Guman Singh And vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Guman Singh And vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2025

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No. 148 of 2017
                            04th August, 2025


Guman Singh and
Others                                                   -Applicants

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand
And Another                                              -Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-
Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Zaheeen, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing and

setting-aside the charge sheet dated 27.02.2016 under

Sections 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

bailable warrant dated 13.01.2017 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,, District Udham

Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 527 of 2016, and the entire

proceedings arising out from it.

2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly

stated, as follows:-

Marriage of applicant no. 2 – Manoj Singh and the deceased

was solemnized on 25.12.2008 and out of the wedlock, two
2

children were born. On 01.01.2015, the deceased

consumed poison in her matrimonial house. Immediately,

she was taken to the hospital at Pilibhit, but, she could not

survive and ultimately died on 03.01.2015. Thereafter, the

mother of the deceased i.e. respondent no. 2 lodged a

complaint stating that due to harassment and demand of

dowry by the applicants, her daughter was forced to

consume poison and due to which, she died on 03.01.2015.

After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the

Court and bailable warrants were issued against the

applicants, which is challenged in this application filed

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that

after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the

applicants under Sections 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, in the Court of ACJM, Khatima, District

Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicants would

further submit that statements of Mahesh Singh (brother of

the deceased) and other relatives were recorded by the Police

in which they have submitted that due to the death of the

deceased, they were in shock and anger with the applicants,

therefore, respondent no. 2 had lodged an FIR against the

applicants. They, in their statements given to the Police, have

further stated the applicants have never demanded dowry from

the parents of the deceased; that respondent no. 2 – Smt.
3

Kaushalya Devi has filed her counter-affidavit and in her

counter-affidavit, she has annexed an affidavit given to the

complainant authority, where, she has specifically stated that

due to sudden death of her daughter and instigation by the

relatives, she has lodged an FIR against the applicants. She

has further submitted that her daughter had consumed poison

on her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her

daughter; that the brother of the deceased also filed an

affidavit, wherein, he has submitted that the applicants were

not responsible for death of his sister and they don’t want to

take any action against the applicants.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of

Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 214. Paragraph 5 to

7 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-

“5. ………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..

“304-B. 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.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry”

shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

4

(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.”

6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-
B:

a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any
burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise
than under normal circumstances;

b) The death must have been caused within seven years
of her marriage;

c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative
of her husband; and

d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry.

7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death
can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or
husband’s relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to
have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property
or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly
or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to
the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or
by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to
any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be
given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable
security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.”

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further placed

reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Calcutta High

Court in the case of Mubarak Ansari and Another Vs. State

of West Bengal, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5240,

whereby the Hon’ble Court in its paragraphs 12, 13 and 25,

has held as hereunder:-

5

“12. In order to convict an accused for an offence under
Section 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860, the following
essentials must be satisfied;

1. The death of woman must have been caused by burns
or bodily injury or otherwise that under normal
circumstances;

2. Such death must have occurred within seven years of
marriage;

3. Soon before her death, the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by
relatives of her husband;

4. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in
connection with demand of dowry.

13. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are
established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called
“dowry death” and such husband or his relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death. In a criminal case normally
an accused can be punished for an offence of establishment of
the commission of offence on the basis of evidence may be
direct or circumstantial or both but a case under
Section 304B of Penal Code, 1860 an exception is made by
demanding provision as the nature of death of “dowry death”

and the husband or his relative as the case may be is deemed
to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to
prove these aspects but on proving the existence of an
ingredient of the said offence by convincing evidence. So,
there is need for care and caution in scrutinising the evidence
and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above
ingredients of the offence are put by the prosecution. In the
present case, the learned counsel for the appellants could not
dispute that the first two ingredients mentioned above are
satisfied. I have now to see whether the remaining two
ingredients are also satisfied looking to the evidence on
record.

25. So far as the subjecting the deceased to cruelty or torture
over the dowry demand by the appellants soon before her
death is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have stated
that the accused persons used to torment the deceased over
the dowry demand but they have not stated about the time of
tormenting the deceased for the aforesaid demand in the
marital house. On a plain reading of the language used in
Section 304B Penal Code, 1860 it is clear that in order to
attract provision of Section 304-B, the deceased must have
been subjected to harassment of cruelty “soon before her
death”. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus
between her death and dowry related harassment. It is never
that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a
6

demand for at sometime if Section 304B is to be invoked, but
it should happen soon before her death. The said phrase, no
doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either
immediately before her death or within a few days or even a
few weeks before it. Thus, having regard to the interpretation
of the words “soon before her death” occurring in
Section 304B Penal Code, 1860 it must be seen whether the
death of the deceased in this case is only for the cruelty or
harassment. It is said by the de-facto complainant (PW10)
that the victim was at her parental house with the de-facto
complainant and she came back to the matrimonial house on
25.05.2007 and died on 26.07.2007. There is no evidence
brought by the prosecution that in between 25.07.2007 and
26.05.2007 the victim was subjected to torture by the
appellants and moreover soon before her death she was at her
parental house and the question of torture by the appellants
soon before her death does not arise at all.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted

that no ingredients of Section 304-B are made out against the

applicants. There is no evidence brought by the prosecution

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by

the applicants or any other relatives soon before her death,

which is the essential ingredient of Section 304-B. Moreover,

complainant as well as other witnesses, in their statements

given to the Police, afterwards stated that the deceased had

consumed poison on her own and applicants have no role to

play in death of her daughter and they don’t want take any

action against the applicants.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned Senior

Counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that there are

sufficient credible evidences available on record against the

applicants for their involvement in commission of the crime.

Though, they also admit the fact that complainant as well as
7

other witnesses, in their statements given to the Police,

afterwards stated that the deceased had consumed poison on

her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her

daughter and they don’t want take any action against the

applicants.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

9. It is only when the essential ingredients of Section 304-B

are established by acceptable evidence, such death shall be

called “dowry death” and such husband or his relative shall be

deemed to have caused her death. In a criminal case, normally

an accused can be punished for an offence of establishment of

the commission of offence on the basis of evidence may be

direct or circumstantial or both but in a case under

Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 an exception is made by

demanding provision as the nature of death of “dowry death”

and the husband or his relative as the case may be is deemed

to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to

prove these aspects but on proving the existence of an

ingredient of the said offence by convincing evidence. So, there

is need for care and caution in scrutinising the evidence and

in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above

ingredients of the offence are put by the prosecution.

8

10. In the instant case, prosecution could not prove or

establish any of the ingredient of Section 304-B of IPC.

Moreover, all the witnesses, in their statements given to the

Police, have further stated the applicants have never

demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased; that

respondent no. 2 – Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who is the complaint

in the case, in her affidavit annexed with the counter-affidavit

has specifically stated that due to sudden death of her

daughter and instigation by the relatives, she has lodged an

FIR against the applicants. She has further submitted that her

daughter had consumed poison on her own and applicants

have no role to play in death of her daughter; that the brother

of the deceased also filed an affidavit, wherein, he has

submitted that the applicants were not responsible for death of

his sister and they don’t want to take any action against the

applicants.

11. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings

to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the

process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous

application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of
9

Criminal Case No. 527 of 2016 pending in the court of learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,, District Udham

Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.08.2025
Ujjwal