Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 28 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR No. DLSH01-003853-2019
SC No. 271/2019
FIR No. 76/2019
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 498A/304B IPC
STATE
Vs.
AMIT,
S/o Sh. Vishnu,
R/o H.No. E-57/661/64, Jhuggi,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi,
........ Accused
Date of Institution of case 07.06.2019
Date of case reserved for Judgment 27.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 28.05.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 05.02.2019, on
receipt of DD No. 16A, ASI along with Ct. Sonu Bhati reached
the spot at E-57/661/64, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where main gate
was found locked and it came to their knowledge that Manju, w/o
Amit Kumar had committed suicide on the first floor by hanging
from ceiling fan with the help of chunni and the injured was
taken to GTB Hospital by the accused.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 1 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
16:58:23 +0530
2. The deceased was pregnant and doctor had opined
that it was the case of alleged hanging and SDM, Seema Puri was
informed and crime team was called at the spot and Executive
Magistrate Atul Ramchiary also inspected the spot and recorded
the statement of father of deceased Manju namely Prempal, who
alleged that he was resident of Sunder Nagri, Delhi and he had
married his daughter Manju with accused Amit Kumar on
18.04.2018 and gave the articles as per his capacity and both
Anju and Amit liked each other prior to marriage and that is why
he married his daughter to him, but she was not happy at her
matrimonial home and accused Amit used to beat and harass her
for dowry and demanded bullet or Rs. 2 Lakhs from her and used
to threaten her that he would get kidnapped her brother. On
05.02.2019 at 9.30 AM, his daughter Manju told his wife Mamta
on phone that accused Amit was beating her and the mother
called her to her home, but she was not allowed to go to her
parental home and Manju told that she was confined in the home
and when there was hue and cry in the neighbourhood, then they
came to know about the said incident as the matrimonial house of
deceased was nearby.
The deceased expired in the GTB Hospital on
05.02.2019 at 6.30 PM and her inquest was prepared and
postmortem was done.
3. On the complaint of the complainant, the FIR was
registered vide FIR No. 76/2019, dt. 26.02.2019 in PS Nand
Nagri u/s 498A/304B IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the accused Amit u/s 498A/304B IPC and after
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 2 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 2025.05.28
Date:
16:58:29 +0530
filing of charge-sheet, cognizance of offence was taken against
the accused.
CHARGE
4. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 498A/304B
IPC was framed against the accused Amit by the Ld. Predecessor
on 04.09.2019. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
5. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC was
conducted on 08.11.2024. Accused and his counsel admitted the
following documents:
(a) FIR No. 76/2019 dated 26.02.2019, Ex.PA1,
(b) Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding FIR No.
76/2016 dated 27.02.2019, Ex.PA2 ,
(c) DD No. 114B dated 01.11.2018, Ex.PA3.
In view of the above-said admission, the requirement
of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
Sl. No. Name of the witnesses
1. ASI Naresh Kumar (at Sl. No.16 in list of witnesses)
2. ASI Radhey Shyam (at Sl. No. 20 in list of witnesses)
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. Prosecution examined twenty two (22) witnesses in its
favour to prove the case.
7. PW1 Prem Pal deposed that his daughter Manju was
married to accused Amit on 18.04.2018 as per Hindu Rites and
Customs and he had given household articles and gold jewellery
in the said marriage. After the marriage, his daughter started
living at her matrimonial home, which was situated in the same
locality. The other family members i.e., her parents-in-laws were
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 3 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 16:58:34
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
also residing in the said matrimonial home. Whenever she used
to visit her parental home, she used to interact with her mother
and complain to her about the torture and beating by accused
Amit to her as he was not satisfied with the articles given in the
marriage and he used to demand Bullet motorcycle or Rs.2 Lakhs
and threaten his daughter that he would kidnap or kill her brother.
Due to those threats, his daughter remained afraid of accused
Amit Kumar.
8. PW1 further deposed that on 05.02.2019, he was not
present at home, but at his work, his daughter made a phone call
to her mother at about 9.30 AM and told that she was beaten by
accused Amit. PW1 was informed by his wife about the said
incident, then, he returned his home, but on the way to his home,
he came to know from the residents of locality that his daughter
had been taken to the hospital by accused Amit and his family
members and his daughter seemed to be dead.
9. PW1 further deposed that he along with his wife
reached at GTB Hospital and found his daughter on ventilator
and he noticed that blood and froth was coming from her mouth.
She was declared dead at about 6 pm by the doctor. At that time,
accused Amit along with his family members were also present
in the hospital. The dead body of his daughter was kept in the
Mortuary for postmortem. On next day, his statement, Ex.PW1/A
was recorded in the Mortuary. At that time, his wife was also
present with him when his statement was recorded and she had
also signed the statement. On 07.02.2019, he received the dead
body of his daughter vide memo Ex.PW1/B. PW1 correctly
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 4 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 16:58:39
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
identified accused Amit in the Court.
10. PW2 Mamta deposed that her deceased daughter
Manju was married to accused Amit on 18.04.2018 as per Hindu
Rites and Customs. She had given dowry articles to her deceased
daughter as per her financial status. Accused Amit was in their
distant relation and used to visit their house prior to marriage.
After marriage, deceased was taken to her matrimonial house at
Sundar Nagri. Accused Amit was pressurizing her daughter for
demand of a bullet motor cycle or cash amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
She was given beating by accused Amit for not meeting out said
demand. Accused Amit used to threaten the deceased that if his
demand was not met out, he would get his son kidnapped.
11. PW2 further deposed that she received a telephonic
call of her deceased daughter Manju at around 09:30 AM and she
informed her that accused Amit was quarreling and beating her.
She told her daughter to return to her house and her deceased
daughter told her that she had been confined by accused Amit in
house and she was not allowed to go outside. After about one
hour, she heard “shor sharaba gali mein ho raha tha”. The persons
of the locality informed her that her daughter had been taken to
hospital. Accused Amit did not inform her about the incident.
PW2 alongwith her husband went to GTB Hospital and when she
reached there, her daughter was under treatment and she was on
oxygen bed and she was not in a position to speak.
12. PW2 further deposed that at about 05:30 PM, she was
declared dead in the hospital by the doctor. She alongwith her
husband remained in the hospital whole day. Her daughter was
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 5 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
16:58:44 +0530
having pregnancy of about 07 months at the time of incident.
After three days of incident, the police handed over body of her
deceased daughter after postmortem. Accused Amit had
committed murder of her daughter. PW2 admitted in the cross-
examination of Ld. Addl. PP that she received call from her
deceased daughter at about 09:30 AM on 05.02.2019 and she
could not tell the date of receipt of call in her chief-examination
as she was illiterate. PW2 correctly identified accused Amit in
the Court.
13. PW3 Ashok deposed that he was residing at E-57/661,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi with his family members and knew accused
Amit Kumar being his neighbour. He did not remember the date
and year, but about 2-3 years back, at about 11:00 AM, he was
present at his house and when he came out, he heard hue and cry
and the noise was coming from the house of accused Amit. On
hearing the same, he rushed to his house and saw from the mesh
door of the room that wife of accused Amit was hanging on a
ceiling fan with the help of chunni and the door was locked from
inside. Accused Amit requested them to help him to open the
door. Some other neigbhours were also present at that time.
14. PW3 further deposed that with the help of other
persons, who were present there, they broke open the door.
Accused Amit immediately with the help of them got released his
wife and she was put down from the ceiling fan and when she
was put down from the ceiling fan, PW3 noticed that she was
breathing at that time and she was immediately taken to GTB
Hospital by accused Amit. Later on, police made inquiry from
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 6 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 16:58:50 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
him and he narrated the above facts to the police. PW3 admitted
in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that on 05.02.2019, he
heard the hue and cry from the house of accused Amit. PW3
correctly identified accused Amit in the Court.
15. PW4 Dr. Madhusudan Verma, Senior Medical Officer,
GTB Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 05.02.2019, he was posted
as CMO at GTB Hospital (Casualty Department). On that day, at
about 11:35 AM, patient Manju W/o Amit was brought by
accused Amit with alleged history of hanging at around 11:00
AM on 05.02.2019 at H. No. E-57-661/64, Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
On examination a ligature mark around the neck was present and
patient was drowsy and unfit for statement at the time of
examination. Patient was given primary management and was
referred to Neurosurgery department for further treatment. The
MLC bearing no. B-0446/04/19, Ex.PW4/A was prepared by Dr.
Rehmat Ullah (JR) under his supervision. PW4 was acquainted
with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Rehmat Ullah as he
had worked with him in the hospital in casualty department.
16. PW5 W/ASI Prakash deposed that on 05.02.2019, he
was posted as HC at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, he was
working as Duty Officer and her duty hours from 08:00 AM to
04:00 PM. On that day at about 10:57 am, she registered the GD
No. 16A, Ex.PW5/A. On that day at about 11:03 AM, he also
registered the GD No. 17A, Ex.PW5/B.
17. PW6 Retd. Rajinder Singh deposed that on
05.02.2019, he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team,
North-East District, Delhi. On that day, after receiving call from
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 7 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 2025.05.28
Date:
16:58:54 +0530
control room, he along with HC Shri Bhagwan, Photographer
went to the spot i.e. E-57/66/64, 1 st Floor, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri,
Delhi where IO/SI Upender Singh along with staff was found
present. Thereafter, at the instance of the IO, he inspected the
spot and his photographer, HC Shri Bhagwan took the
photographs of the spot from different angles. On the spot, two
pieces of chunni (orange) and one scissors, which was used to cut
the chunni, were found. PW6 prepared SOC report, Ex.PW6/A
and handed over the same to the IO.
18. PW7 ASI Shri Bhagwan deposed that on 05.02.2019,
he was posted as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team, North-
East District, Delhi. On that day, after receiving call from control
room by SI Rajinder Singh, Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team,
he along with SI Rajinder Singh went to the spot i.e. E-57/66/64,
1st Floor, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri, Delhi where IO/SI Upender
Singh along with staff were present. Thereafter, at the instance of
the IO, SI Rajinder Singh inspected the spot and PW7 took 27
photographs of the spot from different angles from his digital
camera. Subsequently, he handed over the photographs to the IO.
19 photographs are Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/19.
19. PW8 Rohit deposed that he was residing at Sunder
Nagri, Delhi in February, 2019 and he knew accused Amit as he
had seen him sitting outside the factory at F1 Block, Sunder
Nagri, Delhi where he was working as tailor. Some times,
accused Amit used to talk to him. Accused Amit was residing in
front of abovesaid factory, but he did not remember his address.
On 05.02.2019, he was inside his factory and he heard noise
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 8 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
16:58:59 +0530
coming from outside. Then, he went to the house of accused
Amit situated at first floor and found the main gate/door of the
room locked from inside.
20. PW8 further deposed that accused Amit was outside
the said house with him and others and saying to open the gate
and when gate/door did not open, then he along with some other
persons broken open the iron gate with the help of hammer.
Thereafter, they all including accused Amit entered inside the
room and found that his wife was hanging from the ceiling fan
with a chunni/dupatta. Accused Amit took his wife in his lap
while hanging. On his instructions, PW8 cut the said
chunni/dupatta through which she was hanging with the scissors,
which was lying there. ‘Jab unhe utara tab unme kuch saans thi,
ye baat Amit Bhai ne mujhe batai. Maine bhi dekha tha ki wo
saans le rahi thi’.
21. PW8 further deposed that accused Amit had taken his
wife to the GTB hospital from an auto, but PW8 had not
accompanied him to the said hospital and PW8 did not know,
who had arranged the auto. 2-3 persons had accompanied
accused Amit to hospital, but he did not know them. PW8
correctly identified 27 photographs as relating to the aforesaid
gate/door, place of incident and aforesaid chunni/dupatta. The
photographs from 1 to 19 are Ex. PW7/1 and from 20 to 27 are
Ex. PW8/A (for the purpose of identification).
22. PW8 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl.
PP that the name of the other person, who along with him and
accused Amit, entered inside the abovesaid room was Murari and
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 9 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 16:59:04
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
the name of his wife was Manju. PW8 also admitted that accused
Amit in his presence, pushed the iron door, which was situated on
the stairs and the kundi of that door/gate got broken and the
gate/door, about which he had stated above in his examination in
chief was the gate/door of the room, in which his wife was found
hanging. PW8 also admitted that he along with accused Amit and
Murari took deceased Manju downstairs and his house was
situated at E-57/661/64, Sunder Nagari, Delhi and the time when
he heard the noise at about 11 AM. PW8 correctly identified
accused Amit in the Court.
23. PW9 Atul Ramchiary deposed that on 06.02.2019, he
was posted as Executive Magistrate, SDM Office, Seema Puri,
Delhi. On the directions of Subhash Chand, SDM, Seema Puri,
the inquest proceedings of the present case was marked to him.
He visited the mortuary of GTB Hospital, where he met ASI
Upender Singh, PS Nand Nagri, parents of deceased Manju. PW9
recorded the statement of Prem Pal (father of deceased Manju),
Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on the said statement, Ex.
PW9/A and handed over the statement to ASI Upender Singh for
necessary action as per law.
24. PW9 Atul Ramchiary further deposed that he also
visited the place of incident i.e. E-57/661/64, Jhuggi, Sunder
Nagri, Delhi and the dead body of deceased Manju was identified
by accused Amit and Prem Pal (father of deceased) and vide
identification statements dated 06.02.2019, Ex.PW9/C and
Ex.PW9/B. After postmortem on 07.02.2019, the dead body of
deceased Manju was handed over to ASI Upender Singh vide
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 10 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 16:59:09 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
endorsement Ex. PW9/D on the request form of postmortem. The
Form No. 25.35(1) (B) was also prepared by ASI Upender Singh,
Ex. PW9/E.
25. PW10 ASI Suraj Prakash deposed that on 05.02.2019,
he was posted as HC at ERSS, Police Control Room, Police
Headquarter, Delhi. On that day, he was working as call
attendant/taker and his duty hours were 8 AM to 2 PM. On that
day at about 10.57 AM, one PCR call was received/attended by
him and he transferred the same to Control Room, N/E District,
Delhi. Accused Amit was the informant having mobile no.
8800267969. The copy of PCR form regarding the abvoesaid call
is Ex.PW10/A.
26. PW11 SI Subhash Chander deposed that on
05.02.2019, he was posted as ASI at ERSS, Police Control
Room, Police Headquarter, Delhi. On that day, he was working
as call attendant/taker and his duty hours were 8 AM to 2 PM. On
that day at about 11.03 AM, one PCR call was received/attended
by him and he transferred the same to Control Room, N/E
District, Delhi. The informant was Savitri with mobile no.
9650773023. The copy of PCR form regarding the abvoesaid call
is Ex.PW11/A.
27. PW12 Reena deposed that she had studied from
standard 6th to 10th with deceased Manju, D/o Sh. Prem Pal at
Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Nand Nagri, Delhi. Deceased
Manju was her friend and she got married with accused Amit in
the year 2018. PW12 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld.
Addl. PP that love affair was going on between deceased Manju
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 11 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
16:59:14 +0530
and accused Amit since class 6 th and they got married with each
other. Identity of accused Amit was not disputed by his counsel.
28. PW13 Inspector Ravi Prakash deposed that in the
month of April, 2022, he was working as Inspector Investigation at PS
Nand Nagri. He collected the subsequent opinion dt. 08.08.2019,
Ex.PW13/A (given by Dr. Shilpa Singh, GTB Hospital) from
MHC(M) of PS Nand Nagri. He also collected CDR, CAF with
requisite certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding the mobile
numbers of deceased Manju i.e. 9582318290, deceased’s father Prem
Pal i.e. 9971274962 and her mother Mamta i.e. 9958439385 from the
concerned service provider and on analyzing the same, he found that
on 05.02.2019, deceased Manju had called at about 08:55 AM and
09:25 AM through her above said mobile phone to her father Prem Pal
on his above said mobile number.
29. PW13 further deposed that he also found that on
05.02.2019, deceased Manju had called at about 07:52 AM and
10:12 AM through her above said mobile phone to her mother on
her above said mobile number. After completion of investigation,
he prepared the supplementary charge-sheet and submitted it
before the court.
30. PW14 ASI Upender deposed that on 05.02.2019, he
was working as ASI at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, on receiving
DD No. 16A, Ex.PW5/A, he along with Ct. Sonu Bhati reached
at the spot i.e. Jhuggi, E-57/661/64, Sundar Nagri, Delhi where
the main gate of the above said jhuggi/house was found to be
locked from outside. On interrogation, it was found that one lady
had committed suicide by hanging and she had been taken to
GTB Hospital, Delhi. He went to the GTB Hospital leaving the
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 12 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
16:59:19 +0530
Ct. Sonu Bhati at above said house. PW14 reached at GTB
Hospital and collected the MLC of Manju W/o Amit and she was
declared unfit for statement as per the doctor. At the hospital,
parents of lady namely Prem Pal, Mamta, father-in-law Vishnu
and accused Amit were present.
31. PW14 further deposed that he interrogated all of them.
The father of that lady disclosed that accused Amit used to
torture his daughter Manju @ Monika and only 9 months had
lapsed since her marriage with him. Thereafter, he returned to the
aforesaid spot along with accused Amit and his father Vishnu. He
gave information to the SDM Seemapuri through mobile phone
and also called the crime team at the spot. Accused Amit and his
father opened the main gate of aforesaid jhuggi/house.
Thereafter, they i.e. PW14, Ct. Sonu Bhati, Crime Team Staff,
accused Amit and his father, public person Ashok, Rohit and
others went upstairs and found that the door (iron gate) of the
room at the 1st floor was in folded/bended condition from one
side (bottom).
32. PW14 further deposed that the gate was opened and
they saw that one piece of dupatta/chunni (colour narangi) was
hanging with ceiling fan and other piece of dupatta/chunni was
lying on the floor. One knife/scissors was also lying in the room
(with yellow colour handle). PW14 seized the same vide seizure
memo, dt. 05.02.2019, Ex.PW14/A. Executive Magistrate Atul
Ramchiary, Seemapuri also came and inspected the spot and also
inquired from the public persons and parents of deceased. The
dead body of deceased Manju was preserved at the Mortuary of
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 13 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
16:59:23 +0530
GTB Hospital as she got died in the evening of 05.02.2019.
33. PW14 further deposed that on 06.02.2019, the dead
body of deceased Manju was identified by accused Amit and
father of deceased namely Prem Pal vide identification
statements, Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/B. PW14 correctly identified
two pieces of dupatta/chunni (colour narangi), Ex.P1 as being the
same pieces of dupatta/chunni, which was seized by him vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW14/A. PW14 also correctly identified
scissors with yellow grip, Ex.P2 as being the same scissors,
which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex.PW14/A.
34. PW14 further deposed that on 06.02.2019, Executive
Magistrate Atul Ramchiary recorded the statement of father of
deceased namely Prem Pal and handed over the same to him for
necessary action. PW14 prepared the request for postmortem of
deceased Manju, Ex.PW9/D. Postmortem of deceased could not
be done on that day. Public persons namely Murari, Rohit and
Ashok also helped in opening the iron gate. Ashok managed to
enter inside the room and then opened the latch from inside.
PW14 correctly identified 19 photographs, Ex.PW7/1 to
Ex.PW7/19 as being of the above said spot and the
dupatta/chunni and ceiling fan.
35. PW14 further deposed that on 07.02.2019, the
postmortem of deceased Manju was done and after postmortem,
her dead body was handed over to accused Amit and father of
deceased namely Prem Pal vide handing over memo, Ex.PW14/B
and Ex.PW1/B. The DD entry No. 16A was kept pending and on
26.02.2019, after receiving PM Report, PW14 prepared the
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 14 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2025.05.28
16:59:28
+0530
rukka, Ex.PW14/C and got registered the FIR No. 76/2019 dt.
26.02.2019 through DO. After registration of FIR, the further
investigation was marked to Insp. Awtar Singh Rawat. PW14
correctly identified accused Amit in the court.
36. PW15 ASI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 26.02.2019,
he was posted as ASI at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, he was
working as duty officer from 04:00 PM to 12 midnight. At about
11.40 PM, ASI Upender came at the PS and handed over him a
Rukka for registration of FIR. He made endorsement, Ex. PW15/A,
on the Rukka, vide DD No. 87A. Thereafter, he registered the FIR
bearing No. 76/2019, Ex. PW15/B (OSR) and handed over the
original Rukka and copy of FIR to SHO/Inspector Avtar Singh
Rawat as further investigation was marked to him. PW15 also issued
Certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act regarding the registration of FIR,
Ex. PW15/C.
37. PW16 Surender Kumar deposed that he was working
as Nodal Officer at Bharti Airtel Ltd., since 2015. He had brought
the CAF of mobile no. 9971274962, which was issued in the
name of Prem Pal S/o Tulsi Ram r/o E-57 A-235, Jhuggi, Sundar
Nagri, Delhi, Ex.PW16/A. The CDR of above said number of
05.02.2020 is Ex.PW16/B. He had also brought the CAF of
mobile no. 9958439385, which was issued in the name of Prem
Pal S/o Tulsi Ram r/o E-57 A-235, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri, Delhi,
Ex.PW16/C. The CDR of above said number of 05.02.2020 is
Ex.PW16/D. He had also brought the CAF of mobile no.
9990902841, which was issued in the name of Mamta W/o Prem
Pal r/o E-57 A-235, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri, Delhi, Ex.PW16/E.
The CDR of above said number of 05.02.2020 is Ex.PW16/F.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 15 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 2025.05.28
Date:
16:59:35 +0530
38. PW16 further deposed that he had also brought the
CAF of mobile no. 8800257969, which was issued in the name of
Amit S/o Bisnu r/o E-57/661/64, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri, Delhi,
Ex.PW16/G. The call CDR of above said number of 05.02.2020
is Ex.PW16/H. He had also brought certified copy of above said
mobile numbers for the above said period, Ex.PW16/I. He had
issued the certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW16/J
regarding the above said CDR, CAF and Location Chart of above
said mobile numbers with the seal of company.
39. PW17 Shashank Tyagi deposed that he was working
as Nodal Officer at Vodafone Idea Ltd., since 2016. He was
acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Sh. Ajeet
Singh, Nodal Officer as he had worked with him and seen him
writing and signing in discharge of official duties and his
whereabouts were not available as per record and his knowledge.
CAF of mobile no. 9582318290, which was issued in the name of
Manju W/o Amit Kumar r/o G-4/661, Jhuggi Sundar Nagri,
Delhi, Ex.PW17/A, was issued by Ajeet Singh and it bears his
signature at point A and seal of the company on both pages. The
CDR of above said number from period 01.02.2019 to
06.02.2019, Ex.PW17/B was also issued by Ajeet Singh and
bears his signature at point A and seal of the company.
40. PW17 further deposed that the location chart
pertaining to the above said number and period, was also issued
by Ajeet Singh, Ex.PW17/C and it also bears his signature at
point A. Ajeet Singh had also issued the certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act regarding the CAF and CDR of above said
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 16 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 16:59:41
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
mobile number, Ex.PW17/D and Ex.PW17/E bearing his
signature at point A respectively with the seal of company.
41. PW18 Rtd. ACP Mahesh Kumar deposed that on
15.05.2019, he was working as Inspector Draftsman at Crime
Branch Police Head Quarter, New Delhi. On that day, at the
request of Inspector Avtar Singh, he reached at PS Nand Nagri,
Delhi. From there, he along with Inspector Avtar Singh and other
police staff visited the spot i.e. 1 st Floor, E-57/661/64, Jhuggi
Nand Nagri, Delhi where at the instance of Inspector Avtar
Singh, he took measurements and prepared rough notes of the
spot. On 30.05.2019, on the basis of rough notes and
measurements, he prepared scaled site plan, Ex.PW18/A. PW18
destroyed the rough notes after preparation of aforesaid site plan.
42. PW19 HC Shrikant deposed that on 27.02.2019, he
was posted as Constable at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, he joined
the investigation of the present case with Insp. Avtar Singh. On
that day, at about 08:30 pm, he along with IO went to jhuggi of
accused Amit at E-57/661/64, Jhuggi, Sundar Nagri, Delhi where
they met father of deceased namely Prem Pal. IO prepared the
site plan at the instance of Prem Pal. They also met accused Amit
at the above said jhuggi and IO interrogated him and after
interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW19/A, his
personal search, Ex.PW19/B was also conducted and his
disclosure statement, Ex.PW19/C was also recorded by the IO.
43. PW19 further deposed that thereafter, he along with
ASI Upender took accused Amit to hospital for his medical
examination. After medical examination, they returned to PS and
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 17 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
16:59:46 +0530
he was lodged in police Lock-up. PW19 correctly identified
accused Amit in the Court.
44. PW20 Rtd. ACP Awtar Singh deposed that in the year
2019, he was posted as SHO, PS Nand Nagri. On 05.02.2019, a
call regarding suicide was received in PS that one lady namely
Manju, aged about 21 years, committed suicide at her residence
i.e. E-57/661/64, Jhuggi Sundar Nagri, Delhi. The same was
entrusted to ASI Upender for attending and taking necessary
action. On information, he had visited GTB Hospital where
deceased was admitted and under treatment. The doctor had
declared her unfit for statement. Thereafter, he had visited the
scene of crime/incident at above said jhuggi where the crime
team and ASI Upender were already present.
45. PW20 further deposed that the scene of crime was at 1 st
floor of the above said jhuggi. Crime team inspected the spot and
took photographs of the same. Necessary instruction was given to
ASI Upender for examination of neighbours, who were present
during evacuation of dead body of deceased from her house as the
door of the room was locked from inside and door was broken to
take body outside the room. Meanwhile, SDM Seemapuri was
called by ASI Upender, who deputed Executive Magistrate Atul
Ramchiary, to record the statements of family of deceased.
46. PW20 further deposed that on 07.02.2019, postmortem
of deceased was got conducted by ASI Upender at GTB Hospital,
who got registered the FIR on the statement of father of deceased
namely Prempal. The said statement was recorded by Executive
Magistrate. After registration of the FIR, on 26.02.2019, further
investigation of the present case was marked to him and he along
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 18 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
16:59:51 +0530
with other police official went to the spot and prepared the site plan,
dt. 26-27.02.2019, Ex.PW20/A at the instance of Prempal.
47. PW20 further deposed that on 27.02.2019, he along
with police staff was present in the area of Sundar Nagri where
accused Amit was apprehended, interrogated and arrested vide
arrest memo, Ex.PW19/A, his personal search, Ex.PW19/B was
also conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded vide
statement, Ex.PW19/C. On 15.05.2019, the draftsman Insp. Mahesh
from Crime Branch was called for preparing scaled site plan of
scene of crime and he prepared the same vide Ex.PW18/A.
48. PW20 further deposed that during investigation, it came
to his knowledge that there were 4 DD entries i.e. 114B dt.
01.11.2018, Ex.PA3, 15B, Ex.PW20/B, 115B dt. 01.11.2018,
Ex.PW20/C and 12B dt. 02.11.2018, Ex.PW20/D made in PS Nand
Nagri regarding quarrel between accused Amit and deceased.
49. PW20 further deposed that on 27.02.2019, he recorded
the supplementary statement of Prempal, father of deceased and
statements of public witnesses namely Rohit, Ct. Shrikant, Ct.
Sonu Bhati, SI Rajender (I/C Crime Team), HC Shri Bhagwan
(photographer) and 1st IO/ASI Upender Singh u/s 161 Cr.PC. On
17.03.2019, he recorded the statement of mother of deceased
Mamta u/s 161 Cr.PC, who handed over the list of
dowry/stridhan articles, Ex.PW20/E bearing her signature, which
were given to accused Amit in the marriage of her daughter. He
recorded the statement of public witnesses namely Rihana and
Reena (friends of deceased Manju) u/s 161 Cr.PC.
50. PW20 further deposed that CDR, CAF details
regarding the mobile phone of deceased and her family members
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 19 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
16:59:56 +0530
i.e. mother and subsequent opinion regarding the death of
deceased Manju were kept pending. He filed charge-sheet against
accused Amit. PW20 correctly identified accused Amit in the
Court.
51. PW21 HC Sonu Bhati deposed that on 05.02.2019, he
was working as Constable at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, on
receiving DD No. 16A, Ex.PW5/A, he along with ASI Upender
reached the spot i.e. Jhuggi, E-57/661/64, Sundar Nagri, Delhi
where the main gate of the above said jhuggi/house was found to be
locked from outside. On interrogation, it was found that one lady
had committed suicide by hanging and she had been taken to GTB
Hospital, Delhi. ASI Upender went to the GTB Hospital leaving
him at above said house.
52. PW21 further deposed that thereafter, at about 12:30
PM, ASI Updender returned to the aforesaid spot along with
accused Amit and his father Vishnu. He gave information to the
SDM Seemapuri through mobile phone and also called the crime
team at the spot. In the meantime, SHO, PS Nand Nagri reached at
the spot. Public persons namely Rohit and Ashok were present at
the spot, who disclosed that accused Amit had opened the main gate
of aforesaid jhuggi/house and the other gate was opened by accused
Amit and public person Murari. Thereafter, they i.e. PW21, ASI
Upender, Crime Team Staff, accused Amit and his father, public
person Ashok, Rohit and others went upstairs. They saw that one
piece of dupatta/chunni (colour narangi) was hanging with ceiling
fan and other piece of dupatta/chunni was lying on the floor.
53. PW21 further deposed that one knife/scissors was also
lying in the room (with yellow colour handle). ASI Upender seized
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 20 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:00:01 +0530
the same vide seizure memo, dt. 05.02.2019, Ex.PW14/A.
Executive Magistrate Atul Ramchiary, Seemapuri also came at the
spot and inspected the spot and also inquired from the public
persons and parents of deceased. On 27.02.2019, his statement was
recorded by Insp. Awatar Singh. PW21 correctly identified two
pieces of dupatta/ chunni (colour narangi), Ex.P1 as being the same
pieces of dupatta/chunni, which was seized by IO vide seizure
memo, Ex.PW14/A and found at the spot. PW21 also correctly
identified one scissors with yellow grip, Ex.P2 as being the same
scissor, which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex.PW14/A
and found at the spot. PW21 correctly identified accused Amit in
the Court.
54. PW22 Dr. Shilpa Singh, Associate Professor,
Department of Forensic Medicine, Santosh Medical College,
Ghaziabad, UP deposed that on 07.02.2019, she was posted as SR
in Department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS & GTB Hospital,
Delhi. On that day, ASI Upender Singh of PS Nand Nagri has
submitted the request for postmortem form along with 18 inquest
papers for the postmortem of Manju W/o Amit, female, aged
about 21 years. The request form of postmortem is Ex.PW9/D
and Form No.25.35(1)(B) is Ex.PW22/A. The inquest papers
attached with the request of postmortem bears her initial at point
C on respective pages.
55. PW22 further deposed that she had conducted the
postmortem of Manju W/o Amit, Female, 21 years, which started
at 11:15 AM and completed at 12:15 PM. She mentioned the
details of injuries upon the body of deceased in the column no. B
(details of external injuries). After conducting postmortem, the
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 21 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:05 +0530
cause of death was opined by her was “shock as a result of
pulmonary edema subsequent to antemortem hanging”. Time
since death was about 02 days. She handed over postmortem
report along with inquest papers to ASI Upender Singh.
Postmortem report no. 218/19 is Ex.PW22/B.
56. PW22 further deposed that an application along with
the sealed parcels containing dupatta was submitted in the
Department of Forensic Medicine for subsequent opinion and the
same was marked to her. She had opened the white sealed cloths
parcel with the seals of US. After breaking the seal, parcel was
found containing two pieces of dupatta, orange colour georgette.
She had given subsequent opinion in reference of queries
mentioned by police official.
57. PW22 further deposed that on 08.08.2019, she had
given subsequent opinion, Ex.PW22/C. She handed over the
sealed pulanda containing the two pieces of chunni to the
concerned police official. PW22 correctly identified, two pieces of
chunni/dupatta (orange colour), Ex.P1 from the photographs on
record. PW22 deposed that there are the same chunni/dupatta,
which were examined by her prior to giving her subsequent
opinion.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 351 BNSS.
58. Statement of accused Amit was recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C. (351 BNSS) on 22.05.2025 and he denied the
incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that all the public
witnesses are interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated
by the police officials in the present case without any fault on his
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 22 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 17:00:10 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
part and he had nothing to do as alleged by the Investigating
Officer and praying for acquittal. In June, 2017, he had married
deceased Manju in Karkardooma Court without intimating their
parents as it was a love marriage and then, he and deceased
started residing at their respective homes. Then, when the people
from the locality stated that since both were in love and used to
roam with each other, it would be better to get them married and
then, they got married with the consent of parents without any
dowry and marriage was solemnized in a Dharamshala in the
presence of only 20-25 persons. The deceased and her Mausi
used to tell accused to reside separately from his parents and he
did not want to reside separately as his parents were poor and for
that deceased used to tell him that she would implicate him in a
false case and most of the time, she remained in the house of her
Mausis at Agra and Mathura.
59. In January, 2019, deceased, her mother and mausi had
talked on conference call and deceased was told to reside
separately. The deceased had come to her parental house on
02.02.2019 from the house of her Mausi at Agra and then,
accused Amit took her to his house on 03.02.2019 and then,
again she raised the same thing that she wanted to reside
separately and on refusal of accused, she committed suicide on
05.02.2019 and prior to that he had called telephonically to her
parents to pacify her to reside at her matrimonial home and not
separately, then she locked herself and committed suicide. The
parents of deceased were actually not happy with the love
marriage and they had married her to him only for show off in
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 23 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:14 +0530
the society.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDINGARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
60. It is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that he has
been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of
complainant and he had never caused any injury to the
victim/deceased nor he ever harassed her in any manner nor he
committed any cruelty with her and even did not demand any
dowry at any point of time. There is no specific date of demand
of alleged dowry stated by the witnesses and the victim had
committed suicide as she wanted to reside separately from
accused and his family members and her mausi, mother and other
family members used to instigate her to reside separately and she
used to remain at her parental home or at the house of her Mausi
away from the accused. There was no injury found on the body
of deceased and it was the accused, who had taken her to the
hospital. It was the love marriage between the accused and
deceased and thus, there was no question of any demand of
dowry and the parents of the deceased have deposed against the
accused falsely as they were against the said marriage and under
compulsion of victim, they had married both victim and accused
though they had already married at Karkardooma Court. There
was no complaint prior to the registration of the case against the
accused for demand of dowry and false allegations have been
leveled just to have pecuniary gain from accused. It is not proved
that soon before death, she was subjected cruelty in connectionState Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 24 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:18 +0530
with demand of dowry and presumption u/s 113B Indian
Evidence Act will not apply. All the allegations of demand of
dowry or causing cruelty could not be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon
the following judgments:
1. State Vs. Sudesh Gulati & Ors., 2015 [2] JCC 785.
2. T Aruntperunjothi Vs. State, AIR 2006 SC 2475.
3. Sunil Bajaj Vs. State of MP AIR, 2001 SC 3020.
4. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand, [2023] 3 SCR 511.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
61. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution
has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt
as the deceased committed the suicide within 7 years of marriage
and PW9, Executive Magistrate had recorded the statement of the
father of deceased and he proved the same as PW1/A in which he
had levelled allegations of cruelty and harassment and demand of
dowry against the accused. PW2 Mamta, who is mother of
accused has also corroborated the version of PW1 regarding
demand of dowry i.e. bullet motorcycle and Rs. 2 lakhs by
accused from deceased. PMR has proved that death was caused
due to hanging and the deceased took the extreme step due to the
cruelty and harassment by the accused within a year of marriage
and presumption u/s 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act has to be
raised against the accused, which he failed to rebut. All the police
witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the
marriage between the deceased and the accused is not disputedState Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 25 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 17:00:22
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
and the statements of witnesses and the PMR shows that she died
because of hanging and it was not a natural death and accused
admitted his guilt in his disclosure statement and there is nothing
in the cross-examination of these witnesses to doubt their
veracity. There are allegations of beating the deceased by accused
by PW1 and PW2.
62. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
records.
63. The prosecution has examined 22 witnesses to prove
its case against the accused.
498A IPC: 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.
304B IPC. Dowry Death:
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily 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.
(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.
65. PW1 Prem Pal and PW2 Mamta, who were parents
of the deceased, deposed that their daughter Manju got married
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 26 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:00:27 +0530
to accused Amit on 18.04.2018 as per Hindu customs and rites
and they had given dowry articles as per their financial status.
PW1 deposed that he had given household articles
and gold jewellery in the marriage and then, she started
residing at her matrimonial home and whenever she used to
visit her parental home, she used to tell her mother about the
torture and beatings given by accused to her as he was not
satisfied with the articles given in the marriage. PW1 and PW2
deposed that accused Amit used to demand bullet motorcycle
or Rs. 2 Lakh and threatened their daughter that he would
kidnap or kill her brother and she was afraid of accused.
66. The marriage between the accused and daughter of
PW1 and PW2 i.e. deceased Manju on 18.04.2018 is not
disputed. PW1 and PW2 have not stated any specific date,
time or place as to when and where the accused had demanded
bullet motorcycle or Rs. 2 Lakhs from deceased and they have
also not deposed if the accused demanded the same from either
PW1 or PW2. There is no MLC on record about the beatings
caused to deceased and PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross-
examination that deceased and accused were in
love/relationship prior to their marriage and at the time of
marriage, there was no demand of any dowry or any other
article by the accused Amit or his family members and PW1
and PW2 had given household articles and gold jewellery as
per their will/capacity.
67. In the marriage, the parents give articles to the
bride and bridegroom as part of the marriage rituals and that
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 27 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 17:00:32 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
these articles facilitate the life of their daughter at their
matrimonial home and unless and until, there is any specific
demand of any article or money is made at the time of
marriage or prior to it, it cannot be said that all such articles
are demanded as dowry articles as these are given by the
parents out of their own desire, happiness and will. In this
case, as per PW1 and PW2, there was no demand of dowry or
specific articles on part of accused or his family members and
that it was a love marriage, which shows that accused and his
family members were not greedy at the time of marriage or
prior to it.
68. Further, PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination
admitted that they had never made any complaint to the police
or any authority against the accused about his torture and
beating to their daughter, which also cast a doubt on the said
allegations and it is not explained as to when accused had
threatened the deceased that he would kidnap and kill her
brother and when it was intimated by her to PW1 or PW2 and
when intimated, why PW1 and PW2 did not lodge any
complaint against accused Amit considering the seriousness of
allegations pertaining to his son as well as daughter.
69. PW1 deposed that on 05.02.2019, he was at his
work place and his daughter made phone call to her mother at
9.30 AM and told that her daughter was being beaten by her
husband Amit and he was informed by his wife PW2 about the
incident and on his way to home, he came to know that his
daughter was taken to hospital, then he along with his wife
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 28 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 17:00:37 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
reached GTB Hospital.
On the contrary, PW2 in her cross-examination
stated that after hearing the incident she went to the hospital
and later on, her husband also came there and she did not
telephonically inform her husband about the incident.
PW1 had identified the dead body of deceased vide
memo, Ex.PW1/B and the same is not disputed by accused
Amit.
70. PW2 has deposed that accused Amit was in her
distant relation and he used to visit her house prior to marriage
with deceased. PW1 and PW2 have deposed that on
05.02.2019 at 9.30 AM, when deceased called PW2, she
informed that she was beaten by accused, but in the PMR,
Ex.PW22/B, there is no injury mark except the ligature mark
and even in the MLC, Ex.PW4/A only ligature mark around
neck is shown and there is no other antemortem injury
mentioned and their version is not corroborated by medical
opinion qua any injury to deceased by accused on her last day
of life.
71. The deceased was unfit for statement as recorded in
MLC, so her statement could not be recorded. It is difficult to
believe that when PW2 came to know that her daughter was
being beaten by accused why she did not go to her house to
check as in her cross, she stated that distance between her
house and that of accused was 10 minutes walking. PW2 also
stated that the family of accused and her family were on
visiting terms, which shows that they knew each other and also
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 29 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:41
+0530
the financial capacity of each other at that time. PW2 also
stated that at the time of proposal of marriage, between
deceased and accused no demand of dowry was raised by the
nani and mausi of accused and no engagement ceremony was
solemnized prior to marriage at rented Dharamshala in Harsh
Vihar.
72. PW2 in her cross-examination stated that she had
given list of dowry articles to the police official, but PW1 in
his cross-examination stated that they had not prepared any list
of household articles and jewellery, which were given to
accused at the time of marriage, which are contrary versions
and no such list was put either to PW1 or PW2, but it was put
to only PW20 IO, who exhibited the same as PW20/E and
even otherwise such articles might have been given by the
parents of deceased to her daughter and they have
categorically deposed that neither accused nor his family
members demanded any dowry at the time of marriage nor it is
the case of prosecution that accused refused to give these
articles as per any demand of PW1 and PW2.
73. PW2 in her cross-examination also stated that upto
3 months everything was proper between the deceased and
accused and that the said demand of dowry was informed by
deceased to her telephonically and not in the presence of any
neighbour. Again, she has not stated any specific date and time
about the demand of dowry nor PW1 and PW2 have stated that
if they had visited the house of accused or talked to him, his
parents or relatives to pacify the matter nor any such meeting
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 30 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:48 +0530
took place and it is difficult to believe as to why despite the
demand of dowry by the accused, PW1 and PW2, who are also
residents of same locality, did not bother to visit the
matrimonial house of deceased after those demands or on
05.02.2019, when she received the call from the deceased at
9.30 AM that she was being beaten by accused.
74. PW2 in her cross-examination also stated that on
the festival of Dhanteras/Deepawali in the year 2019, the
accused Amit had once beaten her daughter and police
complaint was also lodged and accused was lodged in lock up
for one night, which is contrary to the testimony of PW1, who
admitted in his cross-examination that they never made any
complaint to the police or any other authority against the
accused about his torture and beatings to his daughter. Further,
it was mentioned that accused had beaten deceased in 2019,
but that may be typographical error as the incident happened in
February, 2019 and Deepawali comes in October-November,
but there is no such complaint proved or brought on record by
the prosecution or witnesses.
75. PW1 in his cross-examination volunteered that
accused Amit had made call to him on 05.02.2019, to call him
at his house without apprising him anything and he refused to
visit his house and accused had given suggestion that he called
him at 10 AM to inform that his daughter was quarreling with
him and adamant to leave her matrimonial home and
threatened to implicate him in false case.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 31 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:53 +0530
76. Another public witness PW12 Reena was
examined, but she turned hostile and only proved the marriage
between accused and deceased and that they had love affair.
During cross-examination by Ld. APP, she denied that one
week prior to her death, deceased had telephonically disclosed
to her that ‘Main bahut pareshan hu, mujhe koi job dila de aur
vo ro rahi thi’, even after she was confronted with her
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW12/A. Even if she would have
deposed as per her statement, Ex.PW12/A, then also deceased
had not leveled any allegations against accused, be it of cruelty
or of demand of dowry.
77. Other public witnesses PW3 Ashok and PW8 Rohit
proved that on the date of incident, they had reached the house
of accused and saw that his wife was hanging on a ceiling fan
with the help of chunni and that accused requested them to
open the door and with their help and of others, they had
broken open the door and got released the deceased and put
down from ceiling fan. She was breathing at that time and was
taken to GTB Hospital by accused. PW3 admitted in cross-
examination that the wooden door was forcibly broken open
by accused in his presence and similarly PW8 identified the
said broken gate/door and chunni/dupatta with which deceased
was hanging from 19 photographs, Ex.PW7/1 (colly) and
photographs, Ex.PW8/A (colly), but the said photographs
could not be proved by prosecution as per law as PW7 deposed
that he took the 27 photographs i.e. Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/19
and Ex.PW8/A were clicked by him from the digital camera,
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 32 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:00:58 +0530
but no certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was
annexed or proved on record and identification of photographs
by PW14 is also inconsequential.
78. Further, PW8 in his cross-examination admitted
that mother of deceased Manju i.e. PW2 also entered the
aforesaid room along with them on 05.02.2019, but PW2 has
not stated so, which are contrary version. The deceased had not
died when she was brought down and accused immediately
took her to the hospital to save her, which shows that accused
did not want her to die.
TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
79. PW13 Inspector Ravi Prakash deposed that he
collected CDR, CAF with requisite certificates u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act regarding mobile phones of Manju (deceased),
9582318290, Prem Pal (PW1), 9971274962 and Mamta
(PW2), 9958439385 and on analysis, he found that on
05.02.2019, deceased Manju called her father Prem Pal on his
number at 8.55 AM and 9.25 AM and she also called her
mother at 7.52 AM and 10.12 AM.
80. PW16, proved the CAF of mobile numbers
9971274962 and 9958439385 in the name of PW1 Prem Pal,
Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/C and their CDR of 05.02.2020,
Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/D, but the prosecution failed to
explain as to why IO took and it proved the CDR of
05.02.2020 though the incident was of 05.02.2019, which
shows the serious lapse in investigation by the IO. Also, PW13
deposed that the number 9958439385 was of Mamta, but
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 33 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2025.05.28
17:01:02
+0530
actually it was of Prem Pal as per the CAF, Ex.PW16/C.
81. As per Ex.PW16/E i.e. CAF of mobile number
9990902841, the said number was issued in the name of
Mamta, which was not analyzed by PW13 and the CDR of
said number was also taken of 05.02.2020, Ex.PW16/F, which
is inconsequential. Mobile number 8800257969 was of Amit
as per CAF, Ex.PW16/G and its CDR, Ex.PW16/H is also of
05.02.2020, which is of no use. PW1 had volunteered in his
cross that accused had made call to him on 05.02.2019 and
accused had taken the defence that he had called him at around
10 AM on said day to inform that deceased was quarreling
with him, adamant to leave her at her matrimonial home and if
she was not allowed, she was threatened that she would
implicate him in a false case. Had the prosecution bring the
correct CDR on record, this fact would have been verified.
82. PW17 proved the CAF of mobile number
9582318290 in the name of Manju, Ex.PW17/A and its CDR,
Ex.PW17/B from 01.02.2019 to 06.02.2019, which is of
relevant period and location chart, Ex.PW17/C and the
relevant certificates u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW17/D
and Ex.PW17/E and as per those, the call was made from the
said mobile of Manju to the said numbers of Prem Pal i.e.
9971274962 and 9958439385 at 7.52 AM, 8.55 AM, 9.28 AM
and 10.13 AM on 05.02.2019 i.e. the date of incident, but PW1
has not deposed at all that he received any call from deceased
Manju on his said numbers on that day. Even PW1 and PW2
have not stated that said numbers were with PW2, whoState Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 34 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:06 +0530
received call of Manju on that number as PW2 had separate
phone, but no call was made on her number at about 9.30 AM
that day as deposed by PW1 and PW2 and thus, there are
technical infirmities also in the case of prosecution.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
83. PW4 Dr. Madhusudan Verma deposed that he
examined deceased Manju at GTB Hospital and she was
brought by accused Amit and on examination, a ligature mark
around her neck was present and she was drowsy and unfit for
statement and MLC was prepared by Dr. Rahmat Ulla, JR
under his supervision, Ex.PW4/A and said doctor had left the
hospital, whose whereabouts are not known and he was
acquainted with his handwriting and signature. In the aforesaid
MLC, there was no injury mentioned and only ligature mark is
mentioned.
84. PW22 Dr. Shilpa Singh deposed that on
07.02.2019, ASI Upender Singh submitted request for
postmortem vide request form, Ex.PW9/D along with inquest
papers for PM of Manju and she conducted the postmortem
and gave the report, Ex.PW22/B and cause of death was
“shock” as a result of pulmonary edema subsequent to
antemortem hanging and she had given her subsequent opinion
on 08.08.2019, Ex.PW22/C as per the query of IO and she
examined the chunni/dupatta in two pieces, Ex.P1, which were
examined by her prior to giving her subsequent opinion. As per
Ex.PW22/C, PW22 opined that the chunni/dupatta may lead to
death of deceased on hanging or that it may cause ligatureState Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 35 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:11 +0530
marks on the neck of deceased cannot be ruled out.
85. As per the inquest report, Ex.PW22/A and
Ex.PW9/E, there are no injuries mentioned therein and it was
signed by PW1 Prem Pal, which shows that no injury was
caused to the deceased by the accused as claimed by PW1 and
PW2. PW22 in her cross-examination stated that apart from
the ligature marks on the body of deceased, there were two
surgical bandages present on the right wrist showed infection
marks, there was also one tracheostomy wound present in the
midline of the neck, covered with two surgical sutures. It was
possible that the said infection marks and wound in the
midline of the neck were possible due to treatment at the
hospital.
86. Thus, from the said medical/forensic evidence, it is
proved that there was no injury on the body of deceased except
ligature marks and thus, the version of PW1 and PW2 that
accused used to beat her or that he was beating deceased on
05.02.2019 at 9.30 AM is not corroborated at all.
POLICE WITNESSES
87 PW5 W/ASI Prakash proved the GD No. 16A,
Ex.PW5/A and GD No. 17A, Ex.PW5/B and as per former, it
was made by the accused at 10.57 AM on 05.02.2019 that his
wife had hanged herself and the latter one was made by his
father regarding the said incident.
88. PW6 SI Rajender Singh proved the SOC Report,
Ex.PW6/A, as per which, it was a suicide by hanging with
orange chunni from ceiling fan by deceased Manju at 10.50State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 36 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:15 +0530
AM on 05.02.2019 and IO was advised to seize two pieces of
chunni and one scissors, which shows that deceased had
committed suicide and not the murder as claimed by PW2 in
her examination. Even PW20 deposed that it was suicide,
which is not disputed.
89. PW9 Atul Ramchiary proved the recording of
statement of PW1 Prem Pal, Ex.PW1/A, which was endorsed
by him vide Ex.PW9/A, which was also corroborated by
PW14. PW9 proved that body of deceased was identified by
PW1 Prem Pal and accused Amit Kumar vide their
identification statement, Ex. PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C, but the
identity of deceased was not disputed and it was also
corroborated by PW14. After postmortem, on 07.02.2019, the
dead body of deceased was handed over to ASI Upender Singh
vide endorsement, Ex.PW9/D, which is further corroborated
by PW14.
90. PW10 ASI Suraj Prakash proved the PCR Form,
Ex.PW10/A vide which accused Amit informed from his
mobile no. 8800257969 on PCR call on 05.02.2019 at 10.57
AM that his wife had hanged herself with chunni from the
ceiling fan and after opening the gate, she was brought down.
PW11 proved the PCR Form, Ex.PW11/A made by Savitri on
same day at 11.03 AM regarding the same fact and these
informations further strengthens the fact that the deceased
committed suicide at her matrimonial home on 05.02.2019.
91. PW14 ASI Upender deposed that he reached the
spot at Jhuggi E-57/661/64, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where its
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 37 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:20 +0530
main gate was found locked from outside and one lady had
committed suicide by hanging and already taken to GTB
Hospital and he met the parents of deceased and accused at the
hospital and her father Prem Pal disclosed that Amit used to
torture his daughter Manju. PW14 proved the seizure of
dupatta/chunni of orange colour and scissors vide seizure
memo, Ex.PW14/A and he also identified said chunni and
scissors, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW14 proved handing over of dead
body to PW1 and accused vide handing over memo,
Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW14/B and also the rukka, Ex.PW14/C on
the basis of which FIR was registered on 26.02.2019.
DELAY IN FIR
92. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for accused that
there was delay in lodging of FIR, which was not explained by
the prosecution.
93. PW9 deposed that he recorded the statement of
PW1 Prem Pal on 06.02.2019 and postmortem was conducted
on 07.02.2019. PW14 admitted that the FIR was lodged on
26.02.2019 and in his cross-examination, he admitted that
statements of parents of deceased i.e. PW1 and PW2 were
handed over to him by the Executive Magistrate (PW9) on
07.02.2019 at 4.30 PM and on Court question that why he did
not register FIR on 07.02.2019, he replied that he discussed the
matter with SHO, Nand Nagri and on his directions, he
registered the FIR after postmortem, which is a vague reply as
postmortem was concluded on 07.02.2019 and there was no
justification to register FIR after 21 days from the date of
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 38 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:26 +0530
offence. Accused had taken the plea that FIR was not lodged
promptly as parents of the deceased were demanding Rs. 10
Lakh from the accused. PW22 in her cross-examination stated
that she had handed over PMR to PW14 ASI Upender on
07.02.2019 itself when postmortem of the deceased was
conducted.
94. In Sudesh Gulati (Supra), DB of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court considered the unexplained delay in recording of
FIR as one of the factors while acquitting the accused u/s
304(B)/498A IPC.
95. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh Vs.
State of Delhi reported in 2007 (12) SCC 641 has held as
follows:
9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the
delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the
complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make
embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the
unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the
court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either
coming before the police or before the court, the courts always view the
allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no
such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution
case”.
96. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Mapilla P.P. Soopi, decided on 23.09.2023, reported in AIR
2004 SC 83 while giving the benefit to the accused for delay in
lodging the FIR has held as follows:
“Undue delay in lodging the complaint without acceptable
evidence has also contributed to the doubt in prosecution case. Hence,State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 39 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:30 +0530
the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal.”
Presumption u/s 113 B of Indian Evidence Act.
97. Section 113B Indian Evidence Act: 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.
Presumption u/s 113-B, when to be drawn.- Section
113B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon before her death a
woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any
demand for dowry by the person who is accused of causing her death then
the Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death. The
presumption u/s 113B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution
establishes the essential ingredients mentioned therein it becomes the duty
of the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death
– State V. Jaggu Ram (2008) 12 SCC 51.
Supreme Court while often dwelling on the scope and
purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B of the
Evidence Act have pronounced that the presumption is
contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the
ingredients of the offence of Section 304B. Reference may be
made to Shindo v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 517
Presumption and its rebuttal.- Initial burden of
proof lies on the prosecution. Burden would not shift on the
accused merely on the fact that unnatural death had occurred
within seven years of marriage without even proving the
demand of dowry prior to the incident . Reference may be
made to State v. Teg Bahadur (2004) 13 SCC 300.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 40 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:34 +0530
98. Soon before her death.- What would satisfy the
requirements of “soon before her death” within the meaning of
Sec. 304B depends upon facts and circumstances of each case
– T Aruntperunjothi v State (2006) 9 SCC 467.
“Soon before” is a relative term which is required
to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and
no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time
limit. The term is not synonymous with the term ” immediately
before” and is opposite of the expression “soon after”. These
words would imply that the interval should not be too long
between the time of making the statement and the death.
Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be
proved by the prosecution – Kans Raj v State (2000) 5 SCC
207 (para 15). Mere lapse of some time by itself would not
provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct
relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry
demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late
and not too stale before the date of death of the woman. The
phrase “soon before her death” is an elastic expression and can
refer to a period immediately before her death or within a few
days or even a few weeks before it. But the legislative object
in providing such a radius of time is to emphasize the idea that
her death should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath
of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be
a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related
harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. It is for the Court toState Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 41 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJATRAJAT 17:01:39 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
decide on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the
interval could be called “soon before her death” – Satvir v
State (2001) 8 SCC 633.
99. In cases of dowry death u/s 304B IPC, the
presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act shall be raised
only on the proof of following essentials.
In Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 397 AIR 2023 SC 851, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accused for the
offence punishable u/s 304B IPC, the following essentials must be
satisfied:
(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her
marriage;
(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relatives of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection
with, demand for dowry.
When the above ingredients are established by reliable and
acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such
husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death. If the
abovementioned ingredients are attracted in view of the special
provision, the court shall presume and it shall record such fact as proved
unless and until it is disproved by the accused. However, it is open to the
accused to adduce such evidence for disproving such compulsory
presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can
discharge such burden by getting an answer through cross-examination of
the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 42 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:43 +0530
Reference may be made to Maya Devi v. State of Haryana
2016 Cr LJ 629: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 768: (2015) 17 SCC 405.
100. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj (Supra) has
observed as under:-
16. No presumption u/s 113B of Indian Evidence would be
drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand,
cruelty or harassment the dispute should resolved and there was no
evidence of cruelty or thereafter. Mere lapse of some time by itself would
not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to
cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to
have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date
of death of the woman.
101. In the present case, neither PW1 nor PW2 could
state the date, place and time of demand of dowry by accused
and did not depose if the same was demanded by accused from
them and admitted that no dowry was demanded by him nor
his family members at the time of marriage or prior to it and
list of dowry article was got exhibited through PW20 IO,
Ex.PW20/E, but it was not put to PW2, who signed and
prepared the same or PW1 and thus, it was not proved and
PW1 had denied making any such list and it was the love
marriage and accused immediately called the police when
deceased locked herself and also called her father and then,
with the help of neighbours got the gate opened forcibly and
took the victim to the hospital, when she was alive. Thus, the
prosecution could not prove that soon before the death of
deceased, there was any demand of dowry or that any cruelty
was done by accused to the victim as there was no injury
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 43 of 51
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
17:01:47 +0530
found on her body nor any dowry was given by deceased or
her parents. There are contradictions in the testimony of PW1
and PW2 and their versions could not be corroborated by the
independent witnesses.
102. In Sudesh Gulati (Supra), the DB of Hon’ble High
Court acquitted the accused persons citing contradiction
between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
103. In Sunil Bajaj (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that there was no evidence of demand of dowry or
subjecting deceased to cruelty for or in connection with dowry
and only vague and inconsistent statement of interested
witnesses being parents and brother of deceased and there is
no evidence of any relative or neighbour of parties about the
cruelty to deceased by the accused in relation to demand of
dowry and there was no demand of dowry at the time of
marriage.
Similarly in the present case also, there was no
demand of dowry at the time of marriage and no relative or
neighbour was examined in this respect.
104. In Charan Singh (Supra), it was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that prosecution has to substantiate the
ingredients of section 304B and 498A by direct and convincing
evidence so as to avail the presumption u/s 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act and proof of cruelty or harassment by the
husband or his relative is sine qua non to inspirit the statutory
presumption. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent,
coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such facts, the
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 44 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:51 +0530
person accused of such offences cannot be held guilty by
taking refuse only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall
in proof.
Mere death of deceased being unnatural in the
matrimonial home within 7 years of marriage will not be
sufficient to convict the accused u/s 304B and 498A IPC.
105. In State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta @
Sanju @ Prem Prakash, 2025 INSC 187, Hon’ble Supreme
Court relying upon Surender Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP,
(2009) 17 SCC 243, held that if any of the ingredients of
Section 304B IPC is absent, the presumption u/s 113B Indian
Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution and
onus of proof would not shift to the defence.
It was also held in recent judgment of Karan Singh
Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 133.
106. In Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025
INSC 671, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court while
acquitting the convict that:
8. At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section
498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may cause
danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is inclusive of the
mental and physical health and the harassment caused to her, by coercing
her to meet unlawful demands or impossible standards. Further, the demand
for dowry in terms of Section 3 and Section 4 of DP Act, 1961 refers to both
a direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the husband or his
family members. In order to meet the threshold of the offences under
Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961, the allegations
cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 45 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:01:55 +0530
9. In the present case, the allegations made by the complainant
are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this
threshold. Apart from claiming that appellant husband harassed her for want
of dowry, the complainant has not given any specific details or described
any particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on multiple occasions,
the complainant wife was ousted from the matrimonial house and kicked
and punched in the presence of her father, PW2 herein and she was
repeatedly tormented with dowry demands, and when she was unable to
honour them, the appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas
she has not mentioned the time, date, place or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. It is alleged that the complainant suffered a
miscarriage; as she fell down, when the appellant and her family who
pushed her out of the house; however, no medical document from any
medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the
allegations.
107. In Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2024
INSC 713, it was held that:
16. No doubt testimonies of PW1 and PW2 would not be hit by
the rule against hearsay evidence because it related to one of the
circumstances of the transaction resulting in their daughter’s unnatural
death. However, a distinction must be drawn between admissibility and
acceptability/reliability of a piece of evidence. Merely because a piece of
evidence is admissible does not mean that it must be accepted. Before
accepting the evidence to hold that the fact in issue stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court must evaluate the same against the weight of
surrounding circumstances and other facts proven on record.
Thus, in view of the above, the prosecution has not
laid the foundational facts to raise presumption u/s 113B
Indian Evidence Act or to prove the offence u/s 498-A/34 &
304-B IPC.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 46 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 17:02:00
Date: 2025.05.28
+0530
108. PW18 Mahesh Kumar proved the site plan,
Ex.PW18/A, which was corroborated by PW20 and PW20
proved the preparation of unscaled site plan, Ex.PW20/A,
which is corroborated by PW19, but the place of incident is
not disputed. PW19 and PW20 proved the arrest memo of
accused, Ex.PW19/A, but that is not disputed and recording of
his disclosure statement, Ex.PW19/C, but it is inadmissible in
view of the embargo u/s 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
109. PW20 deposed about the DD No. 114B, Ex.PA3,
DD No. 15B, Ex.PW20/B, DD No. 115B, Ex.PW20/C and DD
No. 12B, Ex.PW20/D, but these were the initial information,
but there is nothing against the accused and do not prove the
guilt of accused as no police complaint was lodged or
proceeded by the deceased or her parents against accused.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
110. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. (351 BNSS), accused
Amit denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and took
the defence that in June, 2017, he married deceased Manju in
Karkardooma Court without intimating their parents as it was a
love marriage and then, he and deceased started residing at their
respective homes and when it was revealed to all the persons of
family and locality, then parents of deceased got them married
and Mausi of deceased and her parents used to tell accused to
reside separately from his parents and he did not want to reside
separately as his parents were poor and for that deceased used to
tell him that she would implicate him in a false case and most of
the time, she remained in the house of her Mausi at Agra and
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 47 of 51
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2025.05.28
17:02:04
+0530
Mathura.
111. In January, 2019, deceased, her mother and mausi had
talked on conference call and deceased was told to reside
separately. The deceased had come to her parental house on
02.02.2019 from the house of her Mausi at Agra and then,
accused Amit took her to his house on 03.02.2019 and then,
again she raised the same thing that she wanted to reside
separately and on refusal of accused, she committed suicide on
05.02.2019 and prior to that he had called telephonically to her
parents to pacify her to reside at her matrimonial home and not
separately, then she locked herself and committed suicide.
112. In T Aruntperunjothi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
accepted the defence of the accused that cause of death was that
deceased insisted to go to her mother’s house, but was not
allowed, as plausible one and that there was no direct or indirect
evidence as to harassment or cruelty by appellant towards
deceased.
In the present case also the accused has taken the
consistent defence that deceased wanted to reside separately with
accused and she was being instigated by her mausi and mother,
but the accused did not want to leave his parents and no violence
was committed by accused to her in any manner, rather he took
her immediately to the hospital when she was alive by breaking
open the door with the help of neighbours and such defence
appears to be plausible.
113. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported
in MANU/SC/1505/2011, Apex Court has observed that an
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 48 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 17:02:09 +0530
Date: 2025.05.28
accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed
on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the
investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such
faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the
prosecution.
114. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt.
13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when
two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one
which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the
benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held
that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the
Judgments titled as ‘Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Guntur‘, reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as ‘Raj
Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan‘, reported
as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance
between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by way
of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 49 of 51
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:02:14 +0530
the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused persons.
115. In Kaliram Vs. State of HP, AIR 1973 SC 2773
which are as follow:-
Another Golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable
to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevant in
cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by
circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless
the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the
court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused.
116. The evidence led by prosecution is not reliable, cogent
and has lot of infirmities as there are lot of material variations,
omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies
of all the public and other witnesses led by the prosecution and
thus, prosecution could not prove all the ingredients of Section
498A & 304B IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
117. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record
by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Amit qua
offences punishable u/s 498A/304B IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt
is given to the accused on the basis of above-noted principles and
facts established on record.
State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 50 of 51
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.05.28
17:02:19 +0530
118. Consequently, the accused Amit is acquitted of the
offences u/s 498A/304B IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance. Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT RAJAT Date:
2025.05.28
ON THIS 28th DAY OF MAY 2025. 17:02:24 +0530
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD
Delhi/28.05.2025State Vs. Amit FIR No. 76/2019 PS Nand Nagri Page 51 of 51