Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh Kumar Shah Etc on 16 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
CNR No DLWT01-003582-2016
SC No. 57897/2016
FIR No.180/2016
PS Nihal Vihar
U/s 498A/304-B/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Shah
S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant Shah
R/o H.No. A-9, Deep Vihar,
Vikash Nagar, New Delhi
Permanent address:
Village Hirpur Post & PS Jandah,
District Vaishali, Bihar.
2. Amarjeet
S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant Shah
R/o H.No. A-9, Deep Vihar,
Vikash Nagar, New Delhi
Permanent address:
Village Hirpur Post & PS Jandah,
District Vaishali, Bihar.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 1/27
3. Anita Devi
W/o Laxmi Kant Shah
R/o Village Hirpur Post & PS Jandah,
District Vaishali, Bihar.
4. Laxmi Kant Shah
S/o Sh. Nanku Shah
R/o Village Hirpur Post & PS Jandah,
District Vaishali, Bihar.
5. Pankaj Kumar Shah
S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant Shah
R/o A-650, IInd Floor, Camp No. 4
Jwalapuri, Nangloi, Delhi.
Permanent Address:
Village Hirpur Post & PS Jandah,
District Vaishali, Bihar. ......Accused Persons
Date of Institution of case : 05-07-2016
Date of reserving Judgment : 13-12-2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16-01-2025
Appearance:
For the State : Mr. Himanshu Garg, Ld. Additional
Public Prosecutor.
For all accused persons : Sh. Rajeev Lochan, Ld. Counsel.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Rakesh Kumar Shah, Amarjeet, Anita
Devi, Laxmi Kant Shah and Pankaj Kumar Shah faced trial for
the offences u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC. A chargesheet was filed
against them by SHO PS Ranhola for the commission of offences
u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 2/27
The case of the prosecution:
2. The facts of the prosecution case, are that on 21.02.2016
PW-16 SI Jasbir Malik on receipt of information regarding
suicide by a lady by hanging reached at H. No. A-9, Deep Vihar
near Raghubir Singh school, Uttam Nagar where he found one
female in unconscious state. Her name came to be known as
Deepika W/o Rakesh aged 21 years. Accused Rakesh, Amarjeet
told that deceased had committed suicide by hanging with the
help of her shawl. The shawl was found on the bed itself. Crime
Team was called and dead body was sent to the mortuary. Since
the death of deceased had taken place within seven years of
marriage, therefore, the Executive Magistrate, Rajouri Garden
was informed and on 23.02.2016 the Executive Magistrate PW-4
recorded the statement Ex.PW-2/B of Smt. Amita Devi, the
mother of deceased.
In her statement Ex.PW-2/B Smt. Amita Devi stated that
deceased was married on 01.02.2013 with accused Rakesh and in
the marriage, she had given the dowry as per her capacity. After
marriage, the accused and Laxmi Kant Shah, parents-in-law of
deceased, started taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry
and also demanded the same. About one year back, Deepika
shifted to Delhi alongwith her husband Rakesh and brother-in-
law (Devar) Amarjeet and started living on rent at Vikas Nagar.
She used to make telephone calls and informed her that Amarjeet
would demand money from her and stated that they also did not
get anything in the marriage. She also used to told her that
accused Rakesh also, under the influence of her Devar Amarjeet
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 3/27
would demand dowry and money and for that reason also beat
her.
She further stated that in December, 2015 on the occasion
of marriage of her younger daughter Deeplata when Deepika also
had come, stated her that Rakesh and Amarjeet quarreled with
her. However, when Rakesh undertook that he would not repeat
same, they had sent Deepika with Rakesh to Delhi. Thereafter,
Deepika again informed her telephonically that marriage of
Amarjeet is fixed and she was asking for a lehnga. Further that
Rakesh and Amarjeet also demanded her a sum of Rs. 1 lacs. She
further stated that due to demand of dowry and harassment,
Deepika used to remain in depression and accused Amarjeet was
actively involved in the suffering of Deepika.
On this aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and the
investigation started. During the investigation, the IO found that
accused Anita Devi and Laxmi Kant Shah were residing for the
last one year before the date of death of deceased at their village
at Bihar whereas accused Pankaj was residing separately with his
wife at Nangloi. Therefore, they were not arrested.
3. The Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Sessions after compliance of the relevant provisions. Later on,
supplementary charge-sheet alongwith FSL result and CDRs
were also filed which was also committed to the court.
The charge against the accused:
4. The accused namely Anita Devi, Laxmi Kant Shah and
Pankaj Kumar Shah did not plead guilty for the offences u/s
498A/34 and they claimed trial. Accused namely Rakesh Kumar
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 4/27
Shah and Amarjeet also did not plead guilty for the offence u/s
498A/34 and u/s 304B/34 and they claimed trial.
The evidence by the prosecution:
5. To prove the afore-mentioned charge against the accused
persons, the prosecution has examined the following sixteen
witnesses:-
i).PW-1 Sh. Jai Shankar Kumar, brother of deceased
Deepika; ii).PW-2 Smt. Amita Devi, mother of deceased;
iii).PW-3 ASI Veena, the then Duty Officer; iv).PW-4 Sh.
Surender Kumar, the then Executive Magistrate; v).PW-5
Ct. Vikas; vi).PW-6 SI Harish Chander Pathak, the then
official from CPCR/PHQ to prove PCR Form; vii).PW-7
Ct. Ajay, who took the Exhibits to FSL; viii).PW-8 Dr.
Anurag Thapar, who conducted the postmortem of
deceased; ix).PW-9 ASI Sanjeev Kumar, the then
photographer, Mobile Crime Team; x).PW-10 ASI Om
Prakash, the then draftsman, Mapping Section; xi).PW-11
Inspector Manohar Lal; xii).PW-12 ASI Vijender, the then
MHC(M); xiii).PW-13 Ct. Madan, who joined the
investigation; xiv).PW-14 Sh. Prashant Kumar, the then
Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd.; xv).PW-15 Sh. Surender
Kumar, the then Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd; xvi).PW-
16 SI Jasbir Malik, who conducted part investigation;
xvii).PW-17 Inspector Suman Kumari, who conducted part
investigation and xviii).PW-18 Sh. Sanjay Singh, the then
Assistant Manager Regulatory, Aircel Ltd.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 5/27
6. The prosecution has also relied upon the following
documentary evidence:-
Ex.PW-1/A dead body identification statement of PW-1 Sh.
Jay Shankar Kumar; Ex. PW-1/B Statement of PW-1 Jay
Shanker Kumar before the the Executive Magistrate;
Ex.PW-1/C&Ex.PW-1/D arrest memos of accused Amarjeet
and Rakesh; Ex.PW-2/A dead body identification statement
of PW-2 Smt. Anita Devi; Ex.PW-2/B Statement of PW-2
before the then Executive Magistrate; Ex. PW-2/C letter
regarding list of dowry; Ex.PW-3/A copy of FIR; Ex.PW-
3/B endorsement of ASI Veena on rukka; Ex. PW-3/C
certificate u/s 65 B of IEA; Ex.PW-5/A seizure memo of
ligature material/mini shawl; Ex.PW-6/A&Ex.PW-6/B copy
of PCR form no.1 accompanied certificate u/s 65B IEA;
Ex.PW-8/A postmortem report no.170/16 dated 23.02.2016;
Ex.PW-8/B subsequent opinion; Ex.PW-9/A(colly)
photographs of the spot; Ex.PW-9/B negatives of aforesaid
photographs; Ex.PW-10/A site plan; Ex.PW-11/A seizure
memo of marriage photograph of accused Rakesh Kumar
Shah and deceased; Ex.11/B marriage photograph of
accused Rakesh Kumar Shah and deceased; Ex.PW-11/C to
Ex.PW-11/E personal bonds of accused Anita Dev,
Laxmikant Shah and Pankaj Kumar Shah; Ex.PW-11/F to
Ex.PW-11/I request letter and notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C
regarding CDRs of mobile nos. 8860465483, 9716238381
& 9973980679; Ex.PW-12/A entry at sl. no. 1173 in register
no. 19; Ex.PW-12/B entry at sl. no. 1176 in register no. 19;
Ex.PW-12/C copy of RC no. 43/21/16; Ex.PW-12/DState Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 6/27
acknowledgment acceptance qua the case property; Ex.PW-
13/A & Ex.PW-13/B personal search memos of accused
Amarjeet and Rakesh Kumar; Ex.PW-13/C & Ex.PW-13/D
disclosure statements of accused Rakesh Kumar and
Amarjeet; Ex.PW-14/A CAF of mobile no. 8860465483;
Ex.PW-14/B attested copy of voter ID card of Laxmikant;
Ex.PW-14/C CDR of mobile no. 8860465483; Ex.PW-14/D
certificate u/s 65 B IEA; Ex. PW-14/E cell ID chart qua the
CDR of mobile no. 8860465483; Ex. 15/A CAF of mobile
no. 9973980679; Ex.PW-15/B attested copy of voter ID
card of Anita Devi; Ex.PW-15/C CDR of mobile no.
9973980679; Ex.PW-15/D certificate u/s 65 B IEA;
Ex.PW-15/E cell ID chart qua the CDR; Ex.PW-16/A Form
no. 25.35; Ex.PW-16/B request of IO for preserving the
dead body; Ex. PW-16/C request letter by the then
Executive Magistrate Sh. Surender Kumar; Ex. PW-16/D
seizure memo of viscera of deceased; Ex.PW-16/E
endorsement of IO on the statement of Smt. Amita Devi;
Ex.PW-16/F site plan; Ex.PW-17/A subsequent opinion
regarding ligature mark; Ex. PW-18/A covering letter dated
31.05.2016 prepared by Nodal Officer Sh. Shishir
Malhotra; Ex.PW-18/B cell ID chart of mobile no.
9716238681 and Ex.PW-18/C certificate u/s 65B IEA.
The statement of accused persons u/s 294 Cr.P.C:
7. Statement of the Ld. Counsel for accused persons u/s 294
Cr.P.C was also recorded, wherein he admitted the contents and
genuineness of documents i.e. FSL report no. FSL 2016/C1706
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 7/27
dated 10.05.2016 (Ex.AD-X1) and forwarding letter dated
11.05.2016 (Ex. AD-X2).
In view of the statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, of accused Dr.
Aadesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) was
dropped from the list of witnesses.
The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:
8. The statements of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C
were recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against the accused were brought to their notice and
their explanations were sought. They denied the allegations
against them and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the
present case. Accused persons wished to lead defence evidence.
9. During the trial, Ld. Counsel for accused persons moved
an application u/s 315 Cr.P.C for calling Kishan Devi Gupta and
Jyoti Devi as defence witnesses. The said application being
treated u/s 311 Cr.P.C, was dismissed vide order dated
18.11.2023.
Submissions by Ld. Prosecutor:
10. Ld. Prosecutor while inviting the attention of the court
towards the oral as well as documentary evidence on record
argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges
framed against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He
vehemently contented that the prosecution has been able to prove
that the deceased had committed suicide within seven years of
her marriage due to cruelty and harassment in connection with
the demand of dowry committed by her husband and in-laws andState Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 8/27
also that soon before death of the deceased, there was a demand
of dowry.
Submissions by Ld. Counsel for accused persons:
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the
prosecution has failed to show on record that soon before her
death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
mother-in-law and husband in connection with dowry. He prayed
for the acquittal of the accused persons.
12. I have heard the final arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl.
Prosecutor for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused
persons.
Analysis:
13. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove its defence on
preponderance of probabilities. What do we mean by the
expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?
14. The said expression ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ has been
defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments.
In the judgment of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, 2011CRI.L.J.663, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S.
Chauhan, elaborated the concept of Standard of Proof in a
criminal trial in the following terms:
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 9/27
“11. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give
flight to one’s imagination or fantasy. Crime is an event in real life
and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions.
In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
with commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by
the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of
witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend
upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that “human nature
is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of
strong suspicions.” Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt
the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal
evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not
permit the court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral
conviction or suspicion alone. “The burden of proof in a criminal
trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence.” In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof
required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict
the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel
and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce
an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the
facts and law. (Vide: Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh &
Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy & Ors.
Vs.State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377; and Aloke Nath Dutta
& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230).
12. In Sarwan Sigh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
SC 637, this court observed (Para12) :
“Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true;
but between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is inevitably a
long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be
covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence (before an
accused can be convicted.”
15. Furthermore, in the judgment of Sucha Singh and
Another Vs. State of Punjab, (2003 ) 7 SCC 643, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court explained the term beyond reasonable doubt
and observed as under:-
21. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not
nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy
social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it isState Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 10/27
better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting
guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See Gurbachan
Singh v. Satpal Singh and others, AIR 1990 SC 209 : 1990(1)
RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC)]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and
every hypothesis put forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. v.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 : 1992(3) RCR(Crl.) 63
(SC)]. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is
proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some
flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued
that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous
hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished,
many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. [See Inder Singh and
Anr. v. State of (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 1091)]. Vague hunches
cannot take place of judicial evaluation. “A judge does not preside
over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is
punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties.” (Per Viscount Simon in Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC) 315) quoted in State
of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998). Doubts would be called
reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law
cannot afford any favourite other than truth.
16. Accused namely Anita Devi, Laxmikant Shah and Pankaj
have been charged for the offences u/s 498A IPC while accused
namely Rakesh Kumar and Amarjeet have been charged for the
offences 498A/304/34 IPC.
17. Section 304 B which defines and provides the punishment
for dowry demand, reads as under:-
“304B. 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).
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 11/27
(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.”
Section 304B (1) defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It
provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is
caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances, within seven years of 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, in connection with demand for dowry. Subclause
(2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry
death.
18. In Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following essential
ingredients of 304B IPC. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereunder:-
“10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304B IPC, the
following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily
injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’;
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of
her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection
with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted
out to the woman soon before her death.”
19. Now, let us discuss if the prosecution has been able to
prove the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 304 B IPC
against the accused persons.
I. Death of a woman by burn or bodily injuries or
otherwise than a ‘normal circumstance’:
20. The first essential ingredient for the offence u/s 304 B IPC
is that the death of the woman should be caused by burns or
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 12/27
bodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normal circumstance’. As
per the postmortem report Ex. PW-8/A, the cause of death was
opined by the doctor as “asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem
hanging”. The fact that the deceased had committed suicide
leaves no doubt that the deceased had actually died by
committing suicide and her death was ‘otherwise than under
normal circumstances’. Therefore, the first ingredient of Section
304 B IPC is satisfied.
II. The death should have occurred within seven years of
marriage:
21. The second requirement to frame charge for offence u/s
304 B IPC is that the death of the woman should have occurred
within seven years of marriage. From the oral testimonies of PW-
1 Sh. Jai Shankar Kumar and PW-2 Smt. Amita Devi, brother and
mother of deceased respectively as well as the statements of the
accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C as well as the other documentary
evidence i.e. marriage photographs, it is not disputed that the
deceased Deepika was married with accused Rakesh Kumar
Shah on 01.02.2013. The deceased committed suicide on
21.02.2016. i.e. within a span of three years only. Therefore, it is
proved on the record that the deceased died within seven years of
her marriage. Accordingly, it is held that the second ingredient of
section 304B IPC also stands proved.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 13/27
III. The deceased woman must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment ‘by husband or any relative of
husband’:
22. The third ingredient of offence u/s 304B IPC is that the
deceased woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by husband or any relative of husband. In the
judgment of State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh (2014) 9SCC 632,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the previous case law on
the subject and elucidated the concept of ‘relative of husband’ for
the purpose of section 304 B IPC. The relevant observations are
reproduced here as under :- (SCC page 636 and 637)
“9. It is relevant here to state that the expression “relative of
the husband” has been used in Section 498-A of the I.P.C.
While interpreting the said expression, this Court in the case
of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr.(2009)
6 SCC 787 held it to mean a person related by blood, marriage
or adoption. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as
follows:
“10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term
“relative” must be assigned a meaning as is commonly
understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother,
husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or
niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the
spouse of any person. The meaning of the word “relative”
would depend upon the nature of the statute. It
principally includes a person related by blood, marriage
or adoption.”
10. The expression relative of the husband further came up for
consideration in the case of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of
Delhi (2010)11 SCC 618 and while approving the decision of
this Court in U. Suvetha (Supra), it was held that the word
relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the
relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the
following passage from the said judgment:
“12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word
“relative” and further relying on Ramanatha Aiyar’s,
Advance Law Lexicon (Vol.4, 3rd Edn.), the Court went
on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penalState Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 14/27
provision would deserve strict construction and unless a
contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute,
the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf
the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai vs.
CIT (2007) 7 SCC 162. A reference was made to the
decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma vs. State of M.P.
(2007) 15 SCC 369. After quoting from various decisions
of this Court, it was held that reference to the word
“relative” in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to
the blood relations or the relations by marriage.”
11. It is well known rule of construction that when the
Legislature uses same words in different part of the statute,
the presumption is that those words have been used in the
same sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find
anything in context to deviate from the general rule of
interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the
word “relative of the husband” in Section 304 B of the IPC
would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage
or adoption.”
23. In view of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, it is to
be seen whether the accused persons are the husband or any
relative of the husband. There is sufficient material on the record
also the statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C to hold that
accused Rakesh Kumar Shah is the husband of deceased and
accused persons namely Laxmi Kant Shah, Anita Devi, Amarjeet
and Pankaj Kumar Shah are the father in law, mother in law and
two brothers-in-law respectively of deceased. Accordingly, it is
held that all the accused fall within the purview of section 304B
IPC. Thus, the third essential ingredient of section 304 B IPC
also stands satisfied.
IV. Cruelty or harassment of the woman by husband or
relative for dowry in connection with the marriage :
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 15/27
V. Such cruelty or harassment for or in connection with
any demand for dowry should have taken place soon before
death:
24. Since the prosecution is required that the cruelty or
harassment in connection with demand of dowry has to take
place ‘soon before the death’ of the woman, one needs to
understand as to what the said expression means. The term “soon
before death” is an elastic term and no straight jacket formula or
fix criterion can be laid down. In the judgment of Kans Raj vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. (26.04.2000-SC): MANU/ SC/ 0296/
2000, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the term “soon
before death” in the following observations:-
“14. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that
the statements of the deceased referred to the instances could
not be termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon
before her death. “Soon before” is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific circumstances of each
case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing
any time limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not synonymous with
the term “immediately before” and is opposite of the
expression “soon after” as used and understood in Section 114,
Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply
that the interval should not be too long before the time of
making the statement and the death. It contemplates the
reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood
and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case.
In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the
existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not
restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course
of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.
If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to
have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon before death’ if
any other intervening circumstance showing the non -existence
of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged
such treatment and the date of death. It does not, however,
mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate
and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry
demand and the consequential death is required to be provedState Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 16/27
by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or
harassment based upon such demand and the date of death
should not be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.”
25. Hence, the term “soon before death” is an elastic term and
it does not specify any time duration before the death of the
bride. What it pre-supposes is that the demand of dowry must
have been a reasonable connection or nexus with the death and
the demand should have travelled for a reasonable period of time.
26. To prove the aforesaid two essential ingredients of Section
304B IPC, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Sh. Jai Shanker
Kumar and PW-2 Smt. Amita Devi, the brother and mother
respectively of deceased. The prosecution was required to prove
that the cruelty and harassment on the deceased was committed
by the husband or his relatives for dowry in connection with the
marriage and also that such cruelty or harassment should have
take place soon before the death of deceased.
27. PW-1 Sh. Jai Shanker Kumar deposed that in the month of
November-2015, Deepika had made a telephonic call to him and
informed him that accused Pankaj, Rakesh and Amarjeet used to
harass her, beat her and demand from her a cash of Rs. 1 lac.
In the cross-examination, he stated that accused persons
had demanded the said sum of Rs.1 lac for the purpose of
construction of the house as marriage of Amarjeet was going to
be solemnised. He denied that Deepika used to remain under
depression as she was in an illicit relationship with Amarjeet
about which Rakesh was not happy and did not want to keep
Deepika with him.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 17/27
28. PW-2 Smt. Amita Devi is the mother of deceased and the
complainant in this case. She deposed that after Deepika moved
to Delhi alongwith Rakesh and Amarjeet in the year 2014, they
continued abusing and beating Deepika for money. However, she
deposed that no specific amount was demanded by the accused.
He further deposed that in the year 2015, at the time of marriage
of Amarjeet, accused Pankaj told Deepika to bring cash of Rs.1
Lac from her house and she made a call to her and asked for
cash, but she stated to her that she would not be able to fulfill the
demand.
In the cross-examination, she stated that except November,
2015, she did not remember the exact date, month and year of
beatings and harassment meted out to her daughter by accused
Rakesh and Amarjeet. She also did not remember the time when
Deepika had telephonically informed her that the marriage of
accused Amarjeet had been fixed and accused Pankaj was
demanding Rs.1 lacs for the marriage of accused Amarjeet. She
denied that accused Rakesh had deposited a sum of Rs. 65,000/-
in her bank account through money transfer agent. She also
denied that all the conversation between the families were with
regard to the fact only that Deepika was in illicit relationship
with accused Amarjeet and accused Rakesh was not willing to
live with Deepika. She further denied that her daughter Deepika
was perturbed due to the fact only that accused Amarjeet was
going to be married and that she was in love with him and due to
depression, she committed suicide.
29. A careful perusal of the initial complaint of PW-2 Smt.
Amita Devi would reveal that there are no particulars or specific
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 18/27
instances where the cruelty or harassment was exerted upon the
deceased. As far as the demand of cash of Rs. 1 Lac is concerned,
specific instance has been mentioned in a manner that some
demand was raised in December, 2015 when the deceased had
come to reside with him on the occasion of marriage of her
younger sister Deeplata. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and
again laid down the law that vague allegations without any
specification details and particulars regarding the cruelty or
harassment or demand of dowry, would not be able to satisfy the
essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC and the prosecution
has to prove the specific instances with specific particulars.
30. In the judgment of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and
Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2024 INSC 737), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated and reaffirmed the relevant law
regarding making of general, vague and omnibus allegations. The
relevant observations are reproduced hereasunder:-
“10.1. The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegation
is noticed by this Court in many decisions. In Usha Chakraborty v.
State of W.B. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, this Court observed that:
16… the Respondent alleged commission of offences Under
Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B,
Indian Penal Code against the Appellants. A bare perusal of
the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as
adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that the allegations
are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to
constitute the alleged offences…. The ingredients to attract
the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature
of the allegations contained in the application filed by the
Respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the
Respondent had failed to make specific allegation against
the Appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences.
The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as
also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the
aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is
essentially of civil nature. The Appellants and the
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 19/27
Respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the
issue…
10.2. Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and
details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, this Court
observed that:
7….what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as
to the date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to
the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to
the date when the ornaments were asked back and were
refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned
in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint
that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of
the Appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us
more is that even in Para 10 of the complaint where the
complainant says that she asked for her clothes and
ornaments which were given to the Accused and they
refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent.”
31. In the aforesaid judgment of Kailashben (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court further held as under:-
“12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the
complainant’s brother accompanied her to the matrimonial house,
when the Appellants No. 1 and 3 are alleged to have refused to take
her back but on persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay.
There is also a vague allegation that, when the complainant gave birth
to a second child, Appellants 1 and 2 came and “quarrelled” with the
complainant, her brother, parents and threatened them. This Court had
occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus
allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes. In Mamidi Anil
Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127 this Court
observed that:
14. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses’
and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the
Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even
if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie
make out a case against the Appellants. The material on
record neither discloses any particulars of the offences
alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned
to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 20/27
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is
not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias
Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar
case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife
against her in- laws Under Section 498A and Ors. were
vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars.
The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the Accused
persons and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked,
would result in the abuse of the process of law.”
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aspect of vague,
general and omnibus allegations further observed as under:-
“13.1. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC
599 this Court noticed the injustice that may be caused
when parties are forced to go through tribulations of a trial
based on general and omnibus allegations. The relevant
portion of the observation is as under:
11. …in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the
country has also increased significantly and there is a
greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has
resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions
such as Section 498-A Indian Penal Code as
instruments to settle personal scores against the
husband and his relatives.
18…. upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-
4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
levelled against the Appellants. The complainant
alleged that “all Accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”.
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have
been made against either of the Appellants herein i.e.
none of the Appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general allegations
made against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each
Accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations
are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes… However, as far as the Appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 21/27
33. PW-1 Sh. Jai Shankar Kumar, brother of deceased in his
testimony deposed that in the month of November, 2015
deceased made a telephonic call to him and informed that
accused Pankaj, Rakesh and Amarjeet used to harass and demand
for cash of Rs.1 Lac. Further, PW-2 Amita Devi deposed that
accused Rakesh and Amarjeet after Deepika shifted to Delhi, had
continued abusing and taunting her for money, but she did not
depose any specific amount, which was demanded by accused.
She further deposed that at the time of marriage, accused Pankaj
told Deepika to bring cash of Rs.1 Lac from her house. She
further went on to depose that except November, 2015 she did
not remember any specific particulars of any taunting or
harassment to her daughter by accused Rakesh and Amarjeet.
What transpired from their testimonies is that a sum of Rs. 1 Lac
was demanded by the family of accused persons after the
marriage of accused Amarjeet was fixed. PW-1 Sh. Jai Shankar
Kumar deposed that the marriage of accused Amarjeet was fixed
for 24.04.2016. Thus, even if we consider the year 2015 when the
demand of Rs. 1 Lac was placed then the same comes to almost
six months prior to the proposed marriage of accused Amarjeet
on 24.04.2016. No other instances has been specified by the
accused persons when the said demand of Rs. 1 Lac was again
reiterated by them. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 has deposed anything
if any demand was raised after November, 2015. Therefore, it
appears that the said last demand even if was made, it was made
six months before the proposed date of marriage of accused
Amarjeet. The deceased committed suicide on 01.02.2013. Thus,
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 22/27
there is a difference of about four months approximately from the
demand of Rs. 1 Lac from the deceased and her death. There is
nothing also in the testimonies of the witnesses that the said
demand was also kept going on till the time so soon before the
death of deceased, which could have had a reasonable nexus with
the deceased. Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 deposed that the said
demand of Rs. 1 Lac continued after November, 2015. It is also
not the case of prosecution that the deceased was harassed or
meted with the cruelty in connection with the said demand of Rs.
1 Lac even after November, 2015. In the judgment of Kans Raj
(supra), it has been held that whether the demand of dowry
connected with the cruelty or harassment which took place so
soon before the death or not is not a straight-jacket formula but is
an elastic term. Whether the demand was made soon before death
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, the said demand of dowry has to have a reasonable
connection with the death. The settled law is that there should be
a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the consequential death. The time gap
between the two should not be too remote in time which under
the circumstances be treated as having become stale enough.
Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment of Kans Raj
(supra), the so called demand by the accused persons of Rs. 1
Lac from deceased in the month of November, 2015 four months
before the death death of deceased, cannot be said to have a
proximity or live link between the cruelty meted to the deceased
and her consequential death. Thus, it cannot be safely concluded
that the said demand has a proximate and live link in connection
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 23/27
with the death of deceased. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion
that the cruelty or harassment to the deceased in the month of
November, 2015 has not taken place “soon before the death’ and
thus, this essential ingredient of section 304B IPC is not proved
by the prosecution.
34. Moreover, the court is of the opinion that apart from this
allegation of demand of dowry in November-2015, other
allegations with respect to alleged cruelty/harassment are
general, vague and omnibus. No specific particulars regarding
the date, time and month have been given for taunting the
deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry as well as the beatings
the deceased had to endure at the hands of the accused persons.
PW-2 had deposed that except the incident of November-2015,
she did not remember the particulars of other cruelty and
harassment. She also did not remember when Deepika had
telephonically informed about the fixing of marriage of Amarjeet
and demand of Rs. 1 Lac by co-accused Pankaj. Thus, it can be
safely concluded that the allegations raised and deposed by the
prosecution witnesses are vague, general and omnibus allegations
and they lack specific particular of the instances of cruelty or
harassment upon the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that the
prosecution has failed beyond reasonable doubt that any cruelty
or harassment of the deceased for dowry in connection with the
marriage, had taken place soon before her death, which could
have proximate or live link with her death. Therefore, it is held
that the prosecution has failed to prove last two essential
ingredients of Section 304B IPC against the accused persons and
thus, section 304B IPC has not been proved against the accused
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 24/27
persons. Accordingly, accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar
Shah and Amarjeet stand acquitted from the offence u/s
304B/34 IPC.
35. As far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, it is to be seen
whether a married woman has been subjected to cruelty by her
husband or relatives of her husband either for harassment with a
view to coerce meeting a demand of dowry or willful conduct by
her husband or his relative of such a nature as is likely to lead the
lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb
or health. For the purpose of Section 498A, the cruelty can be
either physical or mental.
36. To decide whether the prosecution has been able to prove
Section 498A IPC, the testimonies of PW-1 Sh. Jai Shankar
Kumar and PW-2 Smt. Amita Devi, brother and mother
respectively of the deceased are important. The court has already
discussed the evidence on the record in the previous paragraphs
of the judgment. As already discussed hereinbefore, the
allegations of cruelty and harassment as deposed by PW-1 and
PW-2 are vague, general and omnibus. They lack the specific
particulars as to time, date and month. None of PW-1 and PW-2
has deposed about the specific time of the instances when the
deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment.
37. Moreover, PW-1 and PW-2 did not depose about any
cruelty or harassment having been committed by any of the
accused persons of such a nature which have been prescribed in
Section 498A IPC. Rather their testimonies would show that
there are no specific incidents of cruelty or harassment. Both the
said two witnesses have not deposed anything about the same.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 25/27
There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the accused
persons willfully conducted themselves in such a manner, which
was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and she was
harassed with a view to coerce her or any family member to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or the
conduct was on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet any such demand. Thus, this court has no hesitation
in holding that not a scintilla of evidence has come on record to
prove the charge u/s 498A IPC against the accused persons.
Accordingly, all accused persons also stand acquitted for the
offence u/s 498 A IPC as well.
Conclusion:
38. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove charges against all the
accused persons and thus, failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, all the accused persons namely
Rakesh Kumar Shah, Amarjeet, Anita Devi, Laxmi Kant
Shah and Pankaj Kumar Shah stand acquitted from the
offence u/s 498A/34 IPC. Further, accused Rakesh Kumar
Shah and Amarjeet also stand acquitted from the offence u/s
304/B IPC.
39. Earlier Bail bonds of all the accused persons stand
discharged. The original documents of their previous respective
sureties, if any be returned to them after cancellation of
endorsement and upon the identification of the sureties.
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 26/27
40. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437 A Cr.P.C of all the
accused are extended for a period of six months for the purpose
of Section 437A Cr.P.C. After the expiry of six months, their bail
bonds shall stand cancelled and surety bonds discharged.
Original documents of sureties, if any be returned after
cancellation of endorsement and upon the identification of the
sureties. Case property, if any be destroyed after the expiry of
period of appeal.
41. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
HEM HEM RAJ
Date:
Pronounced in the open
RAJ 2025.01.16
16:26:56
+0530
Court on 16.01.2025 (HEM RAJ)
Addl. Sessions Judge-08 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
State Vs Rakesh Kumar Shah & Ors SC No. 57897/2016 FIR No.180/2016 27/27