Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu Kushwaha on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03/SPECIAL JUDGE
(COMPANIES ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW01-006720-2022
SC No. : 502/2022
State Vs. : Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR No. : 267/2022
U/s. : 498A/304B/34 IPC
P.S. : Janak Puri
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW01-006720-2022
2. Date of commission of offence : 01.05.2018 to
02.03.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 31.05.2022
4. Date of committal to Sessions Court : 05.07.2022
5. Name of the complainant : Sh. Harprasad
Kushwaha
6. Name of accused, parentage &
address : (1) Sonu Kushwaha,
S/o Sh. Hariya
Kushwaha,
R/o Village Kachiya
Khera, P.O. Aahar,
District Tikamgarh,
M.P.
(2) Hali Kushwaha,
W/o Sh. Hariya
Kushwaha,
R/o Village Kachiya
Khera, P.O. Aahar,
District Tikamgarh,
M.P.
7. Offences complained of
in the chargsheet : 498A/304B/34 IPC
8. Offences under which charges
were framed : 498A/304B/34 IPC
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 1 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
9. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
10. Date on which order was reserved: 07.03.2025
11. Date of final order : 11.03.2025
12. Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. The Criminal law machinery was set into motion on
receiving DD No.45A dated 01.03.2022 at PS Janak Puri
regarding admission of patient Raj Kumari by her husband Sonu
who consumed some unknown substance, same was marked to SI
Sanjeet Singh who reached DDU hospital wherein one Raj
Kumari was found admitted in hospital who ingested some
unknown substance. No fresh injury was seen on her body
during her medical examination and she was admitted in hospital
by her husband Sonu, who is one of the accused. Raj Kumari
was not found fit to give statement. During inquiry, it was found
that Raj Kumari was married to Sonu in May, 2018 i.e. three
years prior to the incident and they were permanent residents of
Tikam Garh, Madhya Pradesh and had come to Delhi for work.
They were working as labourers for last few month in Delhi. On
02.03.2022 while receiving treatment, she expired.
2. On 03.03.2022, Sh. Harprasad Kushwaha, father of
deceased Raj Kumari alongwith Prem Bai, sister of deceased and
her husband came to the police station. Statement of father of
deceased was recorded by concerned SDM wherein he stated that
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 2 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
he had six children i.e. four daughters and two sons. Raj Kumari
was his youngest daughter who got married to Sonu three years
back. One son was born out of their wedlock. At the time of
marriage of Raj Kumari, her in-laws had demanded dowry. After
marriage, in-laws of Raj Kumari used to give beatings to her.
Whenever she used to come to their house, she used to tell them
that her in-laws used to beat her for dowry and used to torture
her. On 01.03.2022 at about 3.00 pm, accused Sonu called him
and made him talk to his daughter Raj Kumari. While he was
talking to his daughter, he heard that Sonu had slapped his
daughter and thereafter disconnected the phone. Despite trying
repeatedly, the phone could not be connected again. On
02.03.2022, Bihari i.e. nephew of Harprasad called Raj Kumari.
Phone was picked and it was told that Raj Kumari had expired.
He suspected that in-laws of Raj Kumari had killed her.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of father of the
deceased, FIR was registered under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
Investigation was carried out. Postmortem of the body of
deceased was conducted and thereafter, dead body of Raj Kumari
was handed over to her father. Husband and mother-in-law of
deceased i.e. accused Sonu Kushwaha and Hali Kushwaha were
arrested respectively and after completion of investigation,
chargesheet was filed against the accused persons.
4. Supplementary chargesheet was filed wherein the manner
of death was opined to be ‘suicidal’ and cause of death was
opined to be caused by complications of unknown/uncommon
substance followed by its consumption/intake by deceased. In
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 3 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
the said supplementary chargesheet, CDR of Mobile
No.8851408339 in the name of Sonu Kushwaha was filed in the
Court.
Charges
5. After committal, charge under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC
was framed on 12.09.2022 against the accused persons to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Matter was thereafter listed for prosecution evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
7. Prosecution cited as many as 15 witnesses in the main
chargesheet and 4 witnesses in the supplementary chargesheet,
out of which 17 witnesses have been examined. Since accused
persons admitted seizure memo of viscera and sample seal, the
witness pertaining to aforesaid document was dropped in view of
the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 294
CrPC.
8. PW-1 Sh. Har Prasad Kushwaha is father of the deceased.
He deposed as under:-
“I am residing in abovesaid address along with my
family. I had 6 children out of which 4 were
daughters and two are sons. Deceased Raj Kumari
was my last daughter. About 4 years back, I got
married my daughter Raj Kumari with accused
Sonu who is present in the Court today (Correctly
identified). Due to said wedlock, they had one son
namely Rahul. I had given the dowry and other
items in marriage on my own wish. After marriage,SC no.502/2022 Page No. 4 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
my daughter had stayed in the house of her in-laws
at their native village, thereafter, my daughter
started residing with accused in Delhi. My
daughter was killed by accused persons. I do not
know the reason why the accused persons had
killed my daughter. My nephew namely Bihari had
informed us about the death of my daughter and
we came to Delhi, where, we had given our
statement to SDM. My statement is Ex.PW1/A
bearing my thumb impression at point A. I had
identified dead body of my daughter at DDU
Hospital. My statement in this regard is Ex.PW1/B
bearing my thumb impression at point A. After
postmortem, dead body was handed over to us vide
receipt Ex.PW1/C bearing my thumb impression at
point A.”
During deposition of PW-1, he was put some leading
questions by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission
of the Court, wherein he stated as under:
“It is correct that I had given the dowry to accused
persons as per the asking of my daughter’s in-laws.
It is correct that after marriage my daughter Raj
Kumari was beaten by her in-laws. It is correct
that when my daughter Raj Kumari used to come
to my house, she used to say us that both accused
persons used to beat her for the purpose of dowry.
It is correct that on 01.03.2022 at about 03:00 PM
my son-in-law i.e. accused Sonu had called me
through telephone and informed me to talk with
my daughter, and when my daughter had started
talking to me, I heard the noise that accused Sonu
had slapped my daughter and also disconnected the
phone. It is correct that thereafter, I had tried to
phone to my daughter but the phone of accused
was found switched off. It is correct that my
nephew Bihari had called to the house of accused
and he was informed that my daughter was dead at
hospital. It is correct that immediately my nephewSC no.502/2022 Page No. 5 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
Bihari had informed us and thereafter, we came to
Delhi. Since I was illiterate, I was unable to state
entire incident on my own. Accused Sonu and his
mother Hali Kushwaha are present in Court today
(Correctly identified).”
PW-1 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for
accused persons.
9. PW-2 Smt. Prem Bai is sister of deceased. She deposed as
under:
I am having three sisters and two brothers.
Deceased Raj Kumari was my younger sister. Raj
Kumari got married with accused Sonu about 3
years prior to her death. After her marriage, my
sister Raj Kumari along with her husband Sonu
had came to Delhi. The in-laws of my sister in
Ahaar. My sister Raj Kumari had stated me on
phone that accused Sonu used to consume liquor
and used to beat her as my father had not given
dowry and he also asked to bring amount and for
this reason, he used to harass her physically and
mentally. My brother Bablu had informed me to
come to Delhi as my sistered had expired. I had
came to Delhi along with my father. I met accused
Sonu and questioned him about the death of my
sister and accused Sonu had not given any answer
to me. Dead body of my sister was handed over to
my father. I came to know that accused Sonu had
killed my sister. I came to know about this fact as
my father told me that last time when he talked
with my sister telephonically, then, my sister could
speak only few word like, “Papa………..” and
thereafter, he heard some noise like slapping and
then, phone might have been fell down or switched
off and thereafter, her phone could not connected
and remained switched off. Accused Sonu and her
mother Hali Kushwaha are present in Court today
(Correctly identified).
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 6 of 35
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
PW-2 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
10. PW-3 Sh. Vrijanandi Kushwaha is brother-in-law of
deceased. He deposed as under:-
“I am residing at abovesaid address along with my
wife and my parents. Deceased Raj Kumari was
my sister-in-law. Raj Kumari got married with
accused Sonu S/o Sh. Hai Ram in year 2019 at
Ahaar, Village Kachiya Khera, Tikamgarh, M.P.
My father-in-law namely Sh. Har Prasad had
informed me that Raj Kumari used to tell him that
her in-laws i.e. accused persons used to drink
liquor and used to beat her and also asked her to
bring money and dowry for this reason, she was
harassed physically and mentally. I do not know
the exact date, but it might be in the month of
February, 2022, one person namely Bihari my
brother-in-law who used to live in Delhi had
informed to my father-in-law that Raj Kumari was
admitted in hospital, where, she was expired and
my father-in-law informed to me. I along with my
wife and father-in-law came to Delhi and reached
at hospital. Where I identified the dead body of Raj
Kumari. IO recorded my statement Ex.PW3/A
bearing my signature at point A and the dead body
was handed over us vide memo Ex.PW1/C.”
During deposition of PW-3, he was put some leading
questions by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission
of the Court, wherein he stated as under:
“It is correct that on 02.03.2022 at about 08:00
AM, my father-in-law had called me and stated
that to come to his village as she came to know
that Raj Kumari was beaten by accused Sonu and
Raj Kumari was admitted in hospital. Thereafter, I
along with my wife came to Chhobara village. It
is correct that phone call was received from BabluSC no.502/2022 Page No. 7 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
who had stated that he had received phone call and
stated that Raj Kumari had expired. It is correct
that I had stated to the police that my sister-in-law
Raj Kumari was died due to the harassment and
beatings for the purpose of demanding dowry. I am
unable to state the abovesaid facts on my own as I
am unable to recollect the facts of the case.
Acucsed Sonu and his mother Hali Kushwaha are
present in Court today (Correctly identified).”
PW-3 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
11. PW-4 Sh. Radhey Shyam deposed as under:
“I am a private contractor. In the month of March,
2022, my work was going on at two sites. One
was at BL-44, Hari Nagar, Delhi and other was at
B3/102, Janakpuri, Delhi.
Deceased Raj Kumari was residing in a jhuggi near
to my site B-3/102, Janakpuri alongwith her
husband Sonu. On 01.03.2022, I started my work
to be done by the labour at the site B-3/102,
Janakpuri and left for my other site i.e. BL-44. I
came back to the site at B-3/102 and came to know
that Sonu had taken his wife Raj Kumari to
Hospital as she was having stomach pain. After
two days, I came to know that Raj Kumari had
died.
Accused Sonu is present in the Court today
(correctly identified).”
During deposition of PW-4, he was put one leading
question by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of
the Court, wherein he stated as under:
“It is correct that my site was A-3/102, Janakpuri.
I stated B-3/102 by mistake.”
PW-4 was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 8 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
persons.
12. PW-5 Dr. Kumar Vikram deposed as under:
“On 01.03.2022 I was posted as Jr. Resident at
DDU Hospital. On that day, injured Raj Kumari
W/o Sonu aged about 20 years was brought to
hospital by her husband Sonu with alleged history
of ingestion of unknown substance (? insecticide).
She was medically examined vide MLC
No.001719. Same is on record is now exhibited as
Ex.PW5/A bearing my signature at point-A.
Sample of gastric lavage was collected, labeled
and sealed with my seal and handed over to the
IO.”
PW-5 was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
13. PW-6 Dr. Akash Rawat deposed as under:
“On 02.03.2022, I was performing my duty at
DDU Hospital as JR, Department of Medicine,
DDU Hospital. In the present case, I had prepared
the death summary of deceased Raj Kumari.
On 01.03.2022, she had come to Casualty with the
history of ingestion of some unknown substance.
At about 7.45 pm, patient was received by me.
She was on ventilator and was non-responsive. She
continued to be on ventilator till 02.03.2022. On
02.03.2022 at about 11.30 am, she had carido
pulmonary arrest, however, despite repeated
efforts, she was unable to revive and declared
‘dead’ on 02.03.0222 at about 12.10 pm. Detailed
death summary is Ex.PW6/A which bears my
signature at point-A.”
PW-6 was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 9 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
persons.
14. PW-7 Dr. Nishita Goel deposed as under:
“On 04.03.2022, I was posted in the Department of
Forensic and Medicine, DDU Hospital. Dead
body of one Raj Kumari, aged about 20 years was
produced before me and I had conducted the
postmortem of deceased. As per report, the history
of facts was that on 01.03.2022 at about 12.58 pm,
deceased was brought to the hospital vide MLC
No.1719/22 wherein she was admitted and treated
and on 02.03.2022 at about 12.10 pm, she expired
during the course of treatment. On my
examination, I found that there were external
injuries which were as follows:
(i) Contusion, reddish, of size 4 cm x 4 cm,
present over head situated over vertex.
(ii) Contusion, reddish, of size 3 cm x 3 cm,
present over left side of face, situated over chin, 1
cm outer to chin.
(iii) Contusion, reddish, of size 6 cm x 4 cm,
present over left side of neck, situated just below
mandible and 5 cm outer to midline. Three
cresentric abrasions, of size 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm,
present within the contused area. On exploration,
effusion of blood present in strap muscles of neck
on both sides. On further exploration, effusion of
blood present in deep muscles of neck.
(iv) Multiple abrasions, reddish, present in an
area of size 10 cm x 7 cm, present over right side
of neck, with size ranging from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to
0.8 cm to 0.2 cm.
The detailed postmortem report is Ex.PW7/A
which bears my signature at point-A on each
pages. The cause of death and manner of death
was kept pending till the report of blood and
viscera, however, physical assault prior to the
death cannot be ruled out in the present case. After
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 10 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
conducting the postmortem, the samples of viscera
and blood were handed over to the IO.”
PW-7 was duly cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused
persons.
15. PW-8 HC Vikram deposed as under:
“On 08.04.2022, I was posted at PS Janakpuri as
constable. On that day, I was on Beat Patrolling
Duty. I received a call from IO to collect Viscera,
Sample Seal, FSL Form and Gastic Lavage and to
sent the same to Rohini, FSL. I collected the said
case property from MHC(M) vide RC No.
31/21/22 dated 08.04.2022 and went to FSL
Rohini. During this period the case property was in
my safe custody and properly sealed and the case
property was not tempered at any point of time. I
deposited the said case property at FSL Rohini
vide Acknowledgement No. FSL: SFSL(DLH)/
4018/ CHEM/1294/22 Memo No. 719. I handed
over the said acknowledge with MHC(M). Said
RC No. 31/21/22 is on record and same is now
Ex.PW8/A. FSL Acknowledgement is on record
and same is now Ex.PW8/B.”
PW-8 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for
accused persons.
16. PW-9 ASI Raj Kumar deposed as under:
“On 03.03.2022, while I was posted as ASI at PS
Janak Puri and was on duty as Duty Officer from
04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight. On that day, at about
06.15 PM, SI Sanjeet brought a Tehrir, on the basis
of the Tehrir I got FIR No. 267/2022 registered.
The FIR was registered through computers
installed at PS Janakpuri and the data was fed into
it at my directions which was purely based uponSC no.502/2022 Page No. 11 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
the tehrir brought by SI Sanjeet. I had also made
my endorsement to this effect on Tehrir. After
registration of the FIR I had handed over the copy
of FIR and Tehrir to Insp. Shiv Karan for further
necessary action as further investigation as marked
to him. Today I had brought original FIR Register.
Photocopy of FIR already placed on record is
Ex.PW9/A (OSR) bearing my signature at point A.
My endorsement on Tehrir is Ex.PW9/B bearing
my signature at point A. I also gave certificate u/s
65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is now
Ex.PW9/C bears my signature at point A.”
17. PW-10 SI Sanjeet Singh deposed as under:
“On 01.03.2022, I was posted at PS Janakpuri as
SI. On that day, I was on day emergency duty from
08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. On that day at about 01:45
PM, I received an information vide DD No. 45A
that one Smt. Raj Kumari W/o Sh. Sonu was
admitted at DDU Hospital. I went to hospital and
found that Smt. Raj Kumari was undergoing
treatment and she was not in a state to give
statement. Her husband Sonu was also present
there and I inquired about the incident from him.
Sonu told me that my wife called me and told me
that she is not feeling well. Thereafter, he went to
his house and picked his wife and came to DDU
Hospital for her treatment. In the meanwhile,
doctor gave sealed Pullanda of gastric lavage and
sample seal. The same were seized by me vide
seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at
point A. I took the details of the family members
of the Smt. Raj Kumari and thereafter made a call
to Sh. Bablu who informed me that Sonu had
already told about the medical condition of Smt.
Raj Kumari.
On 02.03.2022, I received an information vide
DD No. 56A that patient Smt. Raj Kumari had
expired. Family members of the deceased wereSC no.502/2022 Page No. 12 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
informed. By the time, I reached at DDU Hospital
the dead body was already shifted to mortuary by
hospital staff. Family members of deceased Raj
Kumari informed me that they will be able to come
to Delhi on next day as they are native of Madhya
Pradesh. SDM concerned was informed about the
demise of Smt. Raj Kumari.
On 03.03.2022, I was at PS, at that time father
of deceased namely Har Prasad, sister of deceased
Prem Bai and brother-in-law of deceased namely
Brijnand Kushwaha came to PS and met me.
Father and sister of deceased were produced before
concerned SDM. Father of the deceased gave his
statement in front of SDM that his daughter was
tortured by in-laws and for the demand of dowry.
After obtaining the statements I again came back
to PS and informed the SHO. Case was registered
under Section 498-A/304-B/34 IPC on the
directions of the SHO and further investigation of
present case was marked to Inspector Shiv Karan.
On 04.03.2022, I went to DDU hospital,
where postmortem of deceased was got conducted.
My statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by
Insp. Shiv Karan.
Case property was deposited in the
Malkhana.
Accused Sonu is present in the Court today
(Correctly identified).”
PW-10 was duly cross examined by learned counsel for
accused persons.
18. PW-11 Dr. Adarsh Mishra deposed as under:
“On 04.03.2022 on the request of the IO, I went to
DDU Hospital, where, I conducted theSC no.502/2022 Page No. 13 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
photography and videography of the postmortem
of deceased vide PMR No. 369/2022. After
conducting the photography and videography, I
had prepared hard copy of photographs and DVD
containing photographs and videography of
postmortem procedure and handed over the same
along with certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act to IO.
At this stage, 21 photographs available on
record are shown to witness. Witness identified the
same. Said 21 photographs are now Ex.PW11/A
(Colly).
At this stage, DVD available on record is
played in the computer system installed in the
Court room. Witness identified the videos and
photos in said DVD. Said DVD is now Ex.P1.
Certificate u/s 65-B of I.E. Act is now
Ex.PW11/B bearing my signature at point A.”
PW-11 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
19. PW-12 Insp. Shiv Kumar deposed as under:
“On 03.03.2022, I was posted at PS Janak Puri as
Inspector Investigation. The present case was
marked to me for further investigation by the SHO.
I recorded statement of sister of deceased Prem
and her husband namely Brija Nandi. I
interrogated accused Sonu Kushwaha and he was
arrested by me after interrogation vide arrest
memo Ex.PW12/A bearing my signature at point
A. Personal search of the accused was conducted
vide memo Ex.PW12/B bearing my signature at
point A.On 04.03.2022, postmortem of the deceased Raj
Kumari was got conducted. The body of theSC no.502/2022 Page No. 14 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
deceased was handed over to her father. Accused
Sonu Kushwaha was produced before the
concerned court and was sent to JC.
During investigation, I took copy of the marriage
card of the deceased Raj Kumari with accused
Sonu. The same is Mark A. Accused Hali
Kushwaha was also interrogated. On 11.04.2022,
the exhibits were sent to FSL. Site-plan was
prepared of the house of the deceased. The same is
Ex.PW12/C bearing my signature at point A.
Statement of the contractor namely Radhey Shyam
was recorded. The deceased used to work with the
said contractor. I prepared the draft charge-sheet
and thereafter I was transferred from PS Janak
Puri. Both the accused persons are present in the
court and correctly identified by the witness.”
PW-12 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
20. PW-13 Sh. Pankaj Roy Gupta deposed as under:
“On 18.09.2020, I joined as SDM Dwarka and was
posted there till 19.08.2022. I received a call from
IO that one lady had expired in DDU Hospital. I
do not remember the exact date when said call was
received. I went to the hospital on the same day
during late hours. I do not remember the exact time
when I visited the hospital. I was also informed
that her marriage took place three years back. I
directed the police official to call the crime team
and the FSL team to reach to the spot. The parents
of the deceased were informed about her demise.
On the next day, father of the deceased namely Har
Prasad Kushwaha came to my office and I
recorded his statement, same is already Ex.PW1/A
bearing my signature at point B and my stamp at
point C. Har Prasad Kushwaha was a very poor
person. He also informed that his wife was
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 15 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
severely ill and not in condition to walk. However,
he was accompanied by some relative. I directed
SHO PS Janak Puri to register FIR in the present
case on the basis of said statement and to take
action as per law.
The postmortem of the deceased Raj Kumari was
got conducted at DDU Hospital as per my
instructions.”
During deposition of PW-13, he was put one leading
question by learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of
the Court, wherein he stated as under:
“It is correct that I received a call from the police
on 02.03.2022 and I recorded the statement of
father of the deceased on 03.03.2022.”
PW-13 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
21. PW-14 Insp. Dinesh Kumar deposed as under:
” In the month of May 2022, I was posted at PS
Janak Puri. The present case was marked to me for
further investigation by the SHO. I collected the
case file from the MHCR. After perusal of the
present file, I came to know that the investigation
of the present case is almost complete and accused
Sonu Kushwaha was in JC. Thereafter, I prepared
the charge-sheet and filed the same before the
concerned court. I also filed supplementary charge-
sheet qua the subsequent opinion, FSL report and
the CDR of accused Sonu Kushwaha in the present
case. Copy of the same has been supplied to
accused persons today only. Both accused persons
are present in the court and correctly identified by
the witness.”
PW-14 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 16 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
persons.
22. PW-15 Sh. Prem Pal Singh deposed as under:
“I am posted at FSL Rohini since year 1999.
Presently, I am working there as Senior Scientific
Officer, Chemistry. I had examined parcel 1 i.e.
one sealed parcel labeled as MLC no. 1719, Raj
Kumari containing one empty jar containing
gastric lavage. I had also examined parcel 3
containing viscera of Raj Kumari. On chemical
microscopic examination, I found out that metallic
poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide,
phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers
and pesticides could not be detected in the
exhibits. I have prepared a report dated 25.10.2023
in this regard, same is Ex.PW15/A bearing my
signature and stamp at point A and B respectively.
”
PW-15 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
23. PW-16 Sh. Parveen Kumar deposed as under:
“I am working as a Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio,
since January, 2018. My office received notice
under Section 92 Cr.PC for providing certified
copy of CDR and CAF of mobile number
8851408339 which was received by me. Same is
Mark A.Today, I have brought the CAF along with
documents of mobile number 8851408339 is in the
name of Sonu Kushwaha S/o Sh. Hariya
Kushwaha bears my signature and company stamp
at point A.i.e. I have also brought the copy of
documents attached with the CAF i.e. copy of
Aadhar Card. The said CAF is Ex.PW16/A. I have
also brought CDR of mobile number 8851408339
bears my signature and company stamp at point A
and B on each page. The said CDR is Ex.PW16/B
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 17 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
(colly-27 pages). The certificate under Section 65B
of IEA with regard to abovesaid bears my
signature and company stamp at point A. Same is
now Ex.PW16/C. I have also brought the location
chart of mobile number 8851408339. Same is
Ex.PW16/D bears my signature and stamp of the
company at point A. ”
PW-16 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
24. PW-17 Dr. B.N. Mishra deposed as under:
“On 27.03.2024, I was posted at DDU Hospital as
HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU
Hospital. On that day, IO/Insp. Dinesh Kumar
moved an application along with PM Report No.
369/2022, photographs of the postmortem, FSL
report dated 25.10.2023, MLC No. 001719, Death
Summary and the statements of the relatives of the
deceased seeking subsequent opinion regarding
cause of death and the manner of death of the
deceased. After going through all the medical
record and the photographs, I gave my subsequent
opinion that –
(1) the cause of death could be caused by
complications of unknown / uncommon poisonous
substance followed by its consumption/ intake by
deceased.
(2) the manner of death appears to be suicidal in
nature.
(3) the injuries in the form of abrasions/ contusions
could be postmortem artefact (artefact referred as
the changing of the finding on the dead body like
false simulation of injuries by manner of biting of
some insects, rodents and other reasons) as the
same injuries were not observed by the doctors
who made MLC, treating doctors of DDU Hospital
and absence of such injuries on the photographs
which were taken during postmortem examination.
My subsequent opinion is Ex.PW17/A
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 18 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
bearing my signature at point A.”
PW-17 was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for accused
persons.
25. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
Statement under Section 313 CrPC and Defence Evidence
26. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused persons
was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence which came
on record during prosecution evidence, was put to them which
they denied.
27. In response to question “Do you want to say anything
about this case? “, accused Sonu Kushwaha stated as under:
” I have been falsely implicated by police. My wife
was having an affair with one person named
Nandu, who was a Raj Mishtri and was working
with contractor Radhey Shyam where my wife was
also working as guard. Nandu used to come at our
house. I met him on some occasion when he
brought chocolate for my son. On one occasion, I
found my wife talking to Nandu over phone and
when I checked her phone, I found their videos and
photographs in my wife’s mobile phone. On that
day, my wife told me that this is the last time when
she had talked to Nandu and this would not happen
again. On 28.02.2022, when I came back to my
home after half day work, I found Nandu along
with my wife at my home in a compromising
position and at that time, I confronted my wife to
which she stated that this thing will never happen
again. I also made a call to my father-in-law at the
very same day and he also promised me that she
would not do such act again.
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 19 of 35
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
On 01.03.2022, I was working at my work place,
when I received a phone call of my wife from an
unknown number and she told me that she is not
feeling well and asked me to come home. I took
permission from contractor Radhey Shyam to go
back to my home and thereafter I went home.
Upon reaching home, I saw the condition of my
wife and thereafter I took her to the hospital. While
on my way to hospital, I asked my wife about what
had happened to which she replied that Nandu
came home in the morning after I left for work and
started showing my photos and videos and
threatened me that he will show these to you and
other workers. Thereafter, Nandu also gave
beatings to her and left. My wife also told me that
she got very depressed due to Nandu’s acts and she
consumed a liquid bottle which was kept at home
and thereafter her condition started getting bad. I
have informed about Nandu to the IO and also
gave Nandu’s phone number 8587032590 and his
address which is Village Prithvipur, District
Tikamgarh, MP and requested the IO to investigate
in the matter but he paid no heed to my request. I
am not involved in the death of my wife in any
manner.”
28. In response to question “Do you want to say anything
about this case? “, accused Hali Kushwaha stated as under:
” I have been falsely implicated by police. I was
not residing in Delhi with my son and my
daughter-in-law at the time of incident i.e. on
01.03.2022. Around 8-9 months prior to the death
of my daughter-in-law, my son and my daughter-
in-law came to Delhi in search of work and since
then they were working and residing in Delhi in a
jhuggi which was very small. For around said 8-9
months, they had resided in Delhi and never came
to the village in Tikamgarh at any point of time. I
stayed back at Village as I have small agricultural
land. I never demanded any dowry from theSC no.502/2022 Page No. 20 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
parents of my daughter-in-law. I am not
responsible for her death. No dowry was ever
given at the time of my son’s marriage with
deceased.”
29. Accused persons have examined only one witness i.e.
DW-1 Sh. Mathura in their defence.
30. DW-1 Sh. Mathura deposed as under:
“Accused Sonu Kushwaha is my neighbour. His
mother accused Hali Kushwaha was residing at
Village Kachiya Khera, Distt. Tikamgarh, M.P at
the time when accused Sonu Kushwaha residing at
Delhi with his wife. At the time of demise of wife
of accused Sonu Kushwaha, accused Hali
Kushwaha was residing in village Kachiya Khera
alongwith her husband in the year 2022.”
Thereafter defence evidence was closed.
Arguments on behalf of parties
31. Ld. Addl. PP for the State had argued that PW-1 Sh.
Harprasad Kushwaha, father of the deceased, PW-2 Ms. Prem
Bai, sister of deceased and PW-3 Sh.Vrijanandi Kushwaha,
brother-in-law of deceased have duly supported the prosecution
case and have proved that deceased Raj Kumari was tortured for
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Ld. Addl. PP for the State
had further argued that due to the harassment, she was forced to
consume some poisonous substance due to which she died and
therefore, both the accused persons be convicted for the offence
under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC.
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 21 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
32. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused persons had
argued that deposition of PW-1 to PW-3 is unspecific and vague.
He had further argued that there is no specific detail in respect of
the demand of dowry. Ld. Counsel had further argued that the
testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 is not sufficient to convict the
accused persons. He had further argued that deceased Raj
Kumari used to talk with one Nandu which was objected to by
accused Sonu and she was never harassed for demand of dowry
or in connection therewith. He had argued that accused Hali
Kushwaha was not residing with accused Sonu Kushwaha and
deceased Raj Kumari in Delhi at any point of time and both of
them had shifted to Delhi at least 7-8 months before the incident.
Ld. Counsel for accused persons had argued that there is nothing
on record in order to establish that accused persons have
committed the offence under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC and
therefore, they be acquitted.
33. I have heard arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the
State and ld. Counsel for accused persons and have perused the
record carefully.
Analyisis, Reasoning & Findings
34. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every
ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance in
this regard is placed on Nasir Sikander Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra (SC) 2005 Crl.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh vs. State
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 22 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
of Punjab (SC) 1996 (1) RCR 465 .
35. The relevant provisions of law which are relevant for the
purposes of deciding this case are as follows:
“304-B. Dowry death-(l) 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 purposes of this sub-section
“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(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.”
36. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 defines
“dowry” as under :
“2. Definition of “dowry”-In this Act, “dowry” means
any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly –
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
marriage, or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
any other person, to either party to the marriage or to
an other person.
At or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of said parties, but does
not include Dower or Mahr in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 23 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
declared that any presents made at the time of a
marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of
cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be
deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this
section, unless they are made as consideration for the
marriage of the said parties.
Explanation II- The expression ‘valuable security’ has
the same meaning as in in Section 30 of the Indian
Penal Code.”
37. Section 113B of Evidence Act raises a presumption against
the accused and reads as under:
“113-B 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 a
person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “dowry
death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-
B of the Indian Penal Code.”
38. The legal position firmly established is that ‘suicidal death’
of a married woman within seven years of her marriage is
covered by the expression “death of a woman is caused
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances” as used in Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code. (Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, [2000] 8 SCC 663).
39. Section 304B IPC is attracted only when the woman dies
under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her
marriage. It is not disputed that deceased Raj Kumari had expired
within three years and ten months of her marriage with accused
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 24 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
Sonu Kushwaha. As per the postmortem report Ex.PW/A,
following external injuries were found on her body :
“(i) Contusion, reddish, of size 4 cm x 4 cm, present
over head situated over vertex.
(ii) Contusion, reddish, of size 3 cm x 3 cm, present
over left side of face, situated over chin, 1 cm outer to
chin.
(iii) Contusion, reddish, of size 6 cm x 4 cm, present
over left side of neck, situated just below mandible and
5 cm outer to midline. Three cresentric abrasions, of
size 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm, present within the contused area.
On exploration, effusion of blood present in strap
muscles of neck on both sides. On further exploration,
effusion of blood present in deep muscles of neck.
(iv) Multiple abrasions, reddish, present in an area of
size 10 cm x 7 cm, present over right side of neck, with
size ranging from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 0.8 cm to 0.2
cm.”
40. Subsequent opinion regarding the cause of death was taken
from PW-17 Dr. B.N. Mishra, who has given his report regarding
the cause of death as under:
(1) the cause of death could be caused by
complications of unknown / uncommon poisonous
substance followed by its consumption/ intake by
deceased.
(2) the manner of death appears to be suicidal in
nature.
(3) the injuries in the form of abrasions/ contusions
could be postmortem artefact (artefact referred as the
changing of the finding on the dead body like false
simulation of injuries by manner of biting of some
insects, rodents and other reasons) as the same injuries
were not observed by the doctors who made MLC,
treating doctors of DDU Hospital and absence of such
injuries on the photographs which were taken during
postmortem examination.”
41. From the above report, it is clear that the manner of death
was ‘suicidal’. Therefore, deceased Raj Kumari had died under
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 25 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
unnatural circumstances.
42. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Charan Singh alias Charanjit
Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454 has
held that :
“13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with
reference to the presumption raised was discussed in
para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted
below:-
“32. This Court while often dwelling on
the scope and purport of Section 304-B of
the Code and Section 113-B of the Act
have propounded that the presumption is
contingent on the fact that the prosecution
first spell out the ingredients of the offence
of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of
Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011)
11 SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and
echoed in Rajeev Kumar v. State of
Haryana [Rajeev Kumar v. State of
Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6
SCC (Cri) 346]. In the latter
pronouncement, this Court propounded
that one of the essential ingredients of
dowry death under Section 304-B of the
Code is that the accused must have
subjected the woman to cruelty in
connection with demand for dowry soon
before her death and that this ingredient
has to be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt and only then the
Court will presume that the accused has
committed the offence of dowry death
under Section 113-B of the Act. It referred
to with approval, the earlier decision of
this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2003
SCC (Cri) 271] to the effect that to attract
the provision of Section 304-B of theSC no.502/2022 Page No. 26 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
Code, one of the main ingredients of the
offence which is required to be established
is that “soon before her death” she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment “in
connection with the demand for dowry”.
With reference to the legal position as referred to above,
the matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case
in hand falls in the category where the presumption can be raised
against the accused persons relieving the prosecution from
proving its case and putting the onus on the accused persons.
43. PW-1 Sh. Harprasad Kushwaha is father of the deceased
Raj Kumari. FIR was registered on the statement given by him
before the concerned SDM. In his statement before the SDM,
PW-1 stated that Raj Kumari was his youngest daughter who was
married to accused Sonu three years back. One child was born
out of their wedlock who was one year old at the time of
incident. He further stated that accused persons had demanded
dowry at the time of marriage and used to give beatings to his
daughter. On 01.03.2022 accused Sonu called him and when his
daughter was talking to him, he heard that his daughter was
slapped by accused Sonu and the phone was disconnected. He
tried to call back again but the phone was switched off.
44. Let us see what did PW-1 say in his deposition. PW-1
during his deposition has stated that he had given dowry and
other items to his daughter in the marriage out of his own wish.
This deposition clearly indicates that there was no demand of
dowry from the side of accused persons at the time of marriage
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 27 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
of his (PW-1) daughter with accused Sonu. His deposition
reflects that PW-1 had given the customary gifts at the time of
marriage of his daughter out of his own wish and not out of
compulsion.
45. PW-1 further deposed that immediately after the marriage,
his daughter had stayed in the house of her in-laws at their native
village. Except for giving aforesaid statement, he did not allege
any kind of demand of dowry from in-laws and harassment of his
daughter in connection therewith during the time she stayed with
her in-laws at their native village after the marriage.
46. PW-1 further deposed that after staying at her in-laws’
house in the village, she shifted alongwith accused Sonu to
Delhi. Herein also in his examination-in-chief, no details were
given in respect of any demand of dowry or any harassment in
connection therewith by the accused persons. He simply stated
that her daughter was killed by the accused persons. No
explanation was given in this regard. Neither any reason was
assigned as to how his daughter was killed nor any specific
details narrating as to how she was harassed were given by PW-1
in his examination-in-chief.
47. At the time of deposition of PW-1, ld. Addl. PP for the
State has sought permission to put the leading questions which
was allowed and while answering those questions, PW-1
admitted that he had given dowry as demanded by in-laws of his
daughter at the time of marriage of his daughter with accused
Sonu. It is worthwhile to note here that while PW-1 gave his
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 28 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
own narration, he stated that he had given dowry and other items
to his daughter in the marriage out of his own wish but when ld.
Addl. PP for the State put him the leading question, he admitted
that dowry was demanded by accused persons in the marriage of
his daughter. It is not the case when by asking indirect questions
it was extracted from the witness that dowry was demanded. A
straight leading question would obviously give an indication to
the witness as to what answer prosecution is expecting. This
kind of admission extracted out from the witness by leading him
in a direct manner cannot be read against the accused persons at
all. Even if said statement is accepted for the sake of
presumption, then also it lacks the necessary ingredients so as to
make out a case under Section 498A or 304B IPC. No specific
detail was given as to what was demanded by accused persons
and what demand was fulfilled by him. During his cross
examination, PW-1 admitted that accused persons had given gold
items i.e. Mangalsutra, Maangtika, Jhumki and other silver items
to Raj Kumari at the time of her marriage but he did not
enumerate as to what was given by him in the marriage to his
daughter, specifically at the asking/demand of the accused
persons.
48. Moreover, PW-3 Sh. Vrijanandi Kushwaha, who is
husband of real sister of deceased, in his cross examination,
stated that he was present at the time of marriage of deceased Raj
Kumari with accused Sonu but no dowry article was given in his
presence. Further, PW-2 Smt. Prem Bai, real sister of deceased
did not utter a single word in respect of any dowry demand made
by accused persons at the time of marriage of her sister with
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 29 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
accused Sonu. Therefore, it does not stand proved that any
demand of dowry was made by accused persons from PW-1 at
the time of marriage of accused Sonu with Raj Kumari.
49. While answering the leading questions put by learned
Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 further admitted that his daughter
was beaten by her in-laws and when she used to come to his
house, she used to say that both the accused persons used to beat
her for the purposes of dowry. No deposition in respect of beating
his (PW-1) daughter by accused persons was made by PW-1 in
his examination-in-chief when he narrated all the facts on his
own. However, again, there is no date or specific demand for
which the accused persons had allegedly beaten her. Admission
of the witness to a vague statement which did not come even
voluntarily from the witness does not at all go against the
accused persons. This admission is completely vague and
unspecific. There is no allegation in the entire deposition as to
what was being demanded by the accused persons for which Raj
Kumari was being allegedly harassed, therefore, this part of his
testimony does not lead to the conclusion of guilt of the accused
persons.
50. PW-1 has further deposed that on 01.03.2022 at about 3.00
pm when accused Sonu called him (PW-1) by telephone, his
daughter started talking to him, he heard the noise that accused
Sonu slapped his daughter and also disconnected the phone. He
could not connect his daughter again as the phone was switched
off. It may be noted for the purposes of reference that the
incident is dated 01.03.2022 when deceased consumed unknown
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 30 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
substance and therefore, the incident of allegedly slapping Raj
Kumari by accused Sonu is of the same day. The MLC of Raj
Kumari Ex.PW5/A shows that Raj Kumari was admitted in DDU
Hospital by accused Sonu at 12.58 pm. There is no evidence on
record to prove that accused had called PW-1 on 01.03.2022 at
3.00 pm. The CDRs of mobile phone of accused Sonu
Kushwaha were also taken out but nothing came in evidence to
prove that Sonu had even called PW-1 on 01.03.2022. So this
entire incident of 01.03.2022 does not stand proved. Even
otherwise, the plain reading of this statement in respect of
hearing the noise regarding the slapping of his daughter by
accused Sonu does not indicate anything. PW-1 did not disclose
the conversation as to what had happened and what accused
stated to him and what his daughter stated thereafter. He simply
stated that he heard accused Sonu slapping his daughter which
does not suggest anything. Except for the aforesaid statement,
there is no other allegation against the accused persons in the
entire deposition or even in the complaint made before the SDM
by PW-1. It is pertinent to note here that even in the statement
made before the SDM, there is no specific allegation of demand
of dowry. His statement is bereft of any specific date or details
as to when and for what reason his daughter was beaten for or in
connection with demand of dowry.
51. PW-1 in his cross examination had stated that he had given
Rs.12000/-, four sarees, pant-shirt for Sonu, household utensils
and one big iron box (Sandook) at the time when his grandson
was born at the asking of accused persons. It is pertinent to note
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 31 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
here that this fact has never been given either in the statement
made by PW-1 before the SDM or in his examination-in-chief.
Further this statement shows that this amount and the articles,
were given as customary gifts at the time of birth of his grandson
by PW-1.
52. It is further relevant to note that no police complaint was
made during the life time of Raj Kumari in respect of any
demand or any beatings given to her in pursuance of non-
fulfillment of any demand thereof. During his cross
examination, PW-1 had stated that he had not given any
complaint as Panchayat had counselled accused Sonu. In this
regard, it is noted that PW-1 had never stated in his deposition on
or before the SDM concerned any point of time that any
Panchayat meeting had taken place for counselling accused Sonu
for any reason. No date of any such meeting as to when
Panchayat had allegedly counselled accused Sonu was given by
PW-1. No member of the Panchayat has been cited as a witness
by the prosecution in order to establish that accused Sonu had
ever harassed Raj Kumari pursuant to which any Panchayat
meeting had taken place. Making this standalone statement in
respect of Panchayat meeting or counselling accused Sonu or
giving gifts at the asking of accused persons at the time of birth
of his grandson does not go against the accused persons at all.
53. PW-1 Sh. Harprasad Kushwaha, in his cross examination,
has also stated that his daughter was not having any conversation
with them for last two months before her death. It is pertinent to
mention here that this is a very crucial statement, however, no
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 32 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
explanation was given by PW-1 as to why his daughter was not
talking to him for last two months. PW-1 did not explain or did
not even indicate that it was accused Sonu who was not letting
Raj Kumari talk to him (PW-1). Therefore, the said statement
does not suggest anything incriminating against the accused
persons.
54. Insofar as accused Hali Kushwaha is concerned, PW-1
stated that she did not come alongwith accused Sonu and
deceased Raj Kumari to Delhi. Therefore, it is proved on record
that during the stay of her daughter with accused Sonu in Delhi
for 8-9 months prior to her death, accused Hali Kushwaha was
not residing with them. There is no allegation in the entire
deposition that while his daughter was staying with her in-laws at
the native village, accused Hali Kushwaha had demanded
anything from her or had meted out any harassment to her for or
in connection with demand of dowry. The testimony of PW-1
does not establish that any demand of dowry was ever made by
the accused persons either from his daughter or from him and his
daughter was harassed in pursuance thereof.
55. Similarly, PW-2 Smt. Prem Bai being the real sister of
deceased Raj Kumari only stated that Raj Kumari has stated to
her on phone that accused Sonu used to consume liquor and used
to beat her as her father had not given dowry and she also asked
to bring amount and for this reason, accused Sonu used to harass
her mentally and physically. It is not stated by PW-2 as to when
she talked to her sister on phone. She also did not state that what
was demanded by accused Sonu from her. Merely stating that
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 33 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
accused Sonu was asking for bringing amount is very vague and
unspecific. Therefore, the statement of PW-2 does not establish
that any demand of dowry was made by accused persons or her
sister was harassed for or in connection with demand for dowry.
56. PW-3 Sh. Vrijanandi Kushwaha, who is husband of PW-2,
has given a hearsay statement that his father-in-law i.e. PW-1 had
informed him that accused Sonu used to drink liquor and used to
beat Raj Kumari for bringing dowry. His statement is
insignificant as he had not witnessed any incident himself. His
evidence is completely hearsay and does not support the
prosecution case at all.
57. The fact that accused used to beat Raj Kumari is further
belied by her MLC Ex.PW5/A wherein it is mention “No fresh
external injuries seen”. This shows that deceased was not at all
assaulted before she consumed some poisonous substance.
58. Though it has been proved that deceased died under
unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home by consuming
some unknown substance within less than four years of her
marriage with accused Sonu Kushwaha, however, prosecution
has failed to demonstrate that she was compelled to end her life
due to harassment or cruelty caused to her for or in connection
with demand for dowry. Therefore, the presumption under
Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be raised.
59. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
against the accused persons for the charges framed under Section
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 34 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri
498A/304B/34 IPC.
Conclusion
60. Hence, both the accused persons namely Sonu Kushwaha
and Hali Kushwaha stand acquitted of the charges framed under
Section 498A/304B/34 IPC in present FIR No.267/2022, PS
Janak Puri.
Digitally signed
Announced in open court VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
on 11.03.2025 JAIN Date: 2025.03.11
16:25:27 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
Note: This judgment contains thirty five (35) pages and having
my signature on each page. Digitally signed
VANDANA by VANDANA
JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.11
16:25:32 +0530
(Vandana Jain)
ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act)
Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi
SC no.502/2022 Page No. 35 of 35
State vs. Sonu Kushwaha & Anr.
FIR no.267/2022, PS Janak Puri