Sanjev Saxena & Ors. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 02.09.2026
Pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010099662004
+ CRL.A. 707/2004
SANJIV SAXENA & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Ansuiya
and Mr. Shivaansh
Maini, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP
with Mr.Manvendra
Yadav, Adv. with Insp.
Kashmiri Lal, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the
th
Judgment of Conviction dated 26 July, 2004 [“ impugned
th
judgement ”] and Order on Sentence dated 30 July, 2004, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi [“ Trial Court ”] in
case FIR No. 220/2002, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304-B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code [“ IPC ”].
2. Appellant No. 2 expired during the pendency of the appeal. The
appeal qua him therefore stands abated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 1 of 27

BRIEF FACTS:
3. The facts of the case have been succinctly captured in paras No.
2 & 3 of the impugned judgment, which are produced as under:-
“ 2. Tale of woe, which emerged out of the
report of Shri Bimal Narain Lal, makes it clear
that when Meena went to her matrimonial
home, after her marriage on 30.11.01, she was
not allowed to visit her parental home, like a
newly wed bride for a customary "PHERA". Her
parents pleaded and supplicated a lot with her
husband and in-laws and then Meena was sent
to her parental home with a condition that
woolen suit for the groom, woolen suit for his
father, clothes for his mother, besides clothes
for entire family members would be given by her
parents. A sum of Rs 20-25 thousands was spent
by Shri Lal in purchasing the clothes and when
his son-in-law and his parents came to his
house, the same were given to them. At the time
of Lohri festival, a list was dictated on
telephone giving details of articles which were
to be given at that time. It was made clear that
in case gifts would not be given in pursuance of
the said list, then parents of Meena should not
visit her matrimonial home. On that occasion
too, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 20 - 25 thousands
to meet their demand. To send Meena to her
parental home on Holi festival, a condition was
imposed which her father could not fulfill,
resulting thereby that Shri Lal could not call
Meena at the time of Holi festival. Meena had
given telephone calls to her parents only thrice
and she talked only about the demands raised
by her husband and in-laws. He fulfilled the
demands raised on two occasions but at the time
of Holi festival, he could not meet the demand
on account of financial stringency. He further
details that whenever he gave a telephonic call
at the matrimonial home of his daughter to
enquire about her well-being, he was abused by
her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-
law. They told him not to give telephone calls at
their house and advise his son not to visit them.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 2 of 27

He emphasizes that on account of their
behaviour, they had never given a telephone
call at her matrimonial home. He unfolds that
when Meena came to her parental home, she
stayed there for a span of 5-7 days. At that time,
she used to tell while weeping that in order to
make her feel humble, her mother-in-law used
to ask her to touch feet of her younger sister-in-
law. In order to harass and ill-treat her, her
mother-in-law asked her to wash entire house
daily. His daughter told that she was slapped
once by her husband. Despite her ill-treatment,
Meena used to say that everything would come
in order. His daughter was ill-treated by her
husband and in-laws on account of insufficient
dowry brought by Meena in her marriage.
3. ⁠Shri Lal recites that on 19.4.02 at 9.30 AM,
uncle of Sanjiv Saxena gave him a telephone
call and told that Meena was serious. He
advised him to reach her matrimonial home
saying that they were also reaching there. He
along-with his son Dhiraj reached matrimonial
home of his daughter at Uttam Nagar, Delhi, at
11 AM. Police was already present there. He
inquired as to what the matter was and came to
know that his daughter has committed suicide in
upper room (room on second floor) by hanging
herself. Recalling the incidents of ill-treatment
and harassment of Meena at the hands of her
husband and in-laws, Shri Lal had shown an
apprehension that his daughter was murdered
by them or such objective conditions were
created that Meena dropped down and
committed suicide. However, he asserts that
Meena was a bold girl who would not have
yielded to normal harassment or ill-treatment to
take her life. He requested that matter may be
investigated and action be initiated against
Sanjiv Saxena and his parents. On the report of
Shri Lal, SDM directed the police of Police
Station Uttam Nagar to register a case .
4. FIR No. 220/2002, under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC (Ex. P-
7) was registered at PS Uttam Nagar and the investigation was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 3 of 27

entrusted to PW-14 SI Kashmiri Lal. The appellants were interrogated
th
and arrested on 20 April, 2002. The body of the victim was sent for
post-mortem and the statements of the relevant witnesses were
recorded. As per post-mortem report (Ex. PW-11/A), the cause of
death was hanging. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the appellants under Section 498-A/406/304-B/34
IPC.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:
5. Charges were framed for the offences under Section 498-A,
304-B/34 and 406/34 IPC on 27.09.2002 against the accused persons
namely Sanjeev Saxena, Kuljit Singh Saxena and Vimla Saxena, to
which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused
persons, examined 14 witnesses including father of deceased (PW-1),
brother of deceased (PW-2), uncle of deceased (PW-3), brother of
deceased (PW-6), SDM (PW-7), Post mortem doctor (PW-11),
Inspector who signed the Chargesheet (PW-13) and the IO of the case
(PW-14).
7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“ Cr. P.C. ”], the appellants admitted the
th
marriage of Meena (deceased) with Sanjiv Saxena on 30 November,
2001, but denied the allegations of cruelty and harassment, contending
that Meena was suffering from jaundice, which information had been
conveyed to her parents by Saket Narain (PW-3), however, despite
being informed, her parents and brothers did not visit her matrimonial
home. They stated that Meena had a strong desire that her parents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 4 of 27

should visit her frequently and being deeply affected by their failure to
do so, felt frustrated and committed suicide. They also stated that SI
th
Kashmiri Lal had illegally detained them on 19 April, 2002 but had
th
falsely shown their arrest on 20 April, 2002. They claimed that they
were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They did not lead
any evidence in their defence.
8. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court held that
prosecution has been able to establish that Meena, who was married to
th
the appellant Sanjeev Saxena on 30 November, 2001, died an
th
unnatural death by hanging on 19 April, 2002, within four and a half
months of her marriage and that soon before her death, Meena had
been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws
in connection with dowry demands. The learned Trial Court was of
the view that the testimonies of Bimal Narain Lal, Dheeraj, Saket
Narain Lal and Randhir Kumar Lal disclosed a continuous course of
conduct, involving demands for a motorcycle, cash, clothes and other
articles and ill-treatment upon non-fulfilment thereof. It was held that
the evidence established the requisite proximity and live link between
the dowry related cruelty and her death, thereby, attracting the
statutory presumption of dowry death, while the defence plea that
Meena had committed suicide out of frustration as her parents had not
enquired about her well-being, was rejected. Consequently, the
appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-
A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. However, in respect of Section
406 IPC, the Court held that there was no whisper of demand at any
point of time for the return of dowry articles or Stridhan of Meena,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 5 of 27

and therefore in the absence of any such demand, it cannot be
concluded that the offence of criminal breach of trust has been
established against the appellants, and accordingly, acquitted them of
the charge under Section 406 IPC.
th
9. Vide order dated 30 July, 2004, the appellants were sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of dowry death. They
were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two
years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for an offence of
cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC, and in default of
payment of fine, they were directed to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of six months each. Both sentences were to
run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was to be also extended to the appellant.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present
appeal against the impugned judgment and order.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
11. Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that statements of the material witnesses namely Bimal
Narain and Dheeraj recorded by the learned SDM, are unspecific,
general and vague in nature. They made material improvements in
their evidence before the Court. They were confronted with the
statements recorded by the SDM to prove the improvements in their
testimonies recorded before the Court. They altogether presented a
different story than the one which was presented by them in their
statements recorded by the SDM and therefore their testimonies are
not acceptable. He places reliance on the judgment of Karan Singh v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 6 of 27

State of Haryana , 2025 INSC 133 to argue that omissions in the
previous statement amount to contradictions by virtue of explanation
to Section 162 of the Cr. PC.
12. It was further argued that the Case Diary has not been recorded
by the IO SI Kashmiri Lal (PW-14) in his own handwriting and was
got written from a private person while sitting in the police station and
this fact has been admitted by PW-14 in his cross examination. It is
thus argued that investigation has not been conducted fairly.
13. It was further argued that the learned SDM had acted illegally
by not recording the statements himself and by permitting the police
officer to record the statements of the witnesses. It is argued that such
illegality committed by the learned SDM completely vitiates the
inquest proceedings and no reliance can be place on the statements of
B.N. Lal (PW-1) and Dheeraj (PW-2).
14. Thus, according to the learned defence counsel, the evidence
produced by the prosecution is deficient and therefore it cannot be
held that the ingredients for the offence of dowry death stand
established in this case and thus the appellants are entitled to
honourable acquittal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE:
15. Per contra , Mr. Usman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
[“ APP ”] for the State, submitted that PW-1 himself, in his
examination-in-chief, categorically stated that his supplementary
statements had been recorded by the police, wherein he had furnished
additional details regarding the occurrence and had given a detailed
account of the persistent dowry harassment meted out to the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 7 of 27

16. It was contended that, despite the witness having specifically
disclosed the recording of such supplementary statements, the
appellants chose not to confront him with the said statements during
his cross-examination with a view to bring out any contradiction or
omission therein. According to the learned APP, the fact that the
supplementary statements were not put to PW-1 in cross-examination
is significant, as the defence cannot, after consciously refraining from
confronting the witness with a particular previous statement,
subsequently seek to rely upon the contents thereof to impeach his
testimony.
17. The learned APP further submitted that it was rather peculiar
that, despite being aware of the existence of the supplementary
statements, the accused persons did not confront the material
witnesses with those statements and instead selectively chose to
confront them only with the statements recorded before the SDM. It
was argued that such selective use of the previous statements cannot
be permitted to defeat otherwise consistent and cogent testimonies of
the witnesses before the Court.
18. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. , 1959 SCC OnLine SC 17,
to contend that the requirements governing contradictions and
omissions in previous statements must be strictly complied with and
that a previous statement can be utilised for contradiction only in the
manner prescribed by law.
19. The learned APP thus argued that defence has failed to bring
forth any omission/contradiction/improvement in the testimonies of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 8 of 27

PW-3 and PW-6, which have been found to be straight-forward and
cogent, and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
20. With regard to the writing of Case Diary by private person, it
was submitted that they were merely scribes and writing of case diary
by scribes is not barred.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants and the learned APP for the State and have carefully
analysed the evidence available on record.
22. Before moving forward, it is important to reproduce Section
498-A & 304-B IPC. They read as under:-
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty .—Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this
section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
“304-B. Dowry death .—(1) Where the death of
a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 9 of 27

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 Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.”
23. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or
bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her
marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry.
24. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can
be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as
the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death.
25. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that
dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 10 of 27

given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the
other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or
to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at
or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning
as in Section 30 of IPC.
26. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the wife of
appellant Sanjiv Saxena occurred within seven years of the marriage.
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death. -
When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
presume that such person had caused the
dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of
this section, "dowry death" shall have the
same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
27. The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is
established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected
by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the
prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the
appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any
demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 11 of 27

the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be
invoked.
28. Undisputedly, the marriage between the deceased and the
appellant Sanjeev Saxena was short-lived, as Meena died within
approximately four and a half months of the marriage. The autopsy
report Ex. PW-11/A, prepared by Dr. Manoj Nagpal (PW-11), records
an ante-mortem ligature mark and a knot mark in the neck and opines
the cause of death to be hanging, thereby, establishing that the
deceased met an unnatural death. Once it is established that the death
of Meena occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of marriage, we deem it appropriate to carefully re-
appreciate the evidence and the testimonies of the material prosecution
witnesses to determine whether the remaining ingredients of the
offence of dowry death against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.
29. The learned Trial Court, while convicting the appellants,
principally relied upon the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and
PW-6. According to PW-1, the first demand was made about one
week prior to the engagement, when a motorcycle make “Passion”
was demanded and was thereafter given to appellant Sanjeev Saxena
st
at the engagement on 21 October, 2001. After Diwali and before the
marriage, the accused persons insisted that sarees and clothes be
purchased from a particular shop in Chandni Chowk as per their
choice, and similarly, refused the furniture initially purchased by the
deceased’s family, compelling them to re-purchase furniture, blankets
and other articles, as selected by them. PW-1 further deposed that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 12 of 27

Bimla Saxena and Ritu Saxena dictated a list of articles to be given at
the Lagan ceremony and Kuljit Saxena demanded Rs. 50,000/- at the
Phera ceremony, against which, Rs. 42,000/- was initially paid, due to
which, no one was allowed by the in-laws of the deceased to
accompany the deceased and the remaining Rs. 8,000/- was
subsequently arranged and paid by them. At the occasion of Lohri, the
appellants demanded to arrange clothes for the entire family costing
Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, for which, PW-1 had to take a loan and
was told that only after fulfillment of these demands, the girl will be
sent to visit her parents. On the occasion of Holi in the year 2002,
Kuljit Saxena demanded a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- for replacing
the asbestos sheets of the roof and PW-1 paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to
Sanjeev in the second week of March 2002. It is significant to note
that in cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that several of these specific
incidents of demand and payment were not stated by him in his
statement recorded before the SDM (Ex.PW-1/A), but he explained
that subsequently supplementary statements were recorded, wherein,
the relevant details were given.
30. PW-2 Dheeraj, brother of the deceased Meena, supported the
prosecution case regarding the dowry demands and harassment meted
out to his sister after her marriage with accused Sanjeev Saxena on
th
30 November, 2001. He deposed regarding the demand of a red Hero
Honda Passion motorcycle, the demand of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of
marriage, payment of Rs. 42,000/- and subsequent payment of Rs.
8,000/-, demands on festivals including Lohri, demand of money for
the renovation of the house and about Meena being beaten and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 13 of 27

harassed by Ritu and Neelam and taunting for non-fulfillment of the
demands. In cross-examination, PW-2 made significant admissions,
when confronted with his previous statement given to the SDM (Ex.
PW-2/A) admitting that he had not specifically stated before the SDM
or the police about the demand for the motorcycle, Rs. 50,000/-
demand at the time of marriage, payment of Rs. 42,000/- and Rs.
8,000/-, the demand for sarees and gifts as a condition for Lohri, the
demand of money for renovation, the alleged beatings by Ritu and
Neelam or the taunts regarding non-fulfillment of demands and
allegedly sub-standard articles. He explained the omissions regarding
the motorcycle by stating that he was mentally disturbed following the
death of his sister. He admitted that he had not disclosed the names of
the persons present when Rs. 42,000/-was allegedly paid and had not
stated that the balance Rs. 8,000/- was paid after about eight days at
Vimla’s residence. PW-2 was also confronted with his previous
statement regarding the assertion that Meena was used to be forced to
do unnecessary work like washing clothes, terrace and other
household works. He admitted that these details were not recorded in
such statement recorded by the SDM. He admitted that the Holi
telephone incident, including the assertion that Ritu prevented him
from speaking to Meena and Sanjeev instructed him not to telephone
or visit the matrimonial home, was also not stated to the police. Thus,
while PW-2 has furnished material allegations regarding dowry
demands and harassment, his testimony is accompanied by substantial
omissions and subsequent elaboration of material particulars.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 14 of 27

31. PW-3 Saket Narain Lal, maternal uncle of the deceased,
deposed regarding the demand of motorcycle, the articles allegedly
demanded at the Lagan ceremony and the demand of Rs. 50,000/- at
the time of Phera, against which, Rs. 42,000/- was arranged from
Kanyadan received in the marriage out of which Rs. 10,000/- was
contributed by him and paid to the father of Sanjeev Saxena. He
rd
further stated that after 03 April, 2002, Meena occasionally
telephoned him and complained that she was being harassed by her in-
laws, particularly Ritu and Neelam, who allegedly made her
repeatedly clean the floor, gave her stale food and beat her when she
took dal and chapati for eating. He also stated that Meena told him
about being suffering from jaundice but requested him not to visit her
matrimonial home as it would create further problems for her, while
expressing hope that the situation might improve after Ritu’s
marriage.
32. In cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that several material
particulars stated in his examination-in-chief including the demand of
motorcycle, the articles given at Lagan, the improper conduct of the
in-laws, Rs. 50,000/- demand, payment of Rs. 42,000/- and about
harassment, beatings, stale food and jaundice, were not recorded in his
statement Mark DX, despite his assertion that he had conveyed these
facts to the police over telephone. He admitted that he had not
personally visited Meena’s matrimonial home after the marriage and
left Delhi shortly after the marriage and had personally not met her
thereafter until her death, although, he stated that she had visited his
th
brother’s house on 14 January, 2002 and that to his knowledge, there
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 15 of 27

was no complaint from her up to that date. In these circumstances, the
testimony of PW-3, while furnishing corroborative circumstances, is
required to be assessed with due regard to the material omissions and
the fact that a substantial part of his knowledge regarding the dowry
demand and cruelty are derived from telephonic conversations with
the deceased.
33. PW-6 Randhir Kumar Lal, the other brother of the deceased,
also gave a detailed account of the alleged demands from the time
preceding the engagement till shortly before the death of Meena. He
deposed that the accused family initially stated that they did not want
dowry, but subsequently demanded a motorcycle, dictated cash
amounts and articles to be given as Shagun, and thereafter, demanded
colour television, refrigerator, washing machine, almirah, dressing
table, centre table and other furniture at the Lagan ceremony, besides
insisting that sarees and clothes be purchased from a particular shop as
per their choice. He further stated that at the time of Phera, all the
accused demanded Rs. 50,000/-, out of which Rs. 42,000/- was paid,
leaving a balance of Rs. 8,000/-, on account of which, the brothers
were not permitted to accompany Meena to her matrimonial home. He
also deposed regarding the alleged harassment of Meena, including
the taunts that she belonged to a family of beggars, the demand for
gifts on her first Lohri, the demand of approximately Rs. 50,000/- for
replacement of asbestos sheets and subsequent telephonic
conversations in which Meena cried and complained of harassment,
beatings and being made to consume rotten sweets.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 16 of 27

34. PW-6 was extensively confronted in cross-examination, upon
which, he made several admissions. He admitted that he had not
specifically stated before the police about the demands for colour TV,
refrigerator, washing machine, almirah, dressing table and centre
table, although he volunteered that he had given a list to the police
containing these articles; he admitted that he had not stated about the
demand to purchase sarees from Tripathi/Tirupati Saree House, the
conversation with Vimla regarding the price of the sarees or the illegal
demand of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of Saptpadi/Phera and payment of
Rs. 42,000/-. He admitted that he had not stated that the non-payment
of balance of Rs. 8,000/- was the reason why the brothers were not
permitted to accompany Meena after marriage and was confronted
with Ex. PW-6/DA, where the fact of Meena not being permitted to
th
visit the parental home until 14 January, 2002, was not recorded. He
was also confronted with Ex.PW-6/DA regarding his alleged
conversation with Sanjeev, his request that Meena be accepted as a
bride, Meena’s complaint that she had been harassed by all the family
members, that she was called as a member of family of beggars and
his assertion that she believed that Sanjeev was under the pressure of
other family members; he admitted that these particulars were not
recorded.
35. Likewise, he admitted that he had not stated before the police
about the condition of giving gifts for the first Lohri, the telephone
number given by him to Meena, Rs. 50,000/- demand for asbestos
sheets or the subsequent telephone call in which Meena cried and
complained of harassment and beatings. He admitted that the Holi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 17 of 27

telephone incident and the instruction by Sanjeev not to telephone or
visit the matrimonial home were not stated before the police and that
neither he nor his brother or father had visited Meena’s matrimonial
th th
home between 14 April, 2002 and 19 April, 2002. At the same time,
he maintained that the allegations were true, denied the suggestion of
fabrication and stated that he had subsequently handed over a list to
the SHO around 24th or 25th April, 2002, even though, he could not
recollect the exact date.
36. On an analysis of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, we do
find that there are material improvements with regard to the dowry
demand and harassment, as deposed by them before the Court from
their statements recorded by the SDM, which are Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.
PW-2/A respectively.
37. Similarly, PW-3 and PW-6 were confronted with their previous
statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. PC, which
show material improvements from the statements recorded by the
police under Section 161 Cr. PC. While the statements recorded
before the police under Section 161 Cr. PC were general in nature,
PW-3 and PW-6 made specific averments of dowry demand and
dowry related harassment in their examination before the Court, which
were not stated in the previous statements before the police. The
omissions made by PW-3 and PW-6 are significant and relevant and
therefore by virtue of explanation to Section 162 Cr. PC, the same
amount to contradictions.
38. Even if, the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 are kept aside on
account of omissions elicited in cross-examination, the prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 18 of 27

case regarding the dowry demands and harassment meted out to
Meena does not collapse, as the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2
furnished a detailed account of the demands and the circumstances in
which they were met. They narrated the demands commencing from
the demand of motorcycle before the engagement and extending to the
demands concerning clothes, furniture, Lagan articles, Rs. 50,000/- at
the Phera, Lohri articles and Rs. 50,000/- towards replacement of
asbestos sheets, against which, Rs. 5,000/- was paid to Sanjeev in
March 2002. The omissions/contradictions elicited from the
testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6, on account of the reason of such
allegations having not been made in their previous statement, cannot
be used to discredit PW-1 and PW-2 for the reasons as would be
discussed by us in detail in the following para.
39. A perusal of the record reveals that the testimony of PW-1
th
Bimal Narain was partly recorded on 10 October, 2002 and his
remaining statement was deferred at the request of learned APP on the
ground that there were 3-4 supplementary statements for which the
st
Prosecutor sought time to study. On 31 October, 2002, when PW-1
was recalled, he categorically stated that he had mentioned the names
of Neelam and Ritu in his supplementary statements. Again, in cross
th
examination dated 26 March, 2003, he made it clear that his
supplementary statements were recorded, even though he was not sure
whether the same were recorded in April or May.
40. Similarly, PW-2 Dheeraj, in his cross examination stated that
the police had recorded his statement, but could not give the date of
recording of such statement. He also stated that as far as he
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 19 of 27

remembers, such statement given by him to the police was not got
signed.
41. PW-14 SI Kashmiri Lal, Investigating Officer, deposed that he
recorded the statement of Dheeraj (Ex.PW-14/DA) at the police post
th
on 20 April, 2002 and further recorded the supplementary statements
of B.N. Lal and Randhir. In cross examination when asked about the
date of recording of statement of B.N. Lal, PW-14 stated that he had
th
recorded the statement of B. N. Lal on 04 May, 2002.
42. It is thus evident that the supplementary statement of PW-1
under Section 161 Cr. PC was recorded during investigation. There
can be no quarrel with the settled position that a statement made by a
witness to a police officer during investigation is not substantive
evidence and may be utilized for contradiction only in the manner
prescribed by Section 162 Cr. PC read with Section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In the present case, it is imperative to distinguish
between omissions or contradictions pointed out from particular
previous statements, that is, Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A recorded by
the SDM. PW-1 and PW-2 were duly confronted with previous
statements Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A to highlight that there were
improvements in the statements made before the Court from the one
made before the SDM. The difficulty in treating such omissions as
conclusive improvements is that PW-1 and PW-2 were not confronted
with the supplementary statements that they gave to the police. Ex.
PW-1/A was the first statement made by PW-1, which formed the
basis for the registration of the FIR. The registration of the FIR sets
the criminal law into motion and is not the end of the investigation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 20 of 27

During investigation, the investigating agency collects the evidence,
records the statements of witnesses and only thereafter files the final
report before the Court. In V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand ,
(2015) 9 SCC 588, the Supreme Court inter alia , held that Section 162
Cr. PC bars use of statements of witnesses recorded by the police
except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as
indicated there. The statement made by a witness before the police
under Section 161(1) Cr. PC can be used only for the purpose of
contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial, as laid
down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC. The statements under
Section 161 Cr.PC recorded during the investigation are not
substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the
limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under
Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness
also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re-
examination of the witness if necessary.
43. Coming back to the present case, perusal of the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-2 indicates, that the appellants while cross-examining,
selectively cross-examined the witness with their previous statements
th
Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A, which were made to the SDM on 19
April, 2002 but not with the supplementary statements made before
the police. Consequently, the appellants cannot derive the full benefit
of the alleged contradictions merely by demonstrating that particular
deposition made by the witnesses were absent from Ex.PW-1/A and
Ex. PW-2/A, when the prosecution case is that the necessary details
were subsequently recorded in the supplementary statements recorded
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 21 of 27

during investigation. That being so, the contradictions so pointed out
by the appellants were only in reference to the statements Ex. PW-1/A
and Ex. PW-2/A and not shown to be improvements/omissions and
contradictions with other statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.
PC during investigation.
44. We now proceed to analyze as to whether there is any
explanation for the statements Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A being
general in nature, being without specific details of the dowry
demand/harassment. It must be remembered that the victim had died
th
on 19 April, 2002. The family members immediately on getting such
information, rushed to her matrimonial home. PW-1 deposed that on
reaching her matrimonial home, they were informed that Meena had
committed suicide on the second floor of their house, and when they
wanted to see the room and the place where she committed suicide, he
was not permitted. He was told that she had committed suicide with
the help of a chunni but was not shown the chunni . He stated that he
was not even allowed to see the face of Meena and the body of Meena
was taken to DDU Hospital for postmortem. The statements of PW-1
and PW-2 were recorded by the SDM on the same day. During cross
examination, while PW-1 was being confronted with the statement Ex.
PW-1/A which did not contain specific averments made in Court, he
explained that at the time of making such statement before the SDM,
he was perturbed. He stated that he was disturbed because of death of
his daughter. Similarly, PW-2 upon being confronted with his
previous statement Ex. PW-2/A regarding the omissions, stated that he
was not mentally fit when he made such statement. He clarified that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 22 of 27

by being mentally not fit, he meant that he was mentally disturbed.
One can duly understand the shock, pain and grief in which the family
may have been, upon getting the tragic news of the death of their
daughter. It would be futile to expect that in such state of mind, the
close relatives would be able to furnish the meticulous details of all
what happened with the victim during her short-lived marital life.
Hence, the absence of specific instances of cruelty on account of
dowry demand in the very first statements recorded by the SDM on
the day of death of the victim cannot be given much importance.
45. The other contention of the appellants is that the Investigating
Officer SI Kashmiri Lal (PW-14) had engaged an unauthorized private
person for writing the Case Diary and therefore it can be inferred that
the investigation has not been conducted fairly. In cross examination,
PW-14 admitted that the Case Diary is not recorded in his handwriting
and that the same was got recorded from three private persons.
Similarly, the statements Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-2/A are not in the
handwriting of the SDM but by some police officials. In cross
examination SDM (PW-7) admitted that the statements Ex. PW-1/A
and Ex. PW-2/A are not in his handwriting. According to him, the said
statements were in the handwriting of the witnesses themselves.
However, PW-1 and PW-2 have something else to say. In cross
examination, PW-1 stated that his statement was recorded at the
residence of SDM by a police official in the presence of the SDM.
Similarly, PW-2, in cross examination, stated that his statement was
recorded by a Head Constable in the presence of the SDM at his
residence. It is argued that it was the duty of the SDM to record the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 23 of 27

statement in his own handwriting and by not doing so, he delegated
the power of recording of such statements to a police official and thus
he is guilty of dereliction of his duty.
46. Ideally, the SDM/Investigating Officer, as the case may be,
should record the statements in his/her own handwriting. However,
there is no statutory embargo that they cannot take the assistance of a
scribe for recording statement/case diary. A perusal of Section 172 (1)
Cr. PC indicates that every police officer, conducting an investigation
under the said Chapter is required, day by day, to record in the case
diary the proceedings of the investigation, including the time when the
information was received, the time when the investigation commenced
and concluded, the place visited and the circumstances ascertained
during the course of such investigation. The law does not mandate that
the case diary must necessarily be handwritten personally by the
Investigating Officer. No material has been brought on record to
demonstrate that the engagement of a scribe, by itself, has caused any
prejudice to the appellants or has otherwise affected the fairness of the
investigation. Accordingly, the mere fact that a scribe was engaged for
writing the case diary, in the absence of any specific statutory bar or
demonstrated prejudice, cannot by itself be treated as a circumstance
casting doubt upon the investigation.
47. On an appreciation of the evidence, it clearly emerges that
dowry demands were raised by the appellants and when the bride’s
family could not fulfil the said demands, Meena was ill-treated at her
matrimonial home. Cruel treatment was meted out to her on account
of non-fulfilment of dowry demands to the expectations of her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 24 of 27

husband and in-laws. It is evident from the depositions of the
witnesses that Meena was subjected to cruelty on account of the
dowry demands. All this happened within a short period of four and a
half months of marriage. Therefore, the intervening period between
the time of ill-treatment on account of dowry demand and the death is
not too long and is covered by the requirements of law, that is, “soon
before death”, as prescribed in Section 304-B IPC.
48. The taking of one’s own life is an extreme act, ordinarily
preceded by circumstances of such intensity that a person is driven to
perceive death as preferable to the continuation of life. To subject a
woman to sustained cruelty and harassment on account of dowry
demands, to the extent that she is driven to take the extreme step of
ending her life, represents a grave form of human suffering and cannot
be treated as a mere domestic discord. Marriage, particularly for a
woman entering a new family, carries profound social and emotional
significance, and the transformation of that sacrosanct relationship
into a transaction governed by demands for money, articles and
material considerations strikes at the very foundation of the institution
of marriage. When such demands are followed by humiliation,
harassment and cruelty upon their non-fulfilment, the conduct assumes
a particularly reprehensible character, as it seeks to extract a financial
price at the cost of the dignity, security and life of the woman.
49. Dowry-related cruelty becomes all the more grave when the
relentless pressure exerted upon the woman leaves her feeling that
death is the only escape from the suffering inflicted upon her. A
demand for dowry, by itself, may begin as an unlawful expectation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 25 of 27

but when coupled with persistent taunts, humiliation, harassment and
cruelty for its non-fulfilment, it can become a sustained assault upon
the dignity and autonomy of the woman. No person should be
compelled to choose between enduring such cruelty and ending their
own life, and conduct that drives a woman to such an extreme cannot
be regarded as an ordinary matrimonial disagreement. The eradication
of dowry-related cruelty therefore remains essential not merely to
preserve the sanctity of marriage, but, more fundamentally, to protect
the dignity, autonomy and very life of women within the matrimonial
home.
50. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, therefore, we find
that the prosecution has proved all the essential ingredients of Section
304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The death of Meena occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances and within a few months
of her marriage; the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased
establish that she was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment
in connection with dowry demands, and the circumstances
demonstrate the requisite proximity between such harassment and her
death. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
consequently operates against the accused, and the defence has failed
to rebut the same by establishing any credible alternative explanation
for the unnatural death. The conviction of the appellants under
Sections 304-B/34 IPC is, therefore, fully supported by the evidence
on record. Likewise, the evidence regarding cruelty and harassment
constitutes sufficient basis for sustaining their conviction under
Section 498-A/34 IPC. The findings of the learned Trial Court suffer
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 26 of 27

from no perversity or material illegality warranting appellate
interference.
51. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment, and the conviction of the Appellants namely
Sanjiv Saxena and Bimla Saxena are upheld. The sentence imposed is
proportionate and commensurate with the offence committed. The
appeals are therefore dismissed.
52. The Appellants namely Sanjiv Saxena and Bimla Saxena are
directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two
weeks from today for serving the remaining sentence. In the event of
failure to surrender, appropriate steps shall be taken by the State/Trial
Court to ensure that they are taken into custody and sent to jail for
undergoing the remaining sentence.
53. A copy of this judgement be sent to the trial Court and Jail
Superintendent for information and necessary action.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2026/na
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:29
CRL.A. 707/2004 Page 27 of 27