Material Improvements in Testimonies and Failure to Prove Dowry Demand Soon Before Death Vitiate Conviction

The State appealed the acquittal of the Respondents (husband and in-laws of the deceased, Rajni) for offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC.

Rajni married Respondent-1 on April 29, 2013, and died by hanging on March 23, 2014, within a year of marriage.

The father of the deceased (PW-1) initially stated to the SDM that the deceased was troubled by her in-laws but did not mention specific dowry demands or the alleged payment of ₹25,000 made a day before the death.

During the trial, PW-1, the mother (PW-11), and the brother (PW-6) introduced new allegations regarding a demand for a car and death threats.

The defense contended the deceased was distressed because the family refused her wish to give her child in adoption to her maternal uncle.

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry "soon before her death" to attract Sections 304B and 498A IPC

2. Whether the material omissions in earlier statements and subsequent improvements made by witnesses during trial vitiated the prosecution's case

The court applied Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death) and Section 498A IPC (Cruelty), alongside the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

It relied on the precedent State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Ram Tamta (2025), which holds that material omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements that emerge as improvements during trial cannot be safely relied upon.

It further applied Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), emphasizing that the "foundational facts" of dowry-related harassment must be proved by the prosecution before the statutory presumption can be invoked.

The Court observed that while the death occurred within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the nexus with dowry.

The Court noted significant discrepancies between the initial statement to the SDM (Ex.PW1/A) and court testimonies. PW-1 failed to mention the alleged ₹25,000 payment or specific car demands in his earliest version, which the Court deemed "highly improbable" given the proximity of those events to the death.

The Court characterized the witnesses’ allegations as vague and general improvements.

Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed death by suicide (hanging) with no external injuries, and the customary 40-day post-natal isolation was misconstrued by the prosecution as cruelty.

Applying the law, the Court found that the prosecution did not satisfy the "soon before death" requirement for dowry harassment, thereby rendering the Section 113B presumption inapplicable.

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal, finding no perversity or misappreciation of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' bail bonds were discharged.