Absence of Dowry Demand Evidence Negates Statutory Presumption and Warrants Discharge Under Section 250 BNSS.

The revisionists (mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased) challenged an order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected their discharge application under Section 250 of the BNSS

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 85, 80(2) of the BNS, and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, claiming the deceased was killed over dowry demands

However, evidence including an audio recording between the deceased and her brother (informant) indicated that the deceased committed suicide by consuming Celphos due to harassment by co-accused Rahul and Sonam, not the revisionists

The revisionists resided in a village, while the deceased lived in a rented house in Kanpur with her husband and the said co-accused

The house owner’s statement corroborated that quarrels were linked to the presence of Rahul and Sonam, not dowry

The court primarily applied Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 227 Cr.P.C.], which mandates the court to consider the record and documents to determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the presumption of dowry death, noting that the presumption is only triggered if "soon before death" the woman was subjected to cruelty "for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry"

The court emphasized the principle that hearsay evidence must be discarded in favor of corroborated material during the stage of framing charges

The Court observed that while the death was unnatural and occurred within seven years of marriage, the essential ingredient of "demand for dowry" was conspicuously absent from the credible material on record

The Court analyzed the transcript of the audio recording between the deceased and the informant, which revealed that the deceased specifically blamed "Rahulwa" and his wife for making her life miserable, with no mention of the revisionists or dowry demands

The Court found that the trial court failed to evaluate the evidence in its "true and right perspective," specifically ignoring the statement of the independent house owner who confirmed the revisionists did not reside at the site of the incident and that the disputes were not dowry-centric

Consequently, the Court held that a person cannot be charged based on "imagination" or hearsay statements that lack support from direct corroborative materials like the audio recording

The Court held that the trial court failed to appreciate that the recorded conversation and independent witness statements falsified the dowry demand allegations

The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order regarding the discharge of the revisionists in light of the High Court’s observations and the material available in the case diary