Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2025
Judgment delivered on: 24.12.2025
+ CRL.A. 353/2015
STATE .....Appellant
versus
KAMAL .....Respondent
Memo of Appearance
For the Appellant: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with
Inspr. Kuldeep Singh, SI Johny Kumar, PS Uttam
Nagar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pranav Yadav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-State takes exception to judgment dated 20.09.2012
passed by learned Trial Court whereby accused Kamal i.e. respondent
herein has been acquitted.
2. Let us have a quick glance over the factual matrix.
3. Accused-Kamal got married to Preeti on 08.06.2006. The
marriage was as per Hindu rites and customs.
4. On 02.08.2006, PW10 Sh. Chander Shekhar (father of Preeti)
lodged a missing report with PP Matiala, PS Uttam Nagar. In such
missing report (Ex.PW15/X), he stated that last week, her daughter Preeti
along with her husband had come from Ram Nagar to Delhi. On
30.06.2006, Sh. Lalit Joshi (brother of accused-Kamal) called him up and
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
told that Preeti was under some stress ( ladki tannav mai hai ) and
requested them to take her back. He, accordingly, brought her daughter
back to parental home, where also she used to stay stressed. On
01.08.2006, at about 5:00 pm, Preeti left home saying that she was going
to meet her friends. However, since she did not return till late evening,
when inquiries were made, it came to fore that she had not visited her
friends. It was in the abovesaid factual background that a missing report
was got lodged. It will be also worthwhile to mention that in such report,
PW10 Sh. Chander Shekhar Pandey, distinctly, stated that he did not
suspect involvement of anyone ( mujhe kisi par kisi bhi prakaar ka shak-
o- shubha nahi hai ).
5. Next morning i.e. on 02.08.2006, a dead body was found in
Najafgarh pond/drain. Such information was reduced in writing vide DD
No.15A, PS Najafgarh.
6. Further investigation revealed that such dead body was of Preeti.
7. Since the death had taken place within a period of two months of
marriage, the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) was requested
to record statements of parents of the deceased. SDM, accordingly,
recorded statements of Sh. Chander Shekhar (PW-10) and of Smt. Rama
Devi (PW-9). Since they apprehended that there was demand of dowry,
FIR was recommended to be registered for commission of offences under
Section 498-A/304-B IPC. Further investigation was carried out and
supplementary statements of parents of deceased were also recorded.
8. Accused-Kamal along with his two brothers (Laxmi Dutt and
Jagdish) and their respective wives (Rekha, wife of Laxmi Dutt and Rita
Joshi, wife of Jagdish) was chargesheeted.
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
9. Since offence under Section 304-B IPC was triable exclusively by
Court of Sessions, the case was committed.
10. Both the sides advanced arguments at length at the time of
consideration of charge and learned Trial Court vide order dated
28.09.2007 directed accused Kamal to be charged for commission of
offences under Section 498-A and under Section 306 IPC only.
11. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. All the other accused persons were discharged of all the offences.
Accused Kamal was also discharged of offence under Section 304-B
IPC.
13. Thus, no case of dowry-death was found made out against anyone.
14. Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and examined fifteen
witnesses including PW-4 Dr. Parvinder Singh (the doctor who
conducted autopsy), PW-5 Sh. S. S. Parihar (the then learned SDM),
PW-9 Rama Devi (mother of deceased), PW-10 Sh. Chander Shekhar
Pandey (father of deceased), PW-11 Basant Kumar (brother of deceased)
and PW-15 Inspector R. S. Meena (the Investigating Officer).
15. Accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed that
it was a false case and that he and his wife had very cordial and intimate
relation and there was never any complaint against each other. Though
accused expressed his desire to lead evidence in defence, fact remains he
did not examine any witness in his defence.
16. Learned Trial Court, after taking note of the various improvements
made by the material prosecution witnesses, came to the conclusion that
offence under Section 498-A IPC did not stand proved beyond
reasonable doubt. As regards offence under Section 306 IPC also, it
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
observed that even if the alleged instances of demand were presumed to
be true, those were not in the nature of abetment, particularly, when the
suicide was not immediate as Preeti had rather returned to her parental
home and death had taken place after Preeti had started residing at her
parental home and, therefore, there was enough time for her to control
her emotions and to cool herself down.
17. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State contends that the learned Trial
Court has given undue weightage to the trivial contradictions and
inconsequential improvements. According to him, the findings are
perverse as these are based on surmises and conjectures and do not flow
from evidence. It is contended that the death had taken place within two
months of marriage and was otherwise than under normal circumstances
and since there was specific deposition regarding dowry-demands and
torture/harassment related to non-fulfillment thereof, it was, clearly, a
case of dowry-death. It is argued that even if it is assumed to be a case of
suicide, the suicide was on account of cruelty meted out to Preeti and,
therefore, offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC stood proved.
18. All such contentions have been resisted by learned defence counsel
and, according to him, there was never any demand or cruelty and that a
false case had been imposed upon the accused. It is argued that after
unfortunate suicide of Preeti, her father demanded handsome amount
from the accused and since he was unable to meet such illegal demand, a
false case was foisted upon him and his relatives. He has also drawn our
attention towards order dated 01.12.2006 of this Court whereby accused
were enlarged on bail. It is submitted that even at a very initial stage,
despite the fact that the death was otherwise than under normal
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
circumstances and within two months of marriage, this Court took note
of the fact that when the missing report was lodged, the complainant
never suspected anybody. It also took note of the fact that at the time of
her suicide, she was living at her parental home only. The attention of the
Court was also drawn towards the two letters written by Preeti to her
husband which, clearly, indicated that her husband was taking due care
of her. These letters, written when she was residing at her parental home,
expressed her gratitude for the love, her husband had exhibited. These
letters also indicated that even while away, she was missing her husband
and eagerly waiting to meet him. Thus, on the strength of those letters, it
had been argued that there was no ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased. Undoubtedly, though the abovesaid observations, appearing in
the bail order may not have any automatic bearing on the eventual
outcome of the criminal proceedings as these were made at a very initial
juncture, these cannot be disregarded altogether, either.
19. However, before we start analyzing the evidence, we would like to
re-emphasize that accused Kamal had been subjected to face trial for
commission of offences under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC. He
was discharged of offence under Section 304-B IPC and his co-accused
were exonerated completely. Such order seems to have attained finality
as nothing has been shown which may indicate that order on charge was
ever challenged and reversed. In such a peculiar situation, it is not
possible for prosecution to pray for conviction under Section 304-B IPC
or, for that matter, for conviction of his other relatives, who were not
even subjected to any trial.
20. Therefore, we only have to consider whether acquittal of accused
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
for offences under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC is justified or not.
21. There is no doubt that the death is within two months of the
marriage and is otherwise than under normal circumstances.
22. The cause of death, as per autopsy surgeon PW-4 Dr. Parvinder
Singh, is asphyxia consequent to antemortem drowning. Of course, he
also observed that the possibility of deceased having been knocked down
by someone could not be ruled out. Viscera report was later on obtained
and produced before Dr. Parvinder Singh and since there was no
presence of any common poison etc., there was no change in the
abovesaid opinion given by Dr. Parvinder Singh.
23. Learned Prosecutor, in all fairness, submitted that there is nothing
to indicate that it was a case of homicide or someone pushing her in the
drain. He, however, submits that since the death has taken place under
mysterious circumstances and within two months of marriage, the
learned Trial Court should not have given any undue weightage to the
trivial contradictions and insignificant improvements.
24. Let us first analyze the abovesaid aspect only.
25. As we have noted already, when the missing report was lodged
with the police, Sh. Chander Shekhar did not express his suspicion over
anyone. He, simply, revealed to the police that he had received a call
from Sh. Lalit Joshi (brother of accused) that Preeti was tense and on
receiving such call on 30.06.2006, he brought her back to her parental
home. It was also mentioned in such report that thereafter also Preeti
used to stay stressed. If at all, there was any harassment or cruelty or
demand of dowry, any father, in such a situation, would have, certainly,
revealed the same to the police and, therefore, such omission cannot be
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
digested in a casual manner. Moreover, he never revealed as to why
Preeti used to remain upset. If it was on account of cruel behaviour of her
in-laws or demand of dowry, it should have disclosed at the first
available opportunity. Interestingly, even in their statements given to
SDM, the parents, merely, expressed their apprehension that there was
demand of dowry. They were not sounding certain and made general and
vague allegations, without pinpointing anything in particular.
26. We have carefully seen the statements made by the parents before
learned SDM and before the learned Trial Court during the trial and there
are indeed umpteen huge improvements, with no plausible explanation
with respect thereto.
27. The learned Trial Court analyzed the evidence in a painstaking and
comprehensive manner and then came to conclusion that such
improvements by all the three witnesses i.e. parents and brother of the
deceased were simply with intent to fulfil the ingredients of Section 498-
A IPC. It noted that if there was actually any such cruelty committed
upon the deceased, all those facts would have been disclosed by them
either to the police or to the SDM at the earliest opportunity. It also took
note of the fact that the deposition of all these three witnesses i.e. Smt.
Rama Devi (PW-9), Sh. Chander Shekhar Pandey (PW-10) and
Sh. Basant Kumar (PW-11) were having numerous material
contradictions inter se and, therefore, the story of demand of dowry and
consequent cruelty stood crumbled. It also took note of the fact that the
brother of the deceased i.e. PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar had given another
twist to the case of the prosecution by claiming that his wife (wife of
PW-11 Sh. Basant Kumar) had told that the real cause of misery of
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
deceased was that her husband i.e. accused used to drink a lot. No such
reason seems to have been disclosed by parents and brother of deceased.
Moreover, if that was so, wife of Sh. Basant Kumar should have also
been examined by the prosecution but she is not even cited as a witness.
28. Sh. Chander Shekhar (PW-10) has indeed come up with vast
improvements. As we have noted, there was no allegation or suspicion
against anyone when the missing report was lodged. Such report was
lodged on 02.08.2006 and after the dead body of Preeti was recovered on
03.08.2006, all of a sudden, he came up with additional averment that she
used to be harassed by her in-laws and that there was demand of dowry.
In his such subsequent statement dated 03.08.2006 made before SDM, he
claimed that he had brought his daughter back on 30.07.2006 and it was
then that her daughter had revealed about the alleged harassment. The
abovesaid allegation was also general in nature. Things did not stop
there. In his subsequent statement made on 20.08.2006, various other
instances of demand and harassment were divulged. If such statement is
to be believed then immediately after marriage, the brothers and the
respective wives of accused Kamal started taunting her, claiming that she
had not brought anything in dowry. So much so, according to him, all
such relatives asked Kamal to start beating her up so that she can bring
money from her father. It was also mentioned in such statement made
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on 25.07.2006, accused Kamal had laced
tea with some intoxicating substance and when Preeti consumed such tea,
she became unconscious. So much so, she was made to board a train and
it was only when she regained consciousness, she called up her parental
side from Kota, Rajasthan and it was with great difficulty that she
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
returned home. He further claimed that, on 30.07.2006, accused and his
brother had beaten her up and she was pushed out of her house and she
had to spend the entire night outside the house. There were allegations
regarding demand of plot, car, etc. and when Preeti claimed that her in-
laws would kill her, she was brought back.
29. Obviously, if there were, actually speaking, these kinds of serious
allegations and instances of harassment, there was no reason for
Sh. Chander Shekhar to have not revealed when his daughter had gone
missing. On the contrary, he claimed that he had no suspicion over
anyone.
30. On careful perusal of trial court record, we feel that learned Trial
Court has rightly analyzed and appreciated the material improvements
and, therefore, we do not find any reason, much less a compelling one, to
come to any different conclusion. We also need not remind ourselves that
mere demand, even if it is presumed to be there, would not be sufficient
unless prosecution is able to show and establish that there was
harassment and cruelty, on account of non-fulfillment of such demand.
Section 107 of IPC would come into play only when there is some
positive or overt act of such a nature which instigates any person to such
an extent that there is no other option left, except to commit suicide.
There has to be, thus, presence of mens rea and a specific act, compelling
any such person to take such an extreme decision, seeing no other option.
Here such element of instigation or abetment is, visibly, missing.
31. Undoubtedly, a precious life is lost and the reason is not
discernible.
32. Prosecution does not know as to how, and in what manner, Preeti
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
fell into the drain. We do not have any ocular evidence with respect to
the abovesaid incident. There is no one who might have seen the alleged
incident of drowning of deceased and, therefore, it is at all not clear as to
how did she die – whether she committed suicide or someone pushed her
or it was merely an accidental fall in the drain. It was incumbent on the
part of prosecution to have clarified all such doubts while eliminating the
possibility of someone pushing her or it being an accidental death.
33. Mere fact that the death was by drowning would not, ipso facto ,
make it a case of dowry-death, particularly when there is no such charge,
even. Merely because her dead body was recovered from a drain and the
death was on account of antemortem drowning, it cannot be,
automatically, presumed that it was a case of abetment of suicide. The
statutory presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023) cannot be pressed
into service, without establishing the foundational facts. The presumption
would stand attracted only when the prosecution is able to show that such
person was subjected to cruelty.
34. We have noted that the evidence led, on the alleged aspect of
cruelty, does not inspire much confidence as no such thing was brought
to the notice of the police authorities at the first available opportunity.
On the contrary, the father of the deceased had not suspected
involvement of anyone when his daughter had gone missing. Moreover,
we also do not find from the Trial Court record as to what happened to
those love letters which had been, allegedly, written by deceased to her
husband. Trial Court Record has been perused but somehow, we did not
come across any investigation or reference about the same. Since these
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51
had come to the knowledge of the prosecution when the bail applications
were filed before this Court, the Investigating Agency ought to have
analyzed those. Moreover, no necessity was felt of contacting and
recording statements of her friends. Preeti had gone that day to meet her
friends and no statement of any such friend was either recorded by the
police. They could have also thrown some light about the mindset of
deceased.
35. Be that as it may, fact remains that we do not find any perversity in
any of the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. The evidence led
by the prosecution has been assessed and analyzed very appropriately by
the learned Trial Court.
36. In an appeal against acquittal, the scope of interference is
constricted and order of acquittal cannot be upset merely for the reason
that another view is also possible. The appellant-State is mandated to
demonstrate and establish that there is illegality or perversity in the
findings or that conclusion has been given, ignoring material evidence.
37. As an upshot of our foregoing discussion, we dismiss the appeal.
38. Bail-bonds of accused are cancelled and his surety is discharged.
(VIVEK CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 24, 2025
st/pb
CRL.A. 353/2015 Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:24.12.2025
15:29:51