Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 948

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2016

SANJAY KUMAR APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J
1. The acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian
1
Penal Code, 1860 having been overturned by the High Court of
2
Himachal Pradesh into his conviction, the appellant has preferred
the present criminal appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in January 2008, Sanjay
3 4
Kumar, A1 got married to Lata . On the same day, the younger
sister of the victim, Manju was also married. Sometime after their
marriage, it was alleged that the mother of the appellant,

Signature Not Verified
1
For short, ‘the Penal Code’
2
For short, ‘the High Court’
3
For short, ‘the appellant’
4
For short, ‘the victim’
Digitally signed by
ABHINAV KUMAR
Date: 2026.09.03
15:29:32 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 1 of 15

5 6 7
Kaushalya , sisters Neelam and Reema used to harass the victim
on one pretext or the other. This fact was noticed by the younger
sister of the victim, Diksha. It was further alleged that yet another
sister of the victim, namely Mamta also noticed the harassment of
the victim when she visited her matrimonial home. The death
anniversary of the victim’s father was in May 2008, when all the
sisters were present at their parental house. The appellant had
accompanied his wife to her parental house. It was stated that on
that day, there were arguments between the appellant and the
victim, which required the intervention of some of the family
members. Sometime in July 2009, the victim gave birth to a
daughter and, hence, the victim’s sister had joined her at the
matrimonial home. It was alleged that acts of torturing the victim
continued and she was not being given proper food. On the fateful
day, the family of the victim received a phone call by which they
were informed that the victim had consumed poison, as a result of
which she was taken to hospital. She, thereafter, died during the
course of treatment. A report was, accordingly, lodged with the
police authorities and investigation was undertaken. At the

5
For short, ‘A2’
6
For short, ‘A3’
7
For short, ‘A4’
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 2 of 15

conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The
appellant along with A2 to A4 were charged of having committed
an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal
Code. All the accused did not accept their guilt and were,
accordingly, tried.
3. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the
charge against the accused. The witnesses included family
members of the victim, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the
Medical Officer, a pharmacist and the Investigation Officer. The
defence of the accused was that of denial. The learned Judge of the
Sessions Court, after considering the entire evidence on record,
held that the demand of dowry as well as the acts of cruelty had
not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence brought on
record was mostly hearsay and in general terms. With no injuries
found on the body of the victim nor any report of her physical
torture having been reported to any authority, it was held that the
prosecution had failed to bring home the charges levelled against
all the accused. By the judgment dated 10.06.2010, the learned
Judge of the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons.
4. The State of Himachal Pradesh, being aggrieved, challenged
the acquittal of all the accused by preferring an appeal before the
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 3 of 15

High Court. The High Court was of the view that though the
prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against A2 to A4,
the said charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against
the appellant. It was on account of the acts of torture and the
giving of abuses to the victim that the victim was driven to commit
suicide within a short duration of her marriage. Accordingly, the
acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court was reversed and
he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A
and 306 of the Penal Code. The appellant was then heard on the
quantum of sentence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years and also ordered to pay
fine of ₹ 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Penal Code. As regards offence under Section 498-A of the
Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years and to pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, the appellant has assailed the same before

this Court.
5. Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant submitted that the High Court committed an error in
reversing the acquittal of the appellant without taking into
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 4 of 15

consideration the various reasons assigned by the Sessions Court
while acquitting him. He submitted that the Sessions Court
considered the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses in
detail and thereafter concluded that the prosecution had failed to
prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Various
material omissions as well as improvements in the depositions of
the prosecution witnesses were brought on record through their
cross-examination. The conduct of the appellant of taking steps to
provide immediate medical help to the victim was given due
importance by the Sessions Court. The High Court, however,
without any contrary material on record proceeded to hold that it
was the appellant who led the victim to commit suicide. Referring
to the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal
Code, it was submitted that there was no evidence, whatsoever, to
indicate any abetment on the part of the appellant that led the
victim to commit suicide. Ignoring the settled principles of law that
were required to be kept in mind while considering an appeal
against acquittal, the High Court in its brief judgment set aside the
appellant’s acquittal without there being any legal justification. To
substantiate his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate placed
reliance on the decisions in Chandrappa and others Vs. State of
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 5 of 15

8 9
Karnataka , State of U.P. Vs. Banne @ Baijnath and others ,
10
Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. , Bhagwan Das Vs.
11
Kartar Singh and others and Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State
12
of Gujarat and another . He, thus, submitted that on a proper
consideration of the entire evidence on record, it was clear that the
appellant had been rightly acquitted by the Sessions Court and the
High Court committed an error in reversing the same.
6. Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of the High
Court. He submitted that the Sessions Court having failed to
correctly appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses,
the High Court rightly took into consideration such evidence to
hold that the appellant was indeed guilty of having committed an
offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Penal
Code. The Sessions Court gave undue importance to minor
contradictions which resulted in arriving at a wrong conclusion.
The demands made by the appellant and his family members were
sufficient to come to a conclusion that such demands were towards

8
2007 INSC 142
9
Criminal Appeal No.1100 of 2001 decided on 10.02.2009
10
2009 INSC 244
11
2007 INSC 565
12
2010 INSC 521
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 6 of 15

dowry and that in view of the harassment given to the victim, she
committed suicide. The prosecution witnesses, though related to
the victim, had all deposed about the ill-treatment and harassment
of the victim and there was no reason to discard their evidence.
The High Court on a correct appreciation of the entire evidence on
record rightly found that the guilt of the appellant was duly proved.
Mere absence of a prior complaint as regards torture and ill-
treatment would not be a factor favouring the appellant. Moreover,
the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 was clearly attracted and there was no rebuttal evidence by
the appellant. It was, thus, submitted that the High Court having
considered all relevant material on record, there was no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment. He, therefore, prayed that
the criminal appeal be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and we have perused the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution. We have thereafter given thoughtful consideration to
the entire matter. In our view, the High Court was in error in
reversing the acquittal of the appellant without coming to a finding
that the view taken by the Sessions Court in favour of the appellant
was either perverse or was impossible in view of the evidence on
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 7 of 15

record.
8. When the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is
examined in detail, it reveals that all the prosecution witnesses
have deposed in general terms without referring to any specific
incident of either torture or harassment or demand of dowry from
the victim. PW1-Kamla Devi, the mother of the victim, deposed that
she used to receive telephone calls from her daughter in which she
used to state that she was being tortured by the accused. She also
stated that her daughter used to be kept hungry for days together
by the accused. In her examination-in-chief itself, she admitted
that she did not inform any authority about the torture of her
daughter. In her cross-examination, she admitted that whenever
her daughter and the appellant used to visit them, they were seen
to be happy. At the matrimonial house, only her daughter and her
mother-in-law were residing while other family members used to
go out for their education and employment. Various omissions in
her cross-examination were brought out by the defence. These
included the incident of the victim being slapped by the appellant
in her presence and a telephone call from the victim regarding her
torture. She also admitted that the victim had called her husband
to take her to her matrimonial house and after that she had gone
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 8 of 15

back with the appellant.
9. Other relatives of the victim who were examined were PW4-
Manju, her elder sister, PW5-Jaidev, her cousin, PW7-Mamta, her
younger sister and PW8-Diksha, her other younger sister. Their
depositions are also of a general nature and various omissions
were also brought out in their cross-examination. In fact, the
victim’s sisters stated that whenever they used to visit the victim’s
matrimonial home, they were well received and were treated
properly. There is nothing specific deposed by them about any
incident of torture or harassment.
10. PW2-Asha Parihar was residing near the matrimonial house
of the victim. In her cross-examination, she stated that all the
accused had good social respect and that she had never heard
about any dispute between the victim and her husband. She
admitted that the appellant had tried his best to save the life of the
victim and according to her, the victim had taken poison by
mistake. In this regard, if the deposition of PW10, Avinash Parihar,
who was a pharmacist is considered, he states that on 16.11.2009
at 09.00 a.m., the appellant had come to his shop and had told
him that the victim was not feeling well. He requested him to
accompany him and also asked for medicines. This witness had
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 9 of 15

accompanied the appellant to his house and had given her an
injection, Decadon. In her cross-examination, he stated that the
victim had told him that she had taken medicine from a bottle and
when he saw that empty bottle, he found that it was poison. He
asked the appellant to take the victim to the hospital immediately.
The appellant immediately called for a vehicle and took his wife to
the hospital. As per the Post-Mortem Report, the cause of death
was on account of ingestion of a poisonous substance. As per the
report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, traces of
Insecticide (Endosulfan) were detected in the contents of the
parcels. Pertinently, no injury was found on the body of the victim.
11. The Sessions Court considered all this evidence in detail. It
noted that the allegations of demand of money or asking the victim
to take loan were afterthought allegations. It noted that no witness
had deposed that the victim was ever threatened with any
consequences, whatsoever. There was no evidence at all of any
unlawful demand. Mere harassment by itself could not be treated
to be cruelty. In fact, it was noted that the victim was treated
affectionately by the accused when she was pregnant and also after
delivering a child. On that basis, the Sessions Court proceeded to
acquit all the accused from the aforesaid charges. It is to be noted
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 10 of 15

that the learned Judge had the occasion to note the demeanour of
all the witnesses while recording their evidence.
12. The acquittal of all the accused was challenged by the State
of Himachal Pradesh before the High Court. Perusal of the
impugned judgment of the High Court indicates that it failed to
come to close quarters with reasons assigned by the Sessions
Court. In its short discussion spreading over only two paragraphs,
the acquittal of the appellant was reversed by holding that the
prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim
had been harassed mentally and physically by the appellant. It
observed that the appellant had abused and dragged the victim in
the presence of her mother and sisters. We, however, do not find
any such evidence on record. In fact, these witnesses admitted in
their cross-examination that they had not made such statements
before the police authorities. In our view, it was necessary for the
High Court, as an appellate Court, while considering an appeal
against acquittal, to record a finding that the Sessions Court had
either misread the entire evidence to arrive at a perverse
conclusion or that its conclusion could not be supported by the
evidence on record. However, no such finding has been recorded
in the impugned judgment.
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 11 of 15

13. At this stage, it would be necessary to bear in mind the legal
principles to be applied when an appellate Court is confronted with
a judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. The Privy Council in
13
Sheo Swarup and others and The King-Emperor , highlighted
the material factors to be borne in mind by an appellate Court
while considering an appeal against acquittal.
This Court in Bhubneshwar Mandal and others Vs. The
14
State of Bihar while approving the aforesaid decision, held in
paragraph 3 as under:
“3. It appears to us that the learned Judges of the High Court have
ignored very important points in the evidence in the case and allowed
the appeal against acquittal and convicted the present appellants. It
is not necessary to set out at great length the various decisions
regarding the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.
The classic statement is found in the decision of the Privy Council in
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor to the following effect:
Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court
full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon
that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No
limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found
expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power
conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon
fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight
and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not
weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; the
right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the
slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact
arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witnesses.”

13
AIR 1934 PC 227(2)
14
Criminal Appeal No.257 of 1969 decided on 06.12.1972

Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 12 of 15

15
In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Samman Dass , this position
has been reiterated through the following observations:
“…This Court in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution does
not normally re-appraise the evidence and interfere with the
assessment of that evidence by the High Court. Where, however, this
Court finds that grave injustice has been done by the High Court in
interfering with the decision of the trial court on grounds which are
plainly untenable and the view taken by the High Court in interfering
with the decision of the trial court on this Court would not stay its
hand. There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always
to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal. Firstly, there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be
kept in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by the
court below; secondly, if two views of the matter are possible, a view
favourable to the accused should be taken; thirdly, in case of
acquittal by the trial judge, the appellate court should take into
account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at
the demeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is entitled to
the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable and
as observed recently by this Court, the doubt should be such which
rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously
entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though
unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that
benefit was not given. To put it differently, it is "not the doubt of a
vacillating mind that has not, the moral courage to decide but
shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism" (see Himachal Pradesh
Administration Vs. Shri Om Parkash, Cr. Appeal 67 of 1969 decided
on December 7, 1971).”

14. When the impugned judgment of the High Court is examined
in the aforesaid backdrop, it is seen that its conclusion is totally
unsustainable and based on material not available on record. The
appellant having been charged under Section 306 of the Penal
Code, the aspect of abetment as contemplated in Section 107 of

15
1972 INSC 11
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 13 of 15

the Penal Code would also be material. In this regard, we may refer
to the following observations in Madan Mohan Singh (supra) :
“…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 out the suicide of the concerned
person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the
accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit
suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC…”

15. It is likely that there may have been some disputes or discord
in the matrimonial life of the appellant and the victim. That,
however, would not be sufficient in itself to attract the provisions
of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Penal Code. In fact,
there is no evidence, whatsoever, to indicate any act of abetment
by the appellant. On the contrary, it has been brought on record
that the appellant, on realising that the victim had ingested some
liquid thinking it to be a medicine, had immediately sought
medical aid from PW10. He also shifted the victim immediately to
the hospital.
16. Thus, on considering the entire evidence on record, it is clear
that the Sessions Court was justified in arriving at the correct
conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court
committed an error in reversing the acquittal of the appellant. Its
judgment is, thus, liable to be set aside.
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 14 of 15

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of the
High Court dated 17.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.566 of
2010 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charges framed against him. He is presently enlarged on bail. His
bail bonds stand cancelled.
18. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.


..………………………..J.
[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]



.…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026.
Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2016 Page 15 of 15