement "However, when I spoke to my sister almost after six months of her marriage when we both were at our parental home for the function of Rakhi that the accused persons used to dislike her talking on phone and restricted her to talk. On the occasion of Rakhi, my sister was wearing her gold articles given in her marriage". During cross-examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the aforesaid facts was not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had informed the police in her statement that "at that time, I told my sister to be careful as she had visited the parental home by wearing jewellary and it was not safe but she said that she want to wear it as it was given in her marriage ." During cross examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the aforesaid facts were not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had told the police in her statement that "My deceased sister Soni also told me that the accused persons namely accused Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Phooleshwari Devi, Kundan Kumar and Sunita Devi were unhappy with the articles given in her marriage". During cross examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was readover to her wherein the aforesaid facts were not so recorded and the witness was confronted. She had told the FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 33 of 114 police in her statement that "My deceased sister Soni could not have committed suicide". During cross examination, the statement of the witness recorded u/sec. 161 CrPC Ex.PW3/DA was read over to her wherein the aforesaid facts are not so recorded and the witness was confronted. It was correct that he had two daughters namely Ishika and Nidhi. It was correct that her daughter Nidhi's birthday falls on 08th June. It was correct that first birthday of her daughter named Nidhi was celebrated and she had invited all her family members. It was correct that deceased Soni along-with her husband accused Krishan Kumar Raut had also attended the birthday celebration of my daughter Nidhi. It was correct that deceased Soni had accompanied her in-laws to Badrinath in October 2020. She did not know if deceased Soni had also visited Rishikesh prior to Badrinath. She did not know if deceased Soni and accused Krishan Kumar Raut had visited Bihar to appear for examination in Bihar Legislative Assembly (Secretariat). Her sister was having a phone prior to her marriage. She did not remember the mobile number of deceased sister today. She did not remember the make of the mobile phone which she had prior to her marriage. She did not know if accused had gifted deceased Soni a Redmi mobile phone in June 2018 after her marriage with him. He may have given but she did not know. She was not sure if deceased had any bank account in her name prior to her marriage.
PW-4 Ct. Om Prakash deposed that on the intervene night of 31.03.2021/01.04.2021, he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am alongwith SI Kanhiya Lal. SI Kanhiya Lal received an information vide DD No.4A. Thereafter he alongwith SI Kanhiya Lal went to Holy Family Hospital and SI Kanhiya Lal collected the MLC of FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 34 of 114 deceased Soni W/o Krishan Kumar Raut and doctor advised on the MLC as patient brought dead. The husband of the deceased namely Krishan Kumar Raut and his father Ram Kumar and other persons he did not remember their name. SI Kanhiya Lal prepared a paper regarding preservation of dead body of deceased in the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital, Delhi. He preserved the dead body of deceased in the mortuary at about 3 am and he was present at the mortuary for safety of the dead body of deceased. On 01.4.2021 at about 03:00 pm SI Kanhiya Lal reached at Mortuary who got conducted the postmortem of deceased Soni. After postmortem the sealed exhibits collected by SI Kanhiya Lal from doctor concerned and seized int his case vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The above said sealed parcel were handed over to him by SI Kanhiya Lal and as per direction he had deposited the same in the malkhana. His statement was recorded by the IO. He had also signed the request to keep the dead body in the mortuary which was Ex.PW4/B. PW-5 Ct. Karamjeet deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted as Ct. at PS Jaitpur. On that day, he had joined the investigation with SI Kanhiya Lal and reached his beat no.H.No.D-2/85 Hari Nagar Extn. SI Kanhiya Lal informed to crime team to reach at spot. At about 2:20 am, crime team reached at spot and inspected the place of occurrence and photograph of place of incident was taken by the crime team member. One mobile phone was found in the room on the double bed of deceased Soni and the same mobile phone was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The make of the mobile phone was MI. Thereafter, they came back to the police station and IO had deposit the above said mobile phone in the FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 35 of 114 malkhana. During examination MHC(M) had produced one transparent plastic box having doctor tape and particulars of the case written on the doctor take of the above said container and one mobile phone was taken out from the said container and the said mobile phone make MI was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identify the mobile phone which was seized by the IO at the spot. Above said mobile phone was Ex.MOI.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW5 deposed that the mother in law of the deceased was present in the house at the time the proceeding were carried on by the crime team and the seizure of the mobile phone.
PW-6 Shivam deposed that he was the brother of deceased Soni. His sister Soni (deceased) got married to accused Krishan Kumar Raut on 09.03.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, his sister residing in her matrimonial house situated at Hari Nagar Extn. Jaitpur, Delhi. For about 2 months after marriage, his sister was kept well by accused persons. However, after two months of marriage, the family of the accused persons started demanding more dowry from his sister upon saying that the dowry brought by her is insufficient. All accused persons used to demand dowry from his sister as they were unhappy with the articles given in marriage. After marriage, when his sister visited them, after almost 2-3 months of her marriage, when she visited the parental home, she informed us regarding the aforesaid demands of accused persons. When they asked her that if she wanted him and his father to speak to the accused persons, she said that she FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 36 of 114 will handle it on her own. At that time, he was pursuing his B.Tech. On 29.03.2021, for the festival of Holi his deceased sister Soni alongwith her husband namely accused Krishan Kumar Raut visited the parental home/their home and drop his sister and left. Thereafter, on 30.03.2021, his elder sister namely Meena alongwith her husband Om Prakash who were already at their home for the festival of Holi, alongwith his sister in their car went to drop his deceased sister Soni to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, his sister reached back her matrimonial home. In the afternoon of 31.03.2021, his deceased sister even made a video call to his mother alongwith her small daughter Prachi. Around 8:41 pm to 8:50 pm, his deceased sister spoke to me on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, while talking to her, he heard accused Krishan Kumar Raut asking his sister to serve dinner and at that time he found everything was fine. His sister did not disclose him anything disturbing. After talking to her he kept the phone. On the same night at around 11:30 pm, he received the call from accused Krishan Kumar Raut that he missed the same but soon thereafter, he called back. At that time, he was informed by accused Krishan Kumar Raut who told him that his sister has expired and that he should reach Holly Family Hospital. He tried to ask the accused Krishan Kumar Raut regarding the reason for the incident but he did not disclose anything to me but ask him to reach Holly Family Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith his father reached at Holly Family Hospital and upon reaching he was informed by hospital staff that the same seems to be a police case and upon hearing the same he made a call at 100 number. When he saw the dead body of deceased he realized that there were ligature mark on her neck. Later, the dead body of deceased / his sister Soni was taken to AIIMS Hospital for postmortem. On their way to hospital, while in FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 37 of 114 the ambulance he and his father asked accused Krishan Kumar Raut but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Postmortem of deceased was conducted on the next day. Prior to that, he had got his statement recorded before the SDM concerned on 01.04.2021 and the same was Ex.PW6/A. He had identified the body of deceased and the statement of identification of dead body was Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, the body of his sister was cremated. To his knowledge, the deceased Soni was tortured by all accused persons after her marriage for purpose of demand of dowry and due to the same she was killed by accused persons. To his knowledge, his sister could not have commit suicide as she was educated and a strong person. On 05.04.2021, he had handed over the marriage card and colored photograph of marriage nine colored print out of his sister to the IO and the same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/B. The marriage certificate and marriage photograph are already admitted and Ex.X1 (Colly). Prior to the marriage they had given Rs.2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs.2.5 Lakh by way of cheque to the family of the accused persons i.e. Ram Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut. They have also given proof regarding the aforesaid payment to the IO. They had also furnished details of jewellery articles given to his sister in her marriage with the accused Krishan Kumar Raut.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW6 deposed that at the time of marriage of his sister, he was doing B.Tech. From NSIT Dwarka, Delhi. They have been living at the aforesaid address from 2001 onward. Since, 2000 they have been staying in Delhi. The age difference between him and his deceased sister Soni was about 6 years. Meena was his eldest sister and thereafter his sister Soni (deceased), then Indu and thereafter him. They all have studied in FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 38 of 114 Delhi. It was correct that his father was employed with Bihar Government and was posted in Bihar Bhavan at Chanakya Puri, Delhi. As per direction of police official they had reached at office of SDM for recording their statement at Sarita Vihar, Delhi. They had reached there in the morning but exact time he did not recollect. He did not remember the exact time, but it was sometime in noon their statement was recorded. After that they went to the AIIMS Hospital where the postmortem was performed. The jewellery worn/found on the dead body was handed over to his family by the police officials. They had gone to the cremation ground which was in the area of Jaitpur, Delhi. Since his mother was little unwell and under shock, their statement was again recorded by police in the police station. They again visited at police station 2-3 times to hand over the documents asked by the police but he was not sure if his statement was recorded by the police. It was correct that the statement which the police had recorded after 2- 3 days of the incident was signed by him. At this stage, the statement Ex.PW6/C has been shown to the witness and the witness confirm that the said statement was recorded by the police. He did not remember if he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A because he was not in his senses due to shock that "For about 2 months after marriage, my sister was kept well by accused persons. However, after two months of marriage, the family of the accused persons started demanding more dowry from my sister upon saying that the dowry brought by her is insufficient". He did not remember if he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A because he was not in his senses due to shock that "All accused persons used to demand dowry from my sister as they were unhappy with the articles given in marriage. After marriage, when my sister visited us, after almost 2-3 FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 39 of 114 months of her marriage, when she visited the parental home, she informed us regarding the aforesaid demands of accused persons. When we asked her that if she wanted me and my father to speak to the accused persons, she said that she will handle it on her own." In his statement to the SDM he told him that " Thereafter, while talking to her, I heard accused Krishan Kumar Raut asking my sister to serve dinner and at that time I found everything was fine. My sister did not disclose me anything disturbing." but it is not so recorded in the statement Ex.PW6/A. In his statement Ex.PW6/A to the SDM, he did not remember if he told that "When I saw the dead body of deceased I realized that there were ligature mark on her neck." In his statement Ex.PW6/A to the SDM, he did not tell that " On our way to hospital, while in the ambulance I and my father asked accused Krishan Kumar Raut but he did not give any satisfactory answer." He did not remember if he had stated to the SDM in his statement Ex.PW6/A because he was not in his senses due to shock that " Prior to the marriage we had given Rs.2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs.2.5 Lakh by way of cheque to the family of the accused persons i.e. Ram Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut." It was correct that after her marriage his sister had resumed her studies. It was correct that his sister completed her M.Com after her marriage. It was also correct that his sister was preparing for competitive exams after her marriage. It was correct that his sister also appeared in the examination conducted by Bihar Secretariat after her marriage. The said examination had taken place in Bihar. Accused krishan had accompanied his deceased sister to Bihar but he was not aware if he had also given the said exam or not. It was in his knowledge that after the marriage his deceased sister had gone to Haridwar and Badrinath with her in-laws.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 40 of 114 PW-7 Ct. Tota Ram deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted as Ct at PS Jaitpur. On that day, he had joined investigation of present case alongwith IO Inspt. Vipin Yadav and Ct. Satyavir. They all proceeded to the house of accused persons bearing H.No.D-2/85 Hari Nagar Extn. Jaitpur, New Delhi. When they reached there, accused persons namely Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Kundan Kumar Raut were found present. IO interrogated them and arrested them and also conducted their personal search. The arrest memo of accused Ram Kumar Raut and his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively. The arrest memo of accused Krishan Kumar Raut and his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively. The arrest memo of accused Kundan Kumar Raut and his personal search memo was Ex.PW7/E and Ex.PW7/F respectively. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons namely Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut and Kundan Kumar Raut vide memo Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H and Ex.PW7/I. Accused Kundan Kumar Raut was also produced his Lenovo Mobile Phone to the IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/J. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut are also produced his Samsung Mobile Phone to the IO which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/K. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut has also produced one multi color chunni lying on the double bed in a room which was used by his wife deceased Soni for committing suicide. The said chunni was found torn from one side. IO converted the same into a parcel and seal with the seal of VKY and took the same into possession vide seizure memo now Ex.PW7/L. During examination MHC(M) PS Jaitpur produced a transparent container box sealed with the seal of VKY. The same was FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 41 of 114 opened and out of it one light blue/sea green color Samsung mobile phone was taken out and was shown to witness who identify that the same mobile phone handed over to IO by accused Krishan Kumar Raut. The said mobile phone was Ex.PW7/MO1. The Lenovo mobile phone belonging to accused Kundan Kumar Raut had already been released to him on superdari and the identity of the same was not disputed by the accused persons.
PW-8 Deepshikha deposed that he was postgraduate in Commerce. He got issued mobile number 7669572878 in his name but he did not use the same as he had other mobile number. In the year 2017-18, he give the said SIM Number of Vodafone, to accused Sunita who was his neighbour for use and she was using the said mobile number.
PW-9 SI (Retd.) Kanhiya Lal deposed that he did not remember the exact month of incident but on 30th of 2021, he was posted as SI at PS Jaitpur, Delhi. On that day, his duty hours from 8 pm to 8am. He received no.DD No.4 at about 12:30 am regarding MLC and the patient was brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Om Prakash reached at Holly Family Hospital and collect MLC of deceased namely Soni W/o Krishan Kumar Raut as she was declared brought dead by the doctor. Accused Krishan Kumar Raut and his father namely Ram Kumar Raut was also present there and he made enquiry from them and they told him that isne (deceased Soni) ne fassi lega li" and they further told him that the marriage was solemnized between deceased Soni and accused Krishan Kumar Raut since three year ago. Upon doubt, he give this information to SDM concerned telephonically regarding this incident. The concerned SDM directed FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 42 of 114 him to bring the parents of patient deceased Soni and her brother to his office. The dead body of deceased was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center and was preserved in mortuary of AIIMS Hospital. Ct. Ram Kumar was directed to remain present at the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Karamjit reached to the spot i.e. H.No.2/85, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi and he saw that no chunni was hanged with the ceiling fan. He called the crime team at the spot. Accordingly, crime team reached at spot and they inspected the spot and the photographer of crime team clicked the photographer of the spot. One mobile phone make MI of deceased was lying on the spot and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, they came back to police station. The parents of the deceased was also met me at Holy Family Hospital and he directed them to came to the office of SDM tomorrow for recording their statement. On the next day, parents of deceased Soni alongwith her brother came to the police station and thereafter, he took them to the office of SDM at Amar Colony, Delhi for recording their statement. SDM recorded their statement. SDM handed over him one letter with instruction for conducting the postmortem of the deceased Soni as per law. He recorded the statement of father, mother and brother regarding identification of dead body of deceased at mortuary. Thereafter, the postmortem of deceased Soni got conducted. After postmortem doctor handed over him six exhibits in sealed condition alongwith four sample seal and he took the same through seizure memo vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. After postmortem dead body of deceased handed over to her parents and he recorded their statement regarding the same which was already Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter, he went to PS and deposited the above exhibits in FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 43 of 114 malkhana and handed over all documents to the SHO. During examination MHC(M) produced one transparent plastic box bearing seals of Court and also having case particulars written on it. With the permission of the Court the seals are broken containing one mobile phone make Samsung was taken out and was shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness stated that the said mobile phone is not belong to deceased. Further MHC(M) produced another transparent plastic box in unsealed condition and also having case particulars written on it. The same was opened and found containing one mobile phone make MI and after seeing the same witness stated that the said mobile phone is belong to deceased and the same was seized at the spot. The said mobile phone already Ex.MO1.
During cross examination PW-9 deposed that the investigation of this case remained with me from the time DD No.4A was handed over to him till the SDM had directed for registration of this case. His statement was recorded by IO in this case only once on 02.04.2021. The statement was read over to him. He had told to the IO regarding the fact that upon doubt he gave this information to SDM. He had told in his statement Ex.PW9/DA that "I saw that no chunni was hanged with the ceiling fan". He did not know the exact time but probably it was around 2 O' clock in the night when he had informed the crime team about the incident. The crime team had reached the spot in his presence. He did not remember if the crime team had taken his signature on any of the document which they prepared at the spot. Crime team remained at the spot for about 45 minutes. At the time of inspecting the spot, the mother and brother of accused Krishan Kumar Raut was present. However, he did not remember the name of brother FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 44 of 114 of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. The mobile phone of deceased Ex.MO1 was seized by him. However, he did not remember whether he had seized the same before arrival of crime, team or during their presence of crime team or after the time when the crime team had left. He did not seize the said mobile phone Ex.MO1 in cloth pulanda. However, he seized the same in a plastic box. The plastic box was procured from nearby market. He did not remember the shop from which he had purchased the said plastic box. He did not obtain any bill regarding purchase of said plastic box. He had sealed the said plastic box with the material using " lakh" and sealed with the seal of KLS. The seal was handed over to Ct. Karamjeet after its use. He did not remember whether statement of Ct. Karamjeet was recorded by me or not. He did not put any specific mark on the mobile phone Ex.MO1 before seizing the same. The slip was pasted on the said mobile phone Ex.MO1 by him but the word "Soni deceased" was written by Ct. Karamjeet. He did not mention the fact that the word "Soni deceased" was written by Ct. Karamjeet on the slip was mentioned in the seizure memo of the said mobile phone which is Ex.PW5/A. PW-10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav deposed that on 01.04.2021, he was posted as PS Jaitpur. On that day, the present case was marked to him for further action. He made endorsement on the statement of father of deceased Ex.PW10/A and the case was got registered. SI Kanhiya Lal handed over him the exhibits i.e. viscera, clothes and hand swaps, blood sample of the deceased in sealed condition alongwith seizure memo's. He fill up the particulars of the case on the seizure memo which was already Ex.PW4/A. SI Kanhiya also handed over him one mobile phone of deceased and he had also mentioned particular of this FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 45 of 114 on the said seizure memo. Thereafter, he alongwith other police official went to the spot i.e. D2/85, Hari Nagar Extension Jaitpur, Delhi where accused persons Krishan Kumar Raut, Kundan Kumar Raut and Ram Kumar Raut were already present there. He interrogated them and arrested them vide arrest memo already Ex.PW7/A (Ram Kumar Raut), Ex.PW7/C (Krishan Kumar Raut) and Ex.PW7/E (Kundan Kumar Raut) and he also conducted their personal search vide memo Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/F. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused persons vide memo Ex.PW7/G, Ex.PW7/H and Ex.PW7/I. He seized one multicolor chunni from spot which was used in committing crime vide seal with the seal of VKY vide seizure memo already Ex.PW7/L. He also seized one piece of bangle from the spot and sealed with the seal of VKY vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He also seized the mobile phone of accused persons namely Kundan Kumar and Krishan Kumar vide seizure memo's already Ex.PW7/J and Ex.PW7/K. He prepared the site plan vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing. Thereafter, they came back to police station alongwith above mentioned accused persons and case property. The case property was deposited in the malkhana of PS Jaitpur. Medical examination of accused persons got conducted and thereafter they were sent to lock-up PS Jaitpur. On next day, all three accused persons were produced before the court and they were remanded for JC. During the investigation of this case, official of crime team handed over him crime scene report, 18 photographs in a pen drive and certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. During investigation he had recorded the statement of relative of deceased u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 15.05.2021, he arrested accused Phuleshwari Devin from her house in presence of lady constable vide arrest memo FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 46 of 114 Ex.PW10/D, and her personal search was got conducted by lady constable vide memo Ex.PW10/E. Further, disclosure statement of accused Phuleshwari was also got recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/F. Medical examination of accused Phuleshwari got conducted and thereafter she was produced before the court and remanded for JC. During investigation, accused Sunita was also interrogated and her interrogation report was prepared. He collected the certified copy of bank statement of accused Krishan Kumar Raut and relative of deceased which reflects transactions of money in the account of Krishan Kumar Raut. During investigation, he had also collected CDR, CAF and location charge of mobile numbers of accused persons and relative of deceased for corroborating calls made by deceased to her relatives. He sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini, Delhi for opinion. During investigation the FSL team also inspected the scene of crime and prepared report. He also collected the photographs and marriage card of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. During the investigation of this case he also seized the bills of dowry articles and cash memos produced by father of deceased alongwith list of dowry articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/G. After completing of investigation he prepared the chargesheet and filed before the concerned court. The case property i.e. Samsung mobile phone of accused Krishan Kumar Raut is already Ex.MO1. During examination MHC(M) produced one yellow color parcel no.6 bearing seals of DR MS FSL DELHI and also having case particulars written on it. With the permission of the Court the seals are broken and the case property i.e. chunni multicolor was taken out and same was shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness has correctly identify the same and further stated that the same was recovered from the spot.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 47 of 114 The said chunni multicolor was Ex.MO2. During examination MHC(M) produced one white color envelope having seal of VKY and also having case particulars written on it. With the permission of the Court the seals was broken and the case property i.e. two pieces of bangle was taken out and same was shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness has correctly identify the same and further stated that the same was recovered from the spot. The said chunni multicolor was Ex.MO3.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-10 deposed that he had taken over the investigation as per direction of the SHO on 01.04.2021. The case was registered after he prepared the rukka. It was correct that the case was registered on the statement of mother of the deceased namely Anju. It was correct that the spot was situated in residential area. He had made enquiries from the neighbourhood of the accused persons but no neighbour had joined the investigation. He did not note down the name of said neighbour. He had mentioned the said fact in my case diary. During cross examination PW10 was asked whether can he refer to his case diary and inform about the fact that he had made enquiry from the neighbourhood and that none of them came forward to join the investigation to which after seeing the case diary witness replied that the fact of the case was mentioned in the case diary. However, he did not mention in the case diary regarding the fact that neighbour had jointed the investigation. The family members of the deceased had not visited the spot in his presence on 01.04.2021. At the time of seizing of case property i.e. chunni and pieces of bangles, he asked the neighbour to join the investigation but none had joined the FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 48 of 114 investigation. He did not serve any notice to them for joining the investigation. He might have seized and prepared the seizure memo of case properties i.e. chunni and pieces of bangles before arrest of accused persons. He obtained the signature on the seizure memo of case property i.e. chunni of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. He prepared separate seizure memo regarding the chunni and one piece of bangle. He did not obtain the signature of any of accused persons on the document i.e. Ex.PW10/B. He did not remember whether he had made any investigation about the educational qualification of deceased Soni. He did not make any investigation regarding the fact that who was the mediator of marriage of deceased and accused Krishan Kumar Raut. As far as he remember, no previous complaints was received in the police station Jaitpur before the present incident. He did not remember whether he had enquired from the family of the deceased regarding the fact that they had filed any other complaint prior to said incident. He had verified the bills which was handed over to me by the father of deceased. He did not mention the said fact in the main chargesheet which he had filed before the Court. He was not aware about the terms psychological autopsy. He heard this word first time. It was correct that from time to time we do refresher courses as to how the investigation is to be carried out.
PW-11 Tarun Kumar Bharti, Legal Officer HDFC Branch Back Office, Moti Nagar deposed that he was summon witness in this case. He was posted as above. He had brought the certified copy of personal loan statement of account no.52537382 of Ramavtar Rawat from 30.11.2017 to 07.12.2021 alongwith certificate u/s 63 of BSA r/w Section 2 (A) of Banker Book of Evidence of above mentioned FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 49 of 114 statement. The said statement is now Ex.PW11/A (Colly) (running into 6 pages). Certificate of 63 of BSA is now Ex.PW11/B. He had also brought the substitute power of attorney which is now Ex.PW11/C (Colly) (OS&R).
PW-12 Pankaj Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that he was summon witness in this case. He was posted as above. The mobile bearing no.7669572878 was issued in the name of Deepshikha. The CAF & CDR alongwith location chart of Deepshikha alongwith her ID proof, aadhar card, from dated 01.10.2020 to 01.04.2021 already exhibited as Ex.A10 (Colly). The above mentioned document was shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness correctly identify signature of Mr. Ajeet Singh who was working as Alternative Nodal Officer of above mentioned office. He identifying the signature of Mr. Ajeet being official capacity. The certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act of above mentioned document already Ex.A10 (Colly).
PW-13 Binod Kumar deposed that he was summon witness in this case. On dated 03.02.2018, he was working as proprietor of Vandana Jewellers situated at opposite B-8 Vasant Kunj near GD Goinka Public School, Delhi. He had issued bill/receipt in the name of Soni of gold jewellery which was purchased from above mentioned shop. The said bill was Ex.PW13/A. The total amount of bill was Rs.2,09,000/-. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW13 deposed that he had written the details of the jewellery items as well as name and address of customer in his own handwriting in Ex.PW13/A. FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 50 of 114 PW-14 Inspt. Subhash Bhatt deposed that on dated 25.02.2025, he was posted as Inspt. At PS Jaitpur. The case was marked to him for further investigation and during further investigation of this case, he issued notice to the Central Bank of India for investigation of account of accused Ramavtar Raut and he received certified copy of account no.1021733232. Thereafter, FSL report was received from FSL and the same was marked to him for further investigation. He had gone through the same and prepared the supplementary chargesheet and filed before the concerned court.
14. After examining aforesaid witnesses prosecution evidence was closed and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CR.P.C.
15. Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons separately which they denied. They claimed that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses, they were falsely implicated in this case and they were innocent. They have never committed any offence and have never dealt with the deceased with any wrong manner. There was no complaint whatsoever against them or their family members. Accused persons did not opt to lead DE.
16. Consequently, matter was fixed for final arguments. After hearing final arguments, matter was listed for judgment.
17. Accused persons in this case were charged with Section FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 51 of 114 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS.
18. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the present case has been filed to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present matter. It has been argued that the deceased Soni solemonized marriage with accused Krishan Kumar Raut on 09.03.2018 and thereafter, resided peacefully in the matrimonial house alongwith other co-accused persons. It has been argued that since the deceased Soni had solemnized the marriage with the accused Krishan Kumar Raut and thereafter lived peacefully with all accused persons. It has been argued that no offence under Section 304B IPC is made out against the accused persons as the ingredients of Section 304B have not been proved by the prosecution. It has been argued that the conditions as required under Section 304B are cumulative, the failure to establish any one of them is fatal to the entire charge. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish ingredient (1) cruelty or harassment 'soon before death' and ingredient (iv) that such cruelty was in connection with a demand for dowry. Further, in the absence of the foundational proof, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.
19. Ld. Counsel for accused persons relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta, (2025) 3 SCC 433 wherein it has been held that "even if one of the ingredients of 304B is absent, the presumption under Section 113B would not be available to the prosecution and the onus would not shift to the defence."
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 52 of 114
20. Ld. Counsel for accused persons relied upon the judgment in the case of Shoor Singh And Another vs. State of Uttara Khand, (2025) 2 SCC 815 wherein it has been held that:-
"Once all the necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution-
21. He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of M.P., 2017(1) SCC 101 wherein it has been held that "Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or relatives of the husband is the sine qua non to prove guilt under Section 3048. Unnatural death in matrimonial home within 7 years is not ipso facto sufficient to convict."
22. It has further been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt. It has been argued that the mother of the deceased, Smt. Anju (PW-1), is the most important prosecution witness. She was the person to whom, according to the prosecution, the deceased regularly confided her grievances. Yet, when the Court put a direct question to PW-1 asking whether after the marriage, the accused persons demanded any specific dowry, she stated "After the marriage, accused persons did not demand any dowry from me, my husband and my son.". It has further been argued that this is a categorical, unequivocal admission from the prosecution's own witness. It directly and irrecoverably demolishes the prosecution's case of post-marital dowry demand. A prosecution case built upon the premise of persistent dowry FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 53 of 114 harassment after marriage cannot survive an admission by the complainant's own mother that the accused persons never made any dowry demand from them after the marriage. It has been argued that PW-1 admitted in her testimony during Court's question that several critical statements attributed to her daughter- including the phrases 'main kahan se laungi, mere baap ki teen betiyan hain', 'main samhal lungi, and 'aurat toh ek khilona hai" were not mentioned in her earlier statements recorded before the SDM and the police, and she could offer no explanation for these omissions.
23. It has further been argued that PW-2, the father of the deceased, admitted in cross-examination that he never lodged any complaint against the husband and in-laws of his daughter for harassment prior to the present case, despite allegedly knowing of harassment for approximately three years since the marriage in March 2018.
24. It has been argued that it is wholly improbable that a government employee posted at Bihar Bhawan, Delhi who knew that his daughter was being threatened with death, would take no legal action whatsoever for three years. Furthermore, PW-2 admitted that he did not inform the mediator Laxman Rao about the demand of Rs.5 Lakh for construction of the house which was allegedly the most recent dowry demand before death.
25. It has been argued that the prosecution has not produced a single independent witness not a neighbour, friend, community member, marriage mediator Laxman Rao, to corroborate the alleged dowry demands. In a case where the marriage was performed in Bihar before the community and where both families belonged to the Chaurasia community (which has community functions and networks), the total absence of any third-party corroboration is not a FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 54 of 114 gap but it is the evidence itself PW-2 himself admitted.
26. It has also been argued that a fundamental internal inconsistency runs through the prosecution's case on the quantum of cash allegedly given at the time of marriage. The prosecution witnesses have given three completely different figures and there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and which shall be mentioned below:-
"PW-1 (mother): Stated before the Court that Rs. 2.5 Lacs was given in cash and Rs. 2.5 Lacs through cheque in favour of the husband PW-2 (father) In examination-in-chief, stated he gave gold ornaments of about 65 grams. In cross-
examination, stated the cheque of Rs. 2.5 Lac was given before marriage and it belongs to the daughter PW-3 (sister): Stated that the father gave a cheque of Rs. 2.5 Lacs to accused Krishan Kumar Raut AND also gave cash of Rs. 2.5 Lacs to the accused persons at the time of marriage.
PW-6 (brother) Stated Rs. 2.5 Lakhs in cash and Rs. 2.5 Lakh by way of cheque were given prior to marriage to Ram Kumar Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut"
27. The inconsistency on a foundational fact whether cash was given, and to whom across the four core prosecution witnesses is telling. When PW-1 was confronted with this in cross-examination, she admitted that the cheque in the name of the accused was given because her daughter did not have a bank account and the money belonged to her daughter. This explanation that money given to the accused was actually the daughter's own money directly undermines FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 55 of 114 the prosecution's characterisation of the same amount as 'dowry given under demand.
28. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any cruelty for harassment "soon before death" is established. It has been argued that the deceased had her last Interaction on 31.03.2021 with her brother which has been mentioned by all the witnesses. PW-6 Shivam (brother of the deceased) "While talking to her, I heard accused Krishan Kumar Raut asking my sister to serve dinner and at that time I found everything was fine. My sister did not disclose me anything disturbing."
29. It has been argued that the aforesaid testimony of PW6 relates to the last known telephone interaction with the deceased on 31.03.2021. PW-6 was speaking to his sister on the phone for approximately 9 minutes (8:41 pm to 8:50 pm). The brother's own testimony that he 'found everything was fine' and that his sister 'did not disclose anything disturbing' directly negates the prosecution's claim that deceased Soni was being subjected to cruelty in the hours immediately preceding her death.
30. It has been argued that the testimony of family of the deceased recorded before the court that there is an improvement in their statements, for which they have been confronted. Further, there is contradiction in the statement of all the witnesses. It has been argued that from the cross examination of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6, it can be made out that the deceased was kept well in the matrimonial house, as she perused her studies after her marriage, used to often meet her parental family for attending functions and rituals, accompanied the accused persons for travels to religious places, was perusing studies for appearing government exams and was giving freedom to pursue FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 56 of 114 her dreams.
31. It has been argued that a woman who is being systemically tortured for dowry does not typically complete a post-graduation degree while living in the matrimonial home, travel to religious pilgrimage sites with her in-laws, attend family functions with her husband, and appear jointly with her husband for competitive examinations. The picture that emerges from the defence's cross- examination of the prosecution's own witnesses is of a largely normal matrimonial life, not of the unrelenting harassment that Section 304B requires.
32. It has been argued that the IO did not conduct the investigation fairly. Further, from the medical record and the postmortem report, it has been established that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia and due to antemortem hanging. It has been argued that it has no where been opined that the deceased was subjected to any cruelty prior to her death or that accused persons had killed the deceased. The post-mortem of deceased Soni was conducted at AIIMS Hospital. The prosecution has not placed on record any post-mortem report finding of ligature marks on the neck, or any finding of strangulation, or any finding consistent with the manner of death alleged. In the absence of forensic proof establishing the manner of death and linking it to any act of the accused, the prosecution cannot sustain a charge of dowry death.
33. It has been argued that Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act - presumption cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act creates a statutory presumption of dowry death against the husband and relatives. However, this presumption is not absolute, it is contingent upon the FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 57 of 114 prosecution first establishing all foundational ingredients of Section 304B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Where the foundational facts are not established, the presumption cannot bridge the evidentiary deficit
34. It has been argued that none of the witnesses deposed that there was any dowry demand and all the witnesses have stated that they have given dowry or articles in marriage and have not alleged that there was any demand at the time of marriage. It has been argued that eve subsequent allegation of demand of dowry are exaggerated and have not been substantiated.
35. It has been argued that in the absence of proof of even one foundational ingredient, the presumption under Section 113B cannot be pressed into service. This is not a case where the presumption can fill the gaps, the gaps are so fundamental that invoking the presumption would amount to convicting the accused on suspicion, which the law prohibits.
36. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that it has been held in "Apart from general allegations in the same tone with parrot like similarity, allegations founded on confidential communication by the deceased to her parents and not supported by any other quarter, cannot form the basis for conviction under Section 304B." Baijnath vs. State of M.P., 2017(1) SCC 101.
37. "The accused must be afforded the benefit of the doubt wherever it arises. A person accused of an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty." as held in Kali Ram vs. State of H.P., 1973 SCC (Crl.) 1048.
38. "Significant omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements and belatedly introduced allegations amount to contradictions and afterthoughts Absent specific, proximate acts of cruelty or harassment FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 58 of 114 and reliable contemporaneous evidence of dowry demand, the ingredients of Section 304-B and 498-A are not proved beyond reasonable doubt." as held in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 214.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR STATE
39. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for State that in the present matter, deceased Soni had committed suicide as she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by the accused persons soon before her death and that the deceased had committed suicide within seven years of her marriage with accused no.1 and the same is corroborated by the witnesses examined by the prosecution and that all the family members of the deceased has stated that accused persons used to demand Rs.5 Lakhs from the deceased as dowry which can be termed as the deceased had died unnatural death. It has been argued that all accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged in the present matter.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF VICTIM/FAMILY OF DECEASED
40. It has been argued it is trite law that for the burden of proof under both S. 304B IPC and S. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifts to the accused to be discharged by them once the ingredients of S. 304B IPC have been established by the prosecution. It has been argued that it is the case of the complainant that the said burden has been shifted on the accused by the prosecution establishing that the ingredients of a dowry death under S.304B IPC to be shifted on the accused and be discharged by the accused, however the accused have failed to FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 59 of 114 discharge the same. Ld. Counsel for complainant placed reliance in the case of Sher Singh v State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 724 para 16.
41. It has further been argued that the prosecution has proved the ingredients u/s 304B IPC. It is submitted that the factum of marriage has not been disputed and further the death of the deceased had taken place in the night of 31.03.2021 has also not been disputed. The death of the deceased was unnatural, allegedly by hanging. The issue of demand for dowry has also been proved by the witnesses examined by the prosecution has they all have supported the case of prosecution. It has also been argued that undisputed fact that the parents of the deceased had paid dowry by way of bank transfer to the tune of Rs.2.5 Lakhs, cash to the tune of 2.5 Lakhs and gold ornaments and the same has been proved even during the cross examination of the witnesses. It has been argued that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated their testimonies and the same prove the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. It has further been argued that the sole defence of the Accused persons is that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of S.304B and accordingly, the accused deserve to be acquitted. In particular stating that no "demand" or cruelty has ever been established. It is submitted that based on the above the accused have failed to discharge the burden on them to prove that they are innocent. It has been argued that the death of the deceased had taken place in suspicious circumstances. The circumstances of the death of deceased also raises a question mark on the conduct of the accused persons. Not only does the investigating officer state in his opinion in the chargesheet that the crime scene was tampered with or seemed suspicious, the accused persons on finding the deceased hanging, neither called the police; or an ambulance or FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 60 of 114 the parents of the deceased. The deceased persons got one of the co accused to book a cab and took the deceased in the cab. An ambulance support could have saved the deceased as she was declared brought dead. The PCR call was only made by the hospital where the deceased was taken. The chargesheet also mentions the said tampering at page 32 of the file at point 9 where it is stated that one piece of broken bangle is recovered by FSL but no the other part of the bangle which suggests that crime scene was tampered.
THE LAW
42. I am firstly dealing with the offences of Section 498A IPC. Here, I must mention relevant law with respect to Section 498A IPC.
43. Section 498A IPC mandates that a husband or relative of the husband of a woman, who subjects a woman to cruelty, shall be punished with a term which may extent to three years and fine. Explanation to the said provision gives meaning to "cruelty" in following manner.
a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of 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.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 61 of 114
44. Cruelty, therefore, can be either mental or physical. It is difficult to strait jacket the term cruelty by means of a definition because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one may not constitute cruelty for another person. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as G.V. Siddara Ramesh Versus Statement of Karnatka (2010) 3SCC 152.
45. Further, Section 498A IPC was added with a view to punishing husband and his relatives, who harass or tortured the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counter productive and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which provision was added. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case titled as B.S. Joshi Versus State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386.
46. After considering above provision and interpretation of the same by Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that above provision was made by legislature, to safeguard the interest of a married woman who is subjected to mental or physical cruelty by her husband or relatives of husband. The said cruelty could lead that woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health, which can be either physical or mental. That cruelty also could be based on harassment done to her for getting dowry from her. Based on said understanding of law, I am proceeding further and appreciating facts and evidence of this case.
47. Further, Section 304B IPC states as below FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 62 of 114 Section 304B, IPC, 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 purpose of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in S.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
48. The necessity for insertion of the aforesaid provision was keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing laws in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths. The legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of dowry death (Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Death, 1872) on proof of certain essentials. The three ingredients for establishing the offence U/s 304B IPC are
a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused.
b) that the deceased died
c) that the death is under unnatural circumstances.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 63 of 114
49. Therefore, once there is harassment for the payment of dowry and unnatural death occurred within seven years after the marriage, the presumption of dowry death is inherent. Further, it has also been stated that the death of a woman is either by burns or bodily injury or otherwise then under normal circumstances, and should be within seven years of marriage and it should also be shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relative of her husband and such harassment or cruelty should pertain to demand of dowry.
50. The aforesaid offence shall apply whenever the occurrence of death is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in-laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural circumstances. The intention behind the section is to fasten guilt on the husband or in-laws though they did not infact caused the death.
51. As to the origin of dowry or dos primarily was a contribution by the wife's family or by the wife herself intended to assist the husband in bearing the expenses of conjugal household. The genesis of dowry was understood as a social set up and soon dowry became a social evil in the society. It is an offence brutal and barbaric. It is generally committed inside the house and more often with the circumstance to given an impression that it was a suicidal death. Often the perpetrator of crime attempt to cover up such offence by giving it a color of suicide. However, section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act raises presumption of cruelty as defined U/s 498A IPC against the husband or his relative if the wife commits suicide within a period fo seven years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, the section provides FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 64 of 114 that such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death and shall be punished with imprisonment for maximum of seven years but which may extent to life imprisonment. Importantly, section 304B of the IPC does not categorized death as homicidal, or suicidal or accidental. This is because the death caused by burns can, in a given case, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The aforesaid provision was inserted with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths in India. Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act says that when the question is whether a person has committed a 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 dowry death. Therefore, the death by suicidal hanging also is encompassed by the section. For the purposes of this section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the dowry prohibition act 1961. "Dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time, after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law applies.
52. Further, Section 304B and Section 498A are not mutually exclusive. The provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that " cruelty"
is a common essential to both the section and that has to be proved. The explanation of section 498A gives the meaning of cruelty. In FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 65 of 114 Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of cruelty but having regard to the common back ground to these offences, the meaning of "cruelty of harassment" will be the same as given in explanation to Section 498A under which " cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence and its punishable. U/s 304B it is the dowry death that is punishable and such death should be occurred within seven years of marriage. However, no such period is mentioned in section 498A and the husband or his relatives would be liable for subjecting the woman to cruelty and time after the marriage.
53. To attract the provision of section 304B of the IPC one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with demand of dowry". The expression "soon before her death" cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. It must be understood in their plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the provisions relating to human behaviour and therefore cannot be given such a narrower meaning, which would defeat the very purpose of the provision of the act. The legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words soon before her death" is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in all probability, has been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words there should be a reasonable, if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty or harassment inflicted upon her. However, the said expression would normally imply that the inverter should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has became stale FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 66 of 114 enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Further, it has been held in " Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 2015 Crl. J. 1934 that "soon before" is not synonymous with "immediately before".
54. The word "dowry demand", demand neither conceived nor would conceived of any agreement. Section 304B refers to demand of dowry, it refers to demand of property of valuable security as referred to the definition fo dowry under the act.
55. SECTION 306 IPC STATES THAT :-
306 Abetment of Suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
56. Therefore, to constitute an offence U/s 306 IPC it is required that (1) the deceased committed suicide, (2) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide (committing suicide by itself is a crime); (3) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary.
57. In Ramesh Kumar & State of Chhatisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 618 it was held that "where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred, In other FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 67 of 114 words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that -
1. the accused kept on irritating of annoying the deceased by words , deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction, and
2. that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
58. It may be mentioned that there is a marked difference between "intimidatory statement" and "instigatory statement". "Intimidatory" statements may give rise to two types of consequences, (a) either the person to whom such statements are made may be frightened and may be on receiving end he may be angry enough to retaliate whereas (b) instigatory statement falls within the category of goading, provoking etc. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
59. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere mentioned in the Indian Penal FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 68 of 114 Code, 1860. However, "sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. Abetment of suicide is punishable under this section and attempt to commit suicide, under section 309. It is an act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. Every act of self-destruction is suicide, provided it be intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequences of what he is doing. Suicide no doubt is self murder. But one committing suicide places himself or herself beyond the reach of the law, and necessarily beyond the reach of any punishment too. But it does not follow that it is not forbidden by of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide.
60. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea it to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
61. In the case of M Mohan Vs. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626 the Apex Court held that "there should be some live link, or a proximate link between the act of the accused and the act of committing of suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide". Conviction for abetment merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased is FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 69 of 114 not sustainable.
62. As per Section 107 IPC abetment means, "a person abets the doing of a thing when he or she, inter alia, instigates any person to do that thing. The other modes of abetment besides instigation are conspiracy and intentional aid. The word "instigation" literally means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. It is something more than co-operation. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Instigation to commit suicide means goading, provoking inciting, urging or encouraging to commit suicide. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation, a woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment.
63. The law settled by the judgment of Apex Court in the case titled as Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 742/2020 decided on 27.11.2020 by Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that :-
(ii) The spouse of the informant had not received payment for the work which was carried out by him, as a result of which he was under mental pressure and that he committed suicide by hanging on 5 May 2018. It has been submitted that on the face of it, FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 70 of 114 there is no basis in the FIR to even remotely implicate the appellant in the alleged offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
There is not even an indication of a personal interaction or connection between the appellant and the deceased. Furthermore, a civil suit regarding the disputed debt between their companies is pending.
The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC is in support of two distinct reliefs. The first relief is for a writ of habeas corpus. This relief has been claimed on the basis that the arrest and consequent detention of the appellant was due to a reinvestigation which was commenced after placing reliance on the letter dated 26 May 2020 of the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra to the Director General of Police. The submission is that once the CJM accepted the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and issued an A' summary on 16 April 2019, it was not open to the Investigating Officer to commence a reinvestigation without judicial sanction.
Before we evaluate the contents of the FIR, a reference to Section 306 of the IPC is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a person commits suicide ―whoever abets the commission of such suicide‖ shall be punished with imprisonment FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 71 of 114 extending up to 10 years17. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V of the IPC, which is titled ―Of Abetment‖. Section 107 provides:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
PART I cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing."
64. In Amalendu Pal vs State of West Bengal22, Justice Mukundakam Sharma, speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court and having adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:
PART I ―12...It is also to be borne in mind that in FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 72 of 114 cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.‖ The Court noted that before a person may be said to have abetted the commission of suicide, they ―must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide‖.
Instigation, as this Court held in Kishori Lal (supra), ―literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything‖. In S S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan23, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, observed:
―25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 73 of 114 seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.‖ 48 Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat24 was specifically a case which arose in the context of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC where the High Court had dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(B) of the IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working as a driver with the accused. The driver had been rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other drivers besides which he had other complaints including the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The suicide note named the accused-appellant. In the decision of a two judge Bench of this Court, delivered by Justice V S Sirpurkar, the test laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) was applied and the Court held:
―10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 74 of 114 matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-
called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this.‖ Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed:
PART I ―12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 75 of 114 instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.‖ The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and ―cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide‖.
Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed."
In a concurring judgment delivered by one of us (Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J) in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Common Cause (supra), the provisions of Section 107 were explained with the following observations:
―458. For abetting an offence, the person abetting must have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Abetment requires an instigation to commit or intentionally aiding the commission of a crime. It presupposes a course of conduct or action which (in the context of the present discussion) facilitates another to end life. Hence abetment of suicide is an offence expressly punishable under Sections 305 and 306 IPC.‖ 50 More recently in M Arjunan vs State (represented by its Inspector of Police)25, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice R.Banumathi, FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 76 of 114 elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the following observations:
―7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.‖ 51 Similarly, in another recent judgment of this Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs State of Haryana, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms:
―38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 77 of 114 responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 78 of 114 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.
The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.‖ Similarly, in Rajesh vs State of Haryana, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice L. Nageswara Rao, held as follows:
―9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 79 of 114 of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.‖ In a recent decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab, a three judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Hrishikesh Roy, held thus:
―15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.‖ 52 In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, dealt with an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. A person serving in the office of the Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8 August 2017. His wife FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 80 of 114 made a complaint to the police that her husband was suffering from mental torture as his superiors were getting heavy work done from her husband. This resulted in him having to work from 10 AM to 10 PM and even at odd hours and on holidays. The specific allegation against the appellant was that he had stopped the deceased's salary for one month and was threatening the deceased that his increment would be stopped. This Court noted that there was no suicide note, and the only material on record was in the form of assertions made by the deceased's wife in her report to the police. The Court went on to hold that the facts on record were inadequate and insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The mere factum of work being assigned by the appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of salary for a month, was not enough to prove criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently, proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
53 On the other hand, we must also notice the decision in Praveen Pradhan (supra) where a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice B.S. Chauhan, dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application under Section 482 of the CrPC by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceeding, implicating an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The suicide note which was left behind by the deceased showed, as this Court observed, that the appellant perpetually FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 81 of 114 humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, who was compelled to indulge in wrongful practices at the workplace, which hurt his self- respect tremendously.‖ The Court noted that the appellant always scolded the deceased and tried to always force the deceased to resign. Resultantly, the Court observed:
―19. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non- fulfilment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, ―had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide‖ is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 82 of 114 case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 420 of 2006, decided on 5-1-2012 (Utt)] of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.‖ The contents of the FIR therefore indicated that the deceased had been subjected to harassment persistently and continuously and this was coupled by words used by the accused which led to the commission of suicide.
54 In Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, this Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482. This was a case where the FIR was registered pursuant to the information received from the appellant. The FIR stated that the son and daughter-in-law of the appellant were teachers in Zila Parishad School. The respondent used to call the daughter-in-law of the appellant on the phone and used to harass her. Moreover, despite the efforts of the son of the appellant, the respondent did not desist from doing so. This Court noted:
12. We now consider the facts of the present case.
There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 83 of 114 of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abet the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent.‖ The above observations of the Court clearly indicated that there was a specific allegation in the FIR bearing on the imputation that the respondent had actively facilitated the commission of suicide by continuously harassing the spouse of the victim and in failing to rectify his conduct despite the efforts of the victim. 55 Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him‖. The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 84 of 114 and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues‖. Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage since the High Court is still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 85 of 114 clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage. 56 The petition before the High Court was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. While dealing with the petition under section 482 for quashing the FIR, the High Court has not considered whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR. If the High Court were to have carried out this exercise, it would (as we have held in this judgment) have been apparent that the ingredients of the offence have not prima facie been established. As a consequence of its failure to perform its function under Section 482, the High Court has disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to consider the appellant's application for bail. In considering such an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power."
65. Also it has been held in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi Vs. State of Karnataka Through SHO Kakati Police Criminal Appeal No.551/2012 dated 29.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that:
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 86 of 114
20. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and it reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
21. The very first clause of the aforesaid provision lays down that a person, who abets the doing of a thing, is a person who instigates any person to do that thing. Therefore, 'instigation' to do a particular thing is necessary for charging a person with abetment.
22. 'Instigation' is to provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act.
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a particular thing and without the positive act on part of the accused there would be no instigation. It has also been observed that to convict a person for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 87 of 114 to abet such a crime and it requires an active act or a direct act leading to the commission of suicide.
24. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh2, a three Judges Bench of this Court dealt with a case of suicide by the wife, where the husband in anger uttered- 'You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like'. Thereafter, the wife committed suicide. The Court, after examining the meaning of instigation which is an essential element for abetment of suicide, observed that such words, uttered out of emotion, do not constitute mens rea and do not amount to intentionally inciting the other party to actually do an act which may result in the commission of self-killing/suicide.
25. Even in cases where the victim commits suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the Courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim. Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
26. The salient features constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police3 and it was observed as FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 88 of 114 under:
"43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the disease to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the disease in two such a position that he/she committed suicide."
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 89 of 114
27. The same aspects have been reiterated by this Court in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal and have been again repeated in Prabhu vs. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr.
28. In Prabhu (supra) the Court further observed that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life and that breaking-up of the relationship would not constitute any instigation or abetment of suicide inasmuch as in order to constitute 'Instigation' it must be shown that the accused had by his acts and omissions or by continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
29. There is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant has in any way instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. The accused- appellant on asking of the deceased had simply refused to marry her which is not a positive act on his part with any intention to abet the crime of suicide.
66. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment in the case of Neeraj Kumar Vs. Suraj Prakash & Ors. Cr P No.515/2001
15. The basic charge against the respondent nos.1 to 4 is under Section 498A read with 34 IPC. The FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 90 of 114 testimony of PW1 Smt. Jaimala, PW2 Neeraj Kumar and PW8 Sanjay, as discussed above, shows that various improvements were made in their statements in the Court. There are also material contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses. Perusal of examination in chief of these witnesses shows that no specific time, date, month or event has been mentioned with regard to cruelty and harassment made against the deceased Sangeeta on account of dowry and the allegations levelled are general in nature.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the consistent law to establish the offence under Section 498A IPC in Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Pub. Prosecutor 2013 STPL 198 SC. It was held that the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. It was observed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in particular PW1 and PW4 that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased. The onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A IPC. Relevant portions from the judgment read as under :
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 91 of 114 "In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW1 and PW4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased.....
In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the appellant) and Ext.D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 92 of 114 her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution."
17. As per the ratio of the law settled down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vipin Jaiswal's case (supra), in the absence of specific allegations like date, time and incident i.e. too by witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW8 who were not found reliable and trustworthy, the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was meted out with cruelty and harassment by the respondent nos.1 to 4 for or in connection with demand of dowry.
18. From the evidence mentioned above and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vipin Jaiswal (supra), the allegations levelled against the respondent nos.1 to 4 are general in nature and the evidence led does not inspire the confidence of the Court to hold the guilt of the respondent nos.1 to 4 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
19. The contention made by the counsel for the petitioner is that Section 113B of the Evidence Act has been added to give aid to reach into the logical end while deciding the matter under Section 304B IPC and the aid of Section 113B of the Evidence Act has not been used in the present case FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 93 of 114 by the learned trial Court. The presumption in the dowry death case is to be drawn on the fulfilment of the ingredients mentioned in Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
20. Section 113B of the Indian 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."
The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be drawn only where the ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled.
21. In the present case, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 498A read with 34 IPC along with Section 304B read with 34 IPC against respondent nos.1 to 4 for causing dowry death of the deceased.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388 has categorically mentioned the ingredients for the application of Section FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 94 of 114 304B IPC which are as under:
(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.
(ii) Such a death should have been occurred within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
23. As death of the deceased is concerned, according to post mortem report Ex.PW5/A prepared by PW5 Dr. K.K. Banerjee and the deposition of doctor, the cause of death was shock as a result of deep superficial ante mortem burns covering 100% of body surface which were likely to be produced by flame. The observation made by the doctor is that the deceased was having 100% body surface burns all over the body. The report and opinion of the doctor proves that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and was due to the bodily injuries which fulfil the first ingredient for the commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 95 of 114
24. The second ingredient that the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the respondent no.1 is established from the evidence, as marriage had taken place on 02.05.1990 and death took place on 10.06.1995 i.e. within five years of marriage.
25. The next and the most important ingredients required to be proved from the evidence are that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband. The prosecution has produced PW1, PW2 and PW8 to prove these ingredients. PW1 happened to be mother of the deceased and PW2 & PW8 happened to be brothers of the deceased. The detailed discussion to this effect has already been made in the foregoing paragraphs while discussing the charge for offence under Section 498A IPC. In other words, to establish the offence of Section 304B IPC, it is necessary to prove the charges under Section 498A IPC. The evidence discussed above is not sufficient to hold the respondent nos.1 to 4 guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the basic requirement to prove the offence under Section 304B IPC.
67. Reliance is placed on the judgment State Vs. Vikas Sharma (2012) 188 DLT 773 FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 96 of 114
5. This Court further notices that the couple had been engaged for 9 months. If, in fact, there had been any reason for the accused to make a demand for dowry, he would have done at any time before the marriage. Furthermore, the absence of clarity as to the time when the demand was made and more crucially the silence of the deceased's nearest relatives i.e. PW-4 (deceased's brother) and PW-5 (deceased's mother) about this demand for a car, completely knocks out the prosecution allegations with regard to dowry demand. The allegations with regard to cruelty also lack in material particulars. Applying the well settled standards in examining petitions for grant of leave of appeal i.e. existence of substantial or compelling reasons, occasioning failure of justice, this Court is of the opinion that no such elements exist in the prosecution case wanting a second review in the appeal. The petition being unmerited is therefore, dismissed.
68. Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment State Vs. Anoop Singh & Ors. Crl.P. No.425 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011 "For bringing the case within four corners of Section 304B of the Code the cruelty or harassment has to be meted out to a woman soon before her death. The expression "soon before FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 97 of 114 death" has not been defined in Section 304 IPC or Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression is a relative term which requires to be considered under facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time limit. In some cases it can be a few days, a few weeks and in some cases may a couple of months. Yet there must be proximity between death and the cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry."
69. Further in case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. The Inspt. Of Police, Kancheepuran District & Anr. CA 4269/2024
14. What turns out primarily from the sequence of events, statements and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the actual date of suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever either in person or by phone or any other means between the deceased or his relatives and his wife or any of the other accused which would indicate continuous harassment or torture or any sort of pressure at the hands of the accused Appellants on the deceased. Therefore, there is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the incident of suicide having taken place. Otherwise also the contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any active or direct act which can be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 98 of 114 option but to push the deceased into a position that he committed suicide. From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of abetment of suicide.
Merely on the Criminal Appeal No(s). 4268-4269 of 2024 Page 8 of 12 basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in the present case. It involves a mental process of instigating a person and without a positive act on the part of the Appellants which can be said to either to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot be said to have been present.
15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 99 of 114 doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State represented by its inspector of Police)"
70. Further in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of Bengal 2010 1 SCC 707 "13. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 100 of 114
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
14. Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797, this Court gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 101 of 114 intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
[See also Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami v. State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52]
15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 102 of 114 an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression `abetment' has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause `thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
71. Before appreciating the evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, I must mention here the law of appreciating evidence of the witnesses. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 103 of 114 Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
72. So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether shortcomings highlighted by accused, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality only evidence has to be FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 104 of 114 discarded.
73. As per the prosecution story, the present FIR has been registered upon the statement made by the mother of the deceased to the concerned SDM on 01.04.2021. The fact which is relevant to the present matter is that there is no suicide note left by the deceased. The present matter revolves around the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the family members of the deceased.
74. In the present matter, the mother of the deceased has been examined as PW1, who had stated in her complaint that the deceased Soni got married with accused Krishan Kumar Raut on 09.03.2018 and after three months of the marriage, she was informed by the deceased that there were quarrels in the matrimonial home of her deceased daughter and the accused persons demanded dowry. Further, on the occasion of Holi on 29.03.2021, her deceased daughter had come to parental home, but accused Krishan Kumar Raut left in the evening. Subsequently, on the evening of 30.03.2021, her daughter left the parental home and while leaving she told her family members "mujhey lag reha hai ki yeh log mujhey maar dengey". On 31.03.2021, around 02:30 pm her deceased daughter gave her a video call and was talking to her. On the same day, in the night around 08:41 pm, the brother of the deceased had spoken to the deceased and everything was normal. However, on the same day, around 11:30 pm in the night, they received a call from accused Krishan Kumar Raut regarding death of the deceased and upon the same they reached hospital and found that her daughter had died. She apprehended that her daughter had been killed and thereafter got the FIR registered.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 105 of 114
75. However, the aforesaid witness PW1 Smt. Anju in her testimony before the Court categorically mentioned that after marriage of her daughter, she was lived happily for three months in the matrimonial home. Subsequently, accused Phuleshwari Devi being the mother in law and other accused persons namely Sunita, Ram Kumr Raut and Krishan Kumar Raut started torturing the deceased to bring jewellery from her parental home. After one year of the marriage the accused persons demanded Rs.2 Lakh. However, the aforesaid facts mentioned in the testimony before the court does not find mention in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW1 further alleged that the accused persons demanded Rs.5 Lakh however, the said narration does not find mention in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. PW1 also failed to mention the reason for the aforesaid demand and further has alleged in her statement before the Court that her deceased daughter often used to tell regarding the behaviour of the accused persons, whenever she used to visit at her parental home and that all the accused persons ill- treated her, however, even the aforesaid fact does not find mention in her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
76. The aforesaid witness PW1 during cross examination on behalf of accused persons and also upon being asked the court questions stated that after the marriage accused persons did not make any dowry demand from her or her family members. The aforesaid fact infers that the demands if any, were made to the deceased daughter of PW1. Therefore, it was required for the witnesses to prove that the demand of dowry from the deceased amounted to cruelty and for the same reason the deceased committed suicide. However, during the cross FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 106 of 114 examination PW1 categorically stated that she had met accused Phuleshwari Devi upon the birth of the child of the deceased Soni and thereafter, had not met her. Further that she had never met accused Sunita after the marriage of her deceased daughter. She also admitted that she never visited the matrimonial house of her deceased daughter Soni. For the accused Kundan PW1 stated that he would accompany the deceased to the parental home on several occasions but she did not remember when he last met him. She admitted that she was known to the family of accused persons for about 25 years as they belong to the same community. She also admitted that she was in regularly touched with her deceased daughter through whatsapp messages and phone calls. She also admitted that her deceased daughter after marriage was pursuing her studying and also attempted to appear in Government jobs and all the expenses for the education were borne by accused Krishan Kumar Raut. She also admitted that her daughter used to have money for her expenditure and also visited religious places with her inlaws / accused persons. The aforesaid witness also admitted that her daughter was not having any personal bank account and therefore, the amount of Rs.2.5 Lakhs which was given to her daughter was transferred to the bank account of accused Krishan Kumar Raut. The complainant upon being asked, stated that she had no message to show that the deceased was unhappy in her matrimonial home or that she was being ill-treated. In the court question the witness also stated that they had never filed any complaint against the accused persons regarding any harassment prior to the death of the deceased. She admitted that her daughter was extremely sensitive. With the aforesaid testimony of PW1 it is made out that the deceased lived in matrimonial home with accused persons and was treated comfortably FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 107 of 114 since she was allowed to peruse her studies, visit at her parental home, appear for exams and even went to visit religious places with all accused persons and from the aforesaid testimony it cannot be stated that the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry or was abetted to commit suicide.
77. Further, in the present matter PW2 Ram Avtar Raut was the father of the deceased who deposed that her daughter was married on 09.03.2018 with accused Krishan Kumar Raut and thereafter her daughter lived happily only for a period of two months. The aforesaid fact is contradictory to the statement of PW1, who has stated that the deceased was kept well in the matrimonial home for three months.
78. PW2 further stated that all the accused persons harassed his daughter and demanded dowry, he also mention that he had given sufficient dowry to his daughter, but subsequently, the accused persons demanded dowry. PW2 stated that it was accused Kundan Kumar who demanded Rs.2 Lakh from his deceased daughter to take admission in B.Tech. However, the aforesaid fact does not find mention in the testimony of PW1 and hence, is not corroborated. PW2 further alleged in his testimony before the court that the accused persons demanded Rs.5 Lakhs for reconstruction of their house, which was in dilapidated condition however, even the aforesaid allegation does not find mention in the testimony of PW1. PW2 also mention that upon the birth of the girl child, the deceased was ill-treated, the aforesaid fact also does not find mention in the testimony of PW1 and is not corroborated. PW2 also stated that all the facts regarding demand of dowry from his deceased daughter, was disclosed by the deceased to FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 108 of 114 PW1 and it was PW1 who had stated that his deceased daughter did not want PW1 and PW2 to take any action as she was confident to handle the same. PW2 has stated that since the jewellery demands, the demand of Rs.2 Lakh and Rs.5 Lakh was not fulfilled the deceased was harassed and thereafter she was killed by accused persons on 31.03.2021.
79. During cross examination PW2 has stated that the cremation of his daughter was performed in the presence of all accused persons and all jewellery articles worn by deceased were handed over to them. He also stated that the mediator of the marriage namely Sh. Laxman Rao was informed regarding the conduct of accused persons that they were harassing the deceased and demanding dowry, but no action was taken against the accused persons, as they did not even take the call of the mediator. However, the aforesaid person namely Laxman Rao was never examined by the prosecution to substantiate the aforesaid fact. Even during cross examination of PW2 he has categorically stated that the marriage of accused Sunita was performed prior to the marriage of his deceased daughter and she used to reside in her matrimonial home. PW2 admitted during his cross examination that the house of accused persons was already constructed and they were living in their own house at the time when the marriage of his daughter was solemnized. PW2 also admitted that her daughter was perusing higher studies and was preparing for government jobs, after her marriage. He admitted that he had never filed any complaint against the accused persons regarding any harassment in the matrimonial house. He further admitted that even on the day when his daughter was leaving the parental home and informed them "sasural wale maar dengey", no FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 109 of 114 complaint was filed by him. Though PW1 has stated that the fact regarding demand of dowry was narrated to her, PW2 has stated that the demands made by the accused persons were told to him by the deceased. There are several contradictions as discussed above in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 which do not inspire confident.
80. PW3 Meena was sister of the deceased Soni who had stated that she was married prior to the deceased and was not regularly in touch with her and would meet her in the parental home on festivals. She had met the deceased on the festival of Holi on 29.03.2021 and thereafter on 30.03.2021 brought the deceased to Meethapur Chowk from where the deceased was taken to her matrimonial home by accused Krishan Kumar Raut. Further, on 31.03.2021, she was informed by her brother that the deceased had committed suicide but she had suspicion that the accused persons had killed her as her sister/deceased was highly educated.
81. During cross examination PW3 stated that her deceased sister had completed her study after marriage and several aspect of marriage was confronted to the witness and therefore, the testimony of PW3 did not inspire confidence.
82. PW6 Shivam is the brother of the deceased who last spoken to the deceased before her death. The aforesaid witness stated that on 31.03.2021, he had given a call to deceased at around 8:41 pm and continued to speak with her till 8:50 pm. During the aforesaid conversation he heard the accused Krishan Kumar Raut, asking the deceased to serve food and he found that every thing was fine. His FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 110 of 114 sister did not disclose to him anything disturbing. However, in the night at around 11:30 pm, he came to know from accused Krishan Kumar Raut that his sister had expired and they should reach Holy Family Hospital. However, the aforesaid witness alleged that all accused persons harassed her sister for the purpose of dowry and that she was killed by all accused persons and since his sister/deceased was educated, she could not have committed suicide.
83. During cross examination even aforesaid witness PW6 was confronted on several aspects of his deposition before the court which were not part of his statement before the investigating officer. Even the aforesaid witness upon being asked deposed that after marriage her sister continued the studies and completed her M.Com. Further, that his deceased sister was preparing for competitive examination and for the same she had visited Bihar and for the aforesaid exam accused Krishan Kumar Raut also accompanied with her. The aforesaid testimony of witness also establishes that the deceased lived in the matrimonial home alongwith accused persons and was allowed to live peacefully. Even the aforesaid witness was unable to prove regarding any complaint filed against accused persons prior to present incident.
84. PW4 Ct. Om Prakash, PW5 Karamjit, PW7 Ct. Tota Ram, PW9 SI Kanhiya Lal and PW10 Inspt. Vipin Yadav and PW14 Inspt. Subhash Bhatt were the formal witnesses being the the IO and police officials of the present matter, deposed regarding the manner of investigation conducted. PW12 being the nodal officer proved the CDR record of accused Sunita, but the same did not show that there was any call record or message to the deceased regarding any kind of harassment.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 111 of 114
85. The witnesses / family members of the deceased also were not able to show that there were any communication with the family of the deceased to ascertain that the deceased was subjected to cruelty.
86. Further, the FSL report pertaining to viscera also shows on chemical, microscopic, TLC, and GC - HS examination, mineral assets, metallic poisons ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers, and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A, Ex.1B, Ex.1C & Ex.1D . Further, the postmortem report of the deceased which was Ex.A23, has opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to ligature compression of neck. Further, in the column of injuries upon the dead body of the deceased it has been mentioned "there was no other injury/struggle mark present over the body". Further, there were no injuries found on head, chest, abdomen, or any other part of the body.
87. Further the deceased did not leave any suicide note which could infer that she was subjected to cruelty. All the other witnesses examined by the prosecution did not deposed regarding any of the incident by which it could be inferred that the deceased was subjected to any kind of dowry demand and the averments made on behalf of the family members of the deceased regarding demand of Rs.2 Lakh or Rs.5 Lakh is also vague and general in nature and does not inspire confidence. The net result is that above mentioned prosecution witnesses, who could have deposed about deceased Soni facing cruelty or harassment at the hands of accused persons, did not depose so, in their respective testimonies. It is also important to see that FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 112 of 114 accused Sunita and Kundan were not present when the alleged incident occurred and the same has been verified by IO during investigation. All the family members of deceased have also stated that accused Sunita was married prior to marriage of deceased and was living in her matrimonial house. Further, there are no specific allegation against any of accused persons regarding allegation of dowry demand and the same are vague and omnibus. The prosecution thus failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry by her husband or her relatives. Further, to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence under Section 304B IPC it was required to be established that "soon before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, "in connection with demand of dowry" . Here in the present matter, the expression soon before her death, subjecting the deceased to cruelty does not stand proved as the family of deceased has categorically stated that while the deceased had spoken to her mother in the after noon, she was sounding fine and even when she spoke to her brother at around 08:40 pm, she did not complain regarding any harassment. Therefore, there is no reasonable nexus between the death of the deceased and dowry related cruelty or harassment as alleged by the family of the deceased. Therefore, there is no aspect of any offence proved against the accused persons.
88. Rest of the prosecution witnesses were police officials who had done different aspects of investigation. Their unrebutted testimonies, did not prove the aspect of "cruelty" being faced by deceased Soni, during her lifetime from accused persons. So, I discarded their testimonies.
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 113 of 114
89. Prosecution thus, failed to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty, or commission of abetment to suicide constituting the offence under Section 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
90. So, prosecution in order to bring conviction of an accused u/sec. 306 IPC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused intended to commit the said offence, by playing active role, thereby abetting victim to commit suicide.
91. Accused persons, per contra, were able to raise defence of them being falsely implicated in this case.
92. Thus, accused persons namely Krishan Kumar Raut, Ram Kumar Raut, Phuleshwari Devi, Kundan Kumar Raut and Sunita are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 498A/304B/306/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SheetalSheetal chaudhary chaudhary Date:
Announced in open Court 2026.05.20
16:02:21 +0530
on : 20.05.2026 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
SE District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No.126/2021 State Vs. Krishan Kumar Raut & Ors PS Jaitpur Page No. 114 of 114