[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
The State vs Vijay Tyagi & Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on:10th February, 2026
Pronounced on: 13th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 13th March, 2026
+ CRL.A. 803/2018
THE STATE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Mr. Lalit Luthra and Dr. R. S. Gupta
Advs.
SI Deepak Sharma P.S. Dabri
versus
VIJAY TYAGI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Naresh C. Sharma and Mr. Lokesh
Kumar Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,'CrPC') assailing the
impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018 (hereinafter, 'impugned
order') passed by ld. ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)(West), Dwarka Court,
Delhi arising out of FIR No. 248/2011, Police Station Dabri.
2. By the impugned order, the accused/Respondents (hereinafter,
'Respondents') Vijay Tyagi (husband of the deceased), Subhash Chand
Tyagi (father-in-law of the deceased), Rekha Tyagi (mother-in-law of the
deceased) and Meenakshi @ Monika Tyagi (sister-in-law of the deceased)
were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC'), on the ground that the Prosecution
had miserably failed to stand on its own footing and to prove its allegations
against the Respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion of the
Trial Court is set out below:
"57. From the perusal of contradictions pointed
by counsel for accused persons, some different
picture emerges and story of prosecution put
forward does not hold water and is not trustworthy
as there are material points extracted from the
testimonies of Pws which disprove the version of
prosecution and give benefit of doubt to accused.
There are material contradictions in the deposition
of star witnesses and as per their deposition, chain
and sequence of events are not made out which
looses the chain of circumstantial and scientific
evidence to convict the accused persons. Since
there are several latches in the testimony of Pws on
some material points and scientific evidence is also
not supporting the case prosecution, hence the
prosecution case has miserably failed to stand on
its own footing and to prove its allegations against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus on all
counts, guilt of accused has not been proved. In the
absence of any cogent and reliable evidence,
benefit of doubt has to be given to accused. So on
all counts, the accused persons i.e. Vijay Tyagi,
Subhash Tyagi, Rekha Tyagi and Monika Tyagi are
acquitted for the offence U/s 498A/304B/34 IPC.
58. Bail bonds u/s 437 A Cr. P.C. in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- has been furnished on behalf of the
accused persons which have been accepted and
shall remain in force for a period of six months
from the date of its acceptance. Previous bail and
surety bond of accused stand discharged. File be
consigned to record room."
Facts
3. The case of the Appellant/State/Prosecution (hereinafter,
'Prosecution) is that on 21st July, 2011, an information was received at
Police Station Bindapur vide DD No.14B regarding hospitalization of
Komal Tyagi (hereinafter, 'deceased') D/o Subhash R/o RZ-161, Indra Park
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Consequent
thereupon, SI Vineet Malik reached the hospital where the attending doctor
declared Komal as brought dead vide MLC No.3126/11. The concerned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate was informed telephonically, and Sh. R.S. Rana
(PW-8), Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Palam, reached the spot and
recorded statement of the deceased's father, Sh. Subhash Tyagi (hereinafter
'Complainant').
4. In his statement, the Complainant (PW-2) deposed that he was
residing with his family and had solemnized the marriage of the deceased
with Respondent Vijay Tyagi on 11th May, 2011. During the marriage
ceremony, the Complainant (PW-2) had given numerous articles by way of
gifts, including a Hyundai Accent, Sony LCD TV, Air Conditioner,
Washing Machine, LG Refrigerator, Sofa set, and other items, apart from
cash amounting to Rs.51,000/-.
5. It is the case of the Prosecution that the Respondents had started
demanding dowry even prior to the solemnization of the marriage. The
Complainant (PW-2) deposed that he had initially intended to give a Maruti
Alto to the deceased as dowry. However, approximately two months before
the date of marriage, Respondent Subhash Tyagi conveyed to the
Complainant (PW-2) that a Hyundai Accent should be given instead of the
said Maruti Alto. Since the marriage invitation cards had already been
distributed, the Complainant (PW-2) was constrained to arrange for the
Hyundai Accent.
6. It is further averred that soon after the marriage, the Respondents
started harassing the deceased for bringing less dowry and cash. Thereafter,
on the request of the deceased, the Complainant (PW-2) gave Rs.1,00,000/-
in cash to the Respondent Vijay Tyagi within 10-12 days of the marriage
when the said Respondent visited the Complainant's (PW-2) residence.
7. It is further averred that Respondent Meenakshi @ Monika Tyagi,
sister-in-law of the deceased, taunted her for having brought a necklace
instead of a gold chain and for the car, Hyundai Accent, having been
registered in the name of the deceased instead of the Respondent Vijay
Tyagi. Whenever the deceased visited her paternal home, she used to be
visibly distressed and upon enquiring the reason, she used to cry while
narrating the reasons of mental harassment. The Complainant (PW-2)
deposed that whenever the son of the Complainant, Prince Tyagi (PW-4),
visited the Respondents' residence, he was not permitted to have a
conversation with the deceased, his sister, in isolation.
8. Thereafter, on 14th July, 2011, Respondents Subhash and Vijay Tyagi,
came to the Complainant's (PW-2) residence along with the deceased and
left her there, stating that they would take the deceased back to her
matrimonial home only upon payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 18th July, 2011,
at around 10:00 PM, the Respondent Vijay Tyagi called on the
Complainant's (PW-2) mobile and requested the Complainant (PW-2) to
speak with the deceased. The deceased and the Respondent conversed for
about one hour, after which the deceased became visibly nervous and started
crying. Thereafter, as had been her routine, she went to sleep with her
mother on the first floor room of the house. The Complainant (PW-2) and
his son (PW-4) were sleeping on the ground floor of the house.
9. On the intervening night of 20th-21st July, 2011, while the deceased
was sleeping with her mother, at around 2:30AM, the mother of the
deceased (PW-3) asked the deceased to accompany her to the terrace to fill
the four water tanks installed on the terrace, however, the deceased refused.
It is the case of the Prosecution that upon the deceased's mother returning to
the room and placing her feet inside, she felt something wet on the floor and
upon switching on the light, she discovered a pool of blood on the floor and
found the deceased lying on the bed, with the veins of both her wrists cut
and bleeding profusely. She was in visible pain. Upon witnessing this,
mother of the deceased (PW-3) started crying and went rushing downstairs
to inform the family that the deceased had done something. The
Complainant (PW-2) and the family members immediately rushed the
deceased to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, where the attending doctors
declared her brought dead. The doctors of the hospital informed the police,
who consequently reached the hospital and completed the investigation,
whereafter the present case was registered against the Respondents.
10. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, after supplying of documents to the
Respondents, committed the case to Court of Session vide order dated 3rd
January, 2012.
11. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
Respondents for the offences under sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. Vide order
dated 7th June, 2012, the ld. Trial Court framed charges against the
respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34
IPC. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Proceedings before the Trial Court
12. During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined 19 witnesses to
establish its case. The same has been reproduced hereinbelow:
"PW-1 is SI Shamsher Singh. He deposed that he
was posted as Duty Officer in PS-Bindapur on
21.07.2011 and he received a call from Control
Room South West that one lady Kamal Tyagi has
committed suicide. Said information was reduced
into writing by him vide DD No. 14B and copy of
same was Ex. PW-1/A.
PW-2 is Sh. Subhash Tyagi who is complainant
in the present matter. He has deposed regarding
all the incidents of harassment caused to deceased
and demands of dowry raised by accused persons.
He proved his statement recorded by SDM as Ex.
PW- 2/A. He identified the dead body of her
daughter vide memo Ex. PW-2/B.
PW-3 is Smt. Rajni Tyagi who is mother of
deceased. She has also deposed in respect of acts
of harassment done by accused persons with
deceased Kamal. She proved her statement
recorded by SDM as Ex. PW-3/A.
PW-4 is Sh. Prince Tyagi who is brother of
deceased. He has also deposed in same fashion as
of PW-2 and 3. He deposed that he handed over
the marriage invitation card of Komal to police
which was seized by the police vide seizure memo
Ex. PW- 4/A.
PW-5 is HC Jagdish Prasad. He brought the
original record of DD No. 9A dated 21.07.2011
and copy of same was Ex. PW-5/A.
PW-6 is ASI Khazan Singh, In-charge Crime
Team. He deposed that he prepared detailed report
of scene of crime and handed over the same to ASI
Anand Prakash which was Ex. PW-6/A.
PW-7 is HC Bajrang Singh who is photographer
from Crime Team. He deposed that he took 8
photographs of spot from different angles and said
photographs were Ex. PW-7/P1 to Ex. PW-7/98
and their 8 negatives were collectively Ex. PW-
7/9P.
PW-8 is R. S. Rana, Tehsildar cum Executive
Magistrate. He deposed that on 21.07.2011, he
received a call from the police of PS-Dabri who
informed that one lady had committed suicide and
on receiving this information, he reached at the
spot and found dead body has already been sent to
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and he inspected the
spot but no suicide note was found and thereafter
he reached at hospital and there he recorded the
statement of complainant and his wife and gave
direction to police to take further necessary action
regarding investigation and register the case under
relevant section. He proved his directions as Ex.
PW-8/A, brief facts prepared were Ex. PW-8/B and
form-25.35.1(b) i.e. Death Report filled up by him
was Ex. PW-8/C, statement of Pramod Tyagi was
Ex. PW-8/D and request made by him to
Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital
for post mortem of deceased Kamal Tyagi was Ex.
PW-8/E.
PW-9 is SI Vineet Malik. He deposed that on
21.07.2011, he was on emergency duty and on
receiving DD No. 14B, he with Ct. Trilochan
reached the spot and found that injured had been
taken to hospital and since area was falling in
jurisdiction of PS Dabri, he informed about the
incident to Duty Officer of PS Dabri.
PW-10 is Sh. Pramod Tyagi who is uncle of
deceased. He has deposed regarding giving of
several gifts in marriage of deceased on the
demand of accused persons and further deposed
regarding harassment caused by accused persons
to deceased.
PW-11 HC Surender Kumar. He stated that ASI
Anand Prakash had seized a blood stained bed
sheet from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW-
11/A, white colour blood stained gown having
prints of pink colour was seized vide seizure memo
Ex. PW-11/B, one stainless blade of Topaz was
seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/C. He further
lifted blood, earth control from the spot and seized
the same vide a seizure memo Ex. PW-11/D, the
jewellery articles of deceased were seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW- 11/E, the pulanda sealed
with seal of MCDH was Ex. PW-11/F. He proved
that after conduction of postmortem of dead body,
the doctor handed over sealed viscera, blood
gauge and two samples seals to ASI Anand
Prakash and same was Ex. PW-11/G.
PW-12 is Ct. Surinder. He deposed that on the
instructions of IO, he had taken 8 sealed pulandas
with sample seal to FSL Rohini after receiving the
same from MHC(M) and deposited the same in
FSL Rohini with intact seals and receipt was
obtained from FSL and same was handed over to
MHC(M).
PW-13 is Dr. B. N. Mishra who conducted the
postmortem of deceased. The postmortem report of
deceased Kamal Tyagi was Ex. PW-13/A. He
deposed that the cause of death in this case was
hemorrhagic shock caused by cut down of left
radial and ulnar arteries by sharp edged weapon
like blade etc.
PW-14 is SI Anand Prakash. He deposed that on
21.07.2017, on receipt of DD No. 9A he with
constable Surender reached Mata Chanan Devi
hospital where it was reported that Komal Tyagi
was brought in unconscious condition by he
relatives and she was declared brought dead. He
collected the MLC of Komal Tyagi. He had
deposed regarding further investigation done in the
matter.
PW-15 is SI Sunil Kumar who was Duty Officer
and proved the registration of FIR. The copy of
FIR was Ex. PW-15/A and endorsement made on
rukka was Ex. PW-15/B.
PW-16 is Dr. Iftekharul Haque from Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital. He proved authority letter
issued by Medical Superintendent as Ex. PW-
16/PX, he identified the handwriting and
signatures of Dr. Arvind Jalali on MLC Ex. PW-
16/A, the casualty card prepared by Dr. Arvind
Jalali in respect of deceased was Ex. PW-16/B, the
continuation sheet vide which two sealed parcels
with sample seal were handed over to ASI Anand
Prakash by Dr. Arvind Jalali was Ex. PW-16/C
and prescription slip prepared by Dr. Arvind Jalali
was Ex. PW-16/D.
PW-17 is Sh. Surjeet Singh, GM Sales from Deep
Hyundai. He deposed that during investigation of
case, police had taken copy of booking amount
receipt, balance payment receipt, order booking
form, insurance cover note, retail invoice and RC
which were marked as PW-17 /A to PW-17 /F.
PW-18 is Inspector Pravin kumar IO. He proved
the site plan prepared by him as Ex. PW-18/A, the
arrest memo of accused Vijay Tyagi was Ex. PW-
18/B, his personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex. PW-18/C, the photograph was Ex. PW-
18/D and marriage card was Ex. PW-18/E. Arrest
memo of accused Subhash Chand was Ex. PW-
18/E1, arrest memo of accused Monika Tyagi was
Ex. PW-18/E2, accused Rekha Tyagi was arrested
vide arrest memo Ex. PW-18/E3, the reports of
FSL were Ex. PW-18/F, Ex. PW-18/G and Ex. PW-
18/H and attested copy of DD No. 14B was Ex.
PW-18/H1.
PW-19 is Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer
from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He proved customer
application form as Ex. PW-19/A."
13. The Respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their
statements, the Respondents denied the Prosecution case and claimed false
implication in the case. They denied that any family member had made any
demand for dowry or cash at any point of time from the deceased or her
family members. They further denied having harassed the deceased in any
manner at any point of time. They stated that from the circumstances, it was
evident that the deceased was murdered by her parents and family members,
and that the family members had levelled false allegations against the
Respondents to save themselves. They further alleged that the police had
acted at the instance of the Complainant (PW-2) as he was employed in the
Delhi Police.
14. The Respondents did not wish to lead any defence evidence.
15. The Court heard the submissions of the ld. APP for the State, ld.
Counsel for the Respondents and the material on record had been perused.
16. The Prosecution submitted that on the intervening night of 20th/21st
July, 2011, the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood with incised
wounds measuring 5 cm x 2 cm on the right wrist and 6 cm x 2 cm on the
left wrist, which injuries were responsible for her death. The Prosecution
further submitted that the deceased had committed suicide merely two
months and ten days post marriage, being fed up with the persistent dowry
harassment. It was submitted that the Prosecution, by producing several
reliable witnesses, has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Respondents
beyond reasonable doubt, and that the contradictions in the testimony of
material witnesses are minor and natural and do not affect the Prosecution
case.
17. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that
there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses which go
to the roots of the case and falsify the case of the Prosecution. It was further
averred that the Prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that there was any demand of dowry or that any amount was paid to the
Respondents by the parents of the deceased.
18. It was further argued that the present case is a case of honour killing
and that the deceased was murdered by her parents and family members. It
was submitted that the Respondents have been falsely implicated by the
parents and family members of the deceased by levelling false and vague
allegations of demand of dowry and harassment only to save themselves
from the case of murder of their own daughter. It was also argued that the
Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and has even failed to
prove the basic ingredients of offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC.
19. Upon perusing the record, the ld. Trial Court found numerous material
improvements and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. The Complainant (PW-2) admitted in cross-examination that he
knew giving and taking of dowry was an offence, yet lodged no complaint
when the alleged demand for a Hyundai Accent was made. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter 'MCD') records were summoned, which
revealed that the application for booking of marriage venue was submitted
on 4th April, 2011 and sanctioned on 28th April, 2011, whereas the Hyundai
Accent was booked on 18th March, 2011 as proved by Sh. Surjeet Singh
(PW-17). This contradicted Complainant's (PW-2) testimony that he was
compelled to give a Hyundai Accent because marriage cards had already
been distributed.
20. The Complainant's (PW-2) house was four-storeyed with tenants on
the second and third floors who did not awaken despite cries, whereas Sh.
Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) from an adjacent building
heard the cries. Complainant (PW-2) admitted his clothes and slippers were
blood-stained when he lifted the deceased, yet could not explain who
cleaned the blood stains and footprints. Complainant (PW-2) further
admitted that neither he nor any family member attempted to stop the
bleeding by applying any bandage and failed to provide specific dates of
alleged demands or harassment despite the marriage lasting only 2 months
and 10 days. The mother of the deceased (PW-3) did not mention the alleged
demand for car or payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to Respondent Vijay Tyagi. She
admitted giving gold rings to the father-in-law and sister-in-law and earrings
to the mother-in-law, which contradicted the allegation that the sister-in-law
taunted the deceased about bringing a necklace instead of a chain. She
admitted the deceased was wearing all her jewellery when she came home
one week before her death and that on the day of incident, neither she nor
her husband and son applied any bandage to stop the bleeding. She admitted
they lodged no complaint and did not inform the mediator Sudhir Tyagi or
any relative about the alleged harassment. Her deposition regarding the
Rs.2,00,000/- demand was hearsay as she could not specify when the said
demand was made or by which Respondent. The brother of the deceased
(PW-4) also failed to support the Prosecution version regarding the alleged
demand for car. He introduced a different version that Respondent
Meenakshi @ Monika Tyagi taunted about the chain and ring being of less
weight, Respondent Rekha Tyagi taunted about sarees being of less value,
and Respondent Subhash stated Rs.1.5 lakhs should have been given. He
could not specify any date, month or year of such demands. He admitted the
deceased was writhing in pain and semi-unconscious when they reached her
room with the light switched on, yet did not remember whether they
attempted to bandage her bleeding wrists.
21. Sh. Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) made various
improvements from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and deposed
the deceased was using a mobile phone while all other family members
denied this fact. He claimed he woke up hearing cries from the adjacent
house, whereas tenants in the same house did not awaken. He deposed his
sister-in-law had tied cloth on the deceased's wrists, whereas mother of the
deceased (PW-3) denied touching the deceased, thus two different versions
emerged. Sh. R.S. Rana (PW-8), Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate deposed
there were blood stains on the floor and bedding but no blood-stained
footprints in the room or outside, which was not possible if the deceased was
carried bleeding from the first floor to the ground floor. He also noted other
injuries besides the cuts on both wrists.
22. The ld. Trial Court found that the medical and scientific evidence cast
grave doubt on the Prosecution case. ASI Khajan Singh (PW-6), and ASI
Anand Prakash (PW-14) admitted the blade was lying "over" the pool of
blood, which was inconsistent with suicide as the blade should have been
under the blood. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13), who conducted the post-mortem,
deposed that injuries No. 1 and 2 were consistent with the time of incident
while injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused 12-24 hours prior to death and could
have been caused by beating. Most critically, Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13)
deposed that after injury No.2, all tendons were cut completely and holding
anything in the hand would not have been possible, making it impossible for
the deceased to cut both wrists by herself. He further stated that the
involvement of a third person could not be ruled out. He also deposed that if
bandage had been applied on the bleeding points, the life of the deceased
could have been saved. Inspector Pravin Kumar, Investigating Officer (PW-
18), admitted in cross-examination that there was no incriminating evidence
found against the accused except the statements of the family members. The
ld. Trial Court observed that none of the witnesses could specify dates of
alleged demands or harassment. The Respondents allegedly demanded Rs.1-
2 lakhs cash, yet allowed the deceased to take 34 items of jewellery worth
lakhs to her parental home. Neither the Complainant nor any family member
called the police despite having mobile phones, nor was any complaint
lodged before any authority or the mediator Sudhir Tyagi.
23. The ld. Trial Court held that the Prosecution failed to prove the
essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC as there
was no material on record to show that soon before her death, victim was
subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with any demand of
dowry. The oral and medical evidence cast grave suspicion on story of
family members of the deceased. No suicide note was found. The witnesses
improved their statements and made contradictory depositions. The medical
evidence demonstrated that the deceased could not have cut both wrists by
herself and the blade appeared to be placed "over" the blood. The
circumstantial evidence chain was broken and uncorroborated. In absence of
any cogent and reliable evidence and in view of material contradictions
going to root of case, benefit of doubt was required to be given to the
Respondents.
24. Consequently, the Respondents Vijay Tyagi, Subhash Tyagi, Rekha
Tyagi and Meenakshi @ Monika Tyagi were given benefit of doubt for
offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and the ld. Trial Court acquitted
them of all charges. Bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- were furnished and accepted on behalf of the respondents, to
remain in force for six months from the date of its acceptance. The previous
bail and surety bonds stood discharged.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/ State
25. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that the testimonies of Complainant (PW-
2), mother of deceased (PW-3), and brother of deceased (PW-4) are
consistent, coherent and mutually corroborative regarding the persistent
harassment meted out to the deceased over dowry demands made by the
Respondents. Complainant (PW-2) has deposed that the Respondents
commenced making dowry demands even prior to the solemnization of
marriage. Initially, a Maruti Alto was intended to be given, however,
approximately two months before the marriage, Respondent Subhash Tyagi
demanded a Hyundai Accent instead, which was booked on 18th March,
2011, pursuant to such demand and has been proved by Sh. Surjeet Singh,
(PW-17). During the marriage ceremony, numerous articles were given
including the Hyundai Accent Car amongst other gifts. Notwithstanding the
same, at the behest of the deceased and due to the demands of the
Respondents, Complainant (PW-2) gave Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to
Respondent Vijay Tyagi within 10-12 days of the marriage. Sh. Pramod
Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) has corroborated the version of the
family members regarding the dowry demands and harassment suffered by
the deceased. Mr. Bahri further submits that Complainant (PW-2) did not
lodge any complaint against the Respondents even though he knew that
giving and taking of dowry is an offence, he submits, however, women have
no voice and to keep daughters happy in their matrimonial home, parents
keep on fulfilling demands.
26. Mr. Bahri further submits that once it is established that the deceased
died within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her
death, the Court shall presume under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (hereinafter, 'IEA') that the Respondents caused the dowry death.
To substantiate his submission, he places reliance upon the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1991) 3 SCC 1, wherein
the Supreme Court observed that the legislative intent is to curb the menace
of dowry deaths with a firm hand. Since crimes are generally committed in
the privacy of residential homes and in secrecy, independent and direct
evidence is not easy to obtain. Therefore, the legislature introduced Sections
113A and 113B in the IEA to strengthen the Prosecution by permitting a
presumption to be raised if certain foundational facts are established and the
unfortunate event has taken place within seven years of marriage. If a
married woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry immediately preceding death within seven
years of marriage, the husband or relative is deemed to have caused her
death and is liable to be punished under Section 304B IPC. In the present
case, the death admittedly occurred within two months and ten days of the
marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment for dowry demands and
was left at her parental home, and three days before her death, she had a
distressing telephonic conversation with her husband after which she
became visibly disturbed. He further submits that all ingredients of Section
304B IPC read with Section 113B IEA stand conclusively established on
record.
27. Mr. Bahri vehemently submits that the ld. Trial Court has committed
grave error in acquitting the Respondents by placing undue emphasis on
minor contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of Prosecution
witnesses. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment stand
established through the consistent testimony of Complainant (PW-2), mother
of the deceased (PW-3), brother of the deceased (PW-4) and Sh. Pramod
Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10). The ld. Trial Court has laid undue
emphasis on the fact that the marriage venue booking was sanctioned on 28th
April, 2011, whereas the car was booked on 18th March, 2011, and has
concluded that the Complainant(PW-2) could not have been compelled to
book the car due to distribution of invitation cards. He further submits that
this finding is perverse as the Apnana ceremony had already been held in
February 2011, and the marriage arrangements and negotiations were well
underway by March 2011. The demand for upgrading from Maruti Alto to
Hyundai Accent was made in this context, and the fact that formal venue
booking came later does not negate the demand for dowry.
28. He further submits that the ld. Trial Court has further erred in holding
that "the blade was kept on the blood of pool as per the photographs", he
submits that the Ld. Trial Court's observation is inaccurate since blood
would not necessarily stick to the stainless-steel blade and might have
flowed down. He further submits that the ld. Trial Court has erred in making
the observation that absence of blood-stained footprints in the staircase and
absence of attempts to bandage the wounds cast doubt on the Prosecution
case. He further submits that these are certain circumstances arising from the
shock and trauma faced by the family members upon discovering the
deceased in a pool of blood, and in no manner prove that the family
members have themselves caused the death of the deceased. Mr. Bahri
vehemently urges that the Prosecution has successfully established all
essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC
beyond reasonable doubt.
29. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Bahri urged the
Court to convict the Respondents, and to set aside the acquittal and convict
the respondents
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
30. Per contra, the ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submitted
that Pravin Kumar, Investigating Officer (PW-18), in his cross-examination
categorically admitted that "There was no incriminating evidence found
against the accused persons in my investigation to link them with the
offences except the statement of the family members of the deceased." Ld.
Counsel submits that the very first specific allegation of Complainant (PW-
2), that he was constrained to give a Hyundai Accent instead of a Maruti
Alto because wedding invitation cards had already been distributed is
demonstrably false. He submits that the Complainant (PW-2) booked the
Hyundai Accent on 18th March, 2011, whereas the venue was booked on 4th
April, 2011 and subsequently confirmed by MCD on 28th April, 2011. The
ring ceremony took place on 28th April, 2011 and Roka ceremony on 9th
May, 2011. The Hyundai Accent was thus booked prior to any ceremonies,
and wedding invitation cards could not have been printed before these
events. The chronological sequence indisputably establishes that the
allegation is utterly false and fabricated. He further submits that Sudhir
Tyagi was the mediator who facilitated the marriage and is a relative from
the in-laws' side, as has been deposed by the mother of the deceased (PW-3)
in her cross-examination dated 12th October, 2012, yet he was never
approached regarding alleged dowry harassment nor was he examined by
the Prosecution.
31. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents further submits that the
medical evidence demonstrates that the Prosecution story is false and
concocted. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13), who conducted the post-mortem
examination, deposed that the deceased suffered long and deep incision
wounds on both wrists, apart from a bruise and abrasion described as
injuries No.3 and 4. Death was due to hemorrhagic shock caused by cutting
of left radial and ulnar arteries. Furthermore, injuries No.1 and 2 were
consistent with the time of incident, whereas injuries No. 3 and 4 were
caused approximately 12 to 24 hours prior to death and could have been
caused by beating. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13) further deposed that if
bandage/cloth had been applied on the bleeding points, the life of the
deceased could have been saved, but no such effort was made. Ld. Counsel
for the Respondents further submits that from the medical evidence, it is
proved that, firstly, the deceased was subjected to beating 12 to 24 hours
prior to her death in her parental home, resulting in injuries which the
Prosecution failed to explain. Secondly, no effort was made by Complainant
(PW-2), mother of the deceased (PW-3), brother of the deceased (PW-4) and
Sh. Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) to stop the bleeding
despite being present at the time of incident. Thirdly, considering the
severance of arteries and tendons, it would be physically impossible to
inflict the second injury after sustaining the first one in an attempt to commit
suicide.
32. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the house where
death occurred is a four-storey building with tenants on the second and third
floors, yet nothing is stated regarding whether they were awakened by
alleged cries, whereas uncle of the deceased, Sh. Pramod Tyagi (PW-10)
from the adjoining house claims to have heard cries.
33. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents further submits that Dr.
Iftekharul Haque (PW-16), Casualty Incharge of Mata Chanan Devi
Hospital, has proved the MLC which recorded that the deceased was
brought dead to the Hospital at 3:30 AM on 21st July, 2011. Significantly,
the deceased was wearing 34 items of jewellery on her person at the time of
her death. Had the Respondents been demanding dowry and harassing the
deceased, they would not have allowed her to proceed to her parents' place
with all the jewellery. The allegation of demand for Rs.2,00,000/- is utterly
false as the deceased had taken all her jewellery comprising 34 pieces. Had
the Respondents been harassing her for Rs.2,00,000/-, they would not have
allowed her to proceed to her parental home with all the jewellery. The only
plausible explanation is that she was planning to elope with the boy she
intended to marry, and sensing the same, the parents who had beaten her up
a day prior, resorted to the abhorrent act of honour killing. He further
submits that the uncle of the deceased, Sh. Pramod Tyagi (PW-10) stated
that the deceased was using a mobile phone. He further submits that the
Prosecution claims the deceased did not possess a cellphone, yet it is clear
she earlier had a phone taken away to prevent her from speaking to Sonu,
whom she desired to marry. He submits that the Respondents are innocent
and have been falsely implicated.
34. He further submits that ASI Khajan Singh (PW-6), who visited the
spot along with the photographer, after seeing the photograph (Ex. PW7/P8),
admitted that the blade was lying "over" the pool of blood. Had the
deceased committed suicide, the blade would have been released
immediately after slitting the wrists and blood would have covered it. The
fact that the blade was lying over the blood demonstrates it was placed there
after formation of the pool of blood, which is wholly inconsistent with
suicide.
35. On the strength of the submissions led, the ld. Counsel on behalf of
the Respondents urge the Court that the present case does not warrant
interference with the order of acquittal. The appeal is therefore liable to be
dismissed with costs.
Analysis and Findings
36. The Court has considered the matter.
37. It is evident from the record that the deceased was found wearing all
34 items of jewellery on her person, at the time of her death. This fact has
been recorded in the MLC and proved by Dr. Iftekharul Haque (PW-16) vide
the authority letter issued by the Medical Superintendent and has been
admitted by Complainant (PW-2), mother of deceased (PW-3), and brother
of deceased (PW-4) in their depositions. The relevant portion of the
prescription slip prepared by Dr. Arvind Jalali as Ex. PW-16/D is extracted
hereinbelow:
38. The Prosecution case, as deposed by Complainant (PW-2), is that he
had initially intended to give a Maruti Alto in the marriage of the deceased,
but was compelled by the Respondents to upgrade to a Hyundai Accent. If
this version were true, one would reasonably expect some documentary
evidence of the booking or at least the cancellation of the Maruti Alto.
However, no such record has been produced or proved on record. More
significantly, Complainant (PW-2) has admitted in cross-examination that he
had not booked any Maruti Alto car to give in the marriage, which renders
the Prosecution case regarding the alleged compulsion to upgrade entirely
false. Furthermore, the sequence of events on record completely contradicts
this allegation. The Hyundai Accent was booked on 18th March, 2011,
whereas the application for booking of the marriage venue was submitted to
the MCD on 4th April, 2011 and sanctioned on 28th April, 2011, the same
date as the ring ceremony. The Roka ceremony followed on 9th May, 2011,
and the marriage invitation cards were printed only after the venue was
confirmed. Since the Hyundai Accent was booked before any of the
ceremonies and before the invitation cards were even printed, the reasoning
given by Complainant (PW-2) that he was compelled to agree to the demand
as invitation cards had already been distributed is evidently false. It is
impossible that invitation cards mentioning the venue could have been
distributed before the venue itself was booked.
39. A further contradiction is apparent from the Prosecution case itself. If
the Respondents were making persistent demands for dowry and had left the
deceased at her parental home with a demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court is
unable to reconcile that fact with the concurrent allegation that the deceased
was permitted to leave her matrimonial home with her entire jewellery
comprising 34 items, the cost whereof must run more than 2 lakhs. It is not
believable that persons who were allegedly demanding Rs.2,00,000/- in cash
would permit the deceased to carry jewellery worth several times that
amount to her parental home. This circumstance creates a serious doubt in
the Prosecution case.
40. The conduct of the family members of the deceased on the date of the
incident is highly unnatural and raises suspicion. The depositions of the
Complainant (PW-2), mother of the deceased (PW-3), brother of the
deceased (PW-4) and Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) are
extracted hereinbelow for ease of reference:
Witness Statement in Cross- Examination
PW-2 "....When I reached in the room of my
daughter Komal (since deceased) the
lights of the room were in 'ON' position.
We had not tried to stop the bleeding from
the wrist of my daughter Komal (since
deceased) by applying any bandage etc."
PW-3 "...When I entered the room after coming
down from the roof and saw my daughter
in a pool of blood, she was alive and was
wreathing in pain. I did not touch Komal
or do any other thing in the room and
immediately run down stairs to inform my
husband. MY husband and my son came
up stairs. No other person came to our
house at that point of time. My husband
and my son did not apply any bandage or
any cloth to the wounds of Komal in order
to stop the flow of blood."
PW-4 "...I did not touch any object in the room.
I do not remember whether we tried to
bandage the bleeding wrists of Komal."
PW-10 "...I did not tie anything on the injury
over the hands of Komal. My sister-in-law
had tied a cloth on the hand."
41. Mother of the deceased (PW-3) has deposed that upon returning from
the terrace at approximately 2:30 AM, she discovered the deceased lying in
a pool of blood with the veins of both wrists having been cut. The most
natural and immediate reaction of any person upon discovering a family
member lying bleeding would be to make every possible effort to stop the
bleeding by applying bandage, cloth, or any other available material to the
wounds, and simultaneously to call the police and seek medical help.
However, despite the presence of Complainant (PW-2), mother of deceased
(PW-3), brother of deceased (PW-4) and Sh. Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the
deceased (PW-10) at the spot, not a single family member made any attempt
whatsoever to apply any bandage, cloth or material to the bleeding wrists of
the deceased to stop the flow of blood. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13), has
categorically deposed that if the wound be tightly wrapped or bandage or
cloth applied on the bleeding points of injury, certainly the life of the
deceased could have been saved because of arresting of bleeding. In this
case, neither the wounds were covered nor was bandage applied for the
purpose of arresting the bleeding. Even a stranger seeing a person bleeding
heavily would instinctively try to stop the bleeding. This Court further notes
that neither the Complainant (PW-2) nor any family member thought it
appropriate to call the police upon discovering the deceased in a pool of
blood, despite having mobile phones in their possession. It was the doctors
of the hospital who informed the police. This conduct is completely
inconsistent with that of innocent family members who had just discovered
their daughter/sister in a state of grave medical emergency and further
strengthens the doubt cast upon the Prosecution case.
42. The position of the blade found at the spot is significant and is
completely inconsistent with the Prosecution theory of suicide. ASI Khajan
Singh (PW-6), in his cross-examination dated 25th September, 2013 has
admitted that the blade was lying over the pool of blood and further deposed
that it is correct that the blade appears to have been put over the blood. SI
Anand Prakash (PW-14), in his cross-examination has also admitted that the
blade was lying over the blood. The relevant image Ex. PW7/P8 is set out
below for ease of reference:
The Court finds it impossible to explain if the deceased had committed
suicide by herself. Had the deceased used the blade to slit her own wrists,
the blade would have either remained in her hand or fallen from her hand
immediately upon or after the slitting of the wrists, and would consequently
have been submerged in or at the very least covered by and smeared with the
pool of blood that had formed. The fact that the blade was found lying over
the pool of blood has only one explanation, that is, that the blade was placed
there after the blood had already pooled. This raises serious doubt about the
Prosecution theory of suicide. The relevant portions of the depositions of the
witnesses is extracted hereinbelow:
Witness Statement in Statement in Cross-
Examination Examination
in Chief
PW-6 XXX "...The blade was dipped in
pool of blood.
Question: I put it to you that
the blade was lying over the
blood and it was not dipped?
Answer: The said blade was
smeared with thick clotted
blood and it was not possible
to lift finger prints from the
same.
It is wrong to suggest
that the said blade was lying
over the blood and not fully
smeared and lifting of finger
prints were possible from the
said blade. It is wrong to
suggest that I intentionally
did not lift the finger prints
from the blade. Now, after
seeing the photograph Ex
PW7 /P8, witness states that it
is correct that the blade was
lying over the pool of blood."
"...It is correct that as per
photograph Ex PW7 /P8 of
the spot, the blade appears to
had been put over the blood
spilled over."
PW-14 "...One ladies "...The blade was lying over
gown was also the blood."
lying at the
spot. One blade
of stainless
steel was lying
in the blood."
43. The medical evidence in the present case does not support the
Prosecution case and raises serious doubts about the true manner of death of
the deceased. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-13) has deposed in his cross-
examination that in suicidal cases, a person typically cuts one wrist
depending upon their dominant hand. When asked whether the deceased
could have held anything in the left hand after sustaining injury No. 2, he
confirmed this would have been impossible, as all the flexor tendons were
completely severed, making any finger movement or gripping impossible.
Most critically, when asked whether the injuries on both hands could have
been self-inflicted under these circumstances, he conceded that the
involvement of a third person cannot be ruled out. The relevant portion of
the cross-examination of Dr. B. N. Mishra (PW-13) is extracted for ease of
reference:
"Q. In present case, after sustaining the injury
No.2, whether the fingers of left hand of the
deceased could have held anything?
A. No. As in the present case, the all tendons
(flexor tendons) were cut completely, hence the
movement of fingers towards palmer aspect would
not have occurred and holding of anything in the
hand would not have been possible followed by
injury No.2.
Q. In the above circumstances, is it correct that the
injuries on the left and right hand cannot be
sustained without the involvement of 3rd person?
A. It is correct that in such circumstances, the
involvement of 3rd person cannot be ruled out.
Followed by injury No. 2, if the wounds
would be tightly wrapped/bandage/cloth applied
on the bleeding points of injury, certainly the life of
deceased could have been saved because of
ceasing of bleeding. In this case, neither the
wounds were covered nor bandage was applied for
the purpose of stopping of bleeding."
44. The meaning of this deposition is clear. The injuries on both wrists
were deep, resulting in complete severance of arteries and tendons. The cuts
were so deep that all the tendons were completely cut. After sustaining
injury No.2, which caused complete severance of all flexor tendons, it would
have been physically impossible for the deceased to hold the blade with the
injured hand and lift that hand to inflict the injury on the other wrist. The
involvement of a third person, based on this testimony, cannot be ruled out
and indeed appears probable. This Court further notes that Dr. B.N. Mishra
(PW-13) has deposed that injuries No.3 and 4, described as bruise and
abrasion in the post-mortem report, were caused approximately 12 to 24
hours prior to the death of the deceased. These injuries could have been
caused by beating. The deceased was at her parental home during this
period, and the Prosecution has made absolutely no effort to explain how
and by whom these injuries were caused. The burden to explain these
injuries was upon the Prosecution, which has not been discharged. The
relevant portion of the post-mortem report is extracted as under:
45. Sh. Pramod Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) has introduced an
entirely new version that the deceased was maintaining a mobile phone,
whereas Complainant (PW-2), mother of deceased (PW-3), brother of
deceased (PW-4) have all denied this fact, which suggests deliberate
concealment.
46. The Court has examined the depositions of Complainant (PW-2),
mother of deceased (PW-3), brother of deceased (PW-4) and Sh. Pramod
Tyagi, uncle of the deceased (PW-10) and finds material contradictions,
improvements and omissions in their testimonies. Mother of the deceased
(PW-3), has not uttered a single word regarding the alleged demand for car
nor has she deposed regarding the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash
to the Respondent Vijay Tyagi as alleged by Complainant (PW-2). None of
the witnesses have been able to specify any particular date, month or year
when the alleged demands were made or the alleged harassment was meted
out. The marriage lasted only two months and ten days, however, no specific
instance of harassment has been clearly placed on record. Furthermore, not a
single family member made any complaint before any authority regarding
the alleged harassment, nor did they approach the marriage mediator Sudhir
Tyagi, who was a relative from the in-laws' side and would have been the
most natural person to approach in the circumstances. The non-examination
of Sudhir Tyagi as a prosecution witness is a lacuna in the prosecution case.
Inspector Pravin Kumar, Investigating Officer (PW-18), has himself
admitted in cross-examination that there was no incriminating evidence
found against the accused persons in his investigation to link the
Respondents with the offences except the statement of the family members
of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and
cannot be relied upon to record a finding of guilt against the Respondents.
47. The Court is conscious of the legislative intent behind Sections 498A
and 304B IPC read with Sections 113A and 113B of the IEA, which is to
curb the menace of dowry deaths. In Iqbal Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court observed that since such crimes are generally committed in privacy
and secrecy, independent evidence is not easy to obtain. The legislature,
therefore introduced Sections 113A and 113B IEA to permit a presumption
to be raised if certain foundational facts are established and the death has
taken place within seven years of marriage. However, the foundational facts
must first be established by the prosecution before any presumption can be
drawn. In the present case, the Prosecution has failed to establish the
foundational facts necessary to raise the statutory presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act. In the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay
Ram Tamta Alias Sanju Alias Prem Prakash (2025) 3 SCC 433, it was
held by the Supreme Court as under:
"6.Trite is the principle that the appellate courts
would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal,
especially since the presumption of innocence that
is always available to the accused; as a basic
principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands
reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and
unless there are very substantive and compelling
reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an
order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the
findings are perverse and the only conclusion
possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt;
appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of
acquittal."
48. In another case of Supreme Court, Shoor Singh and Another v. State
of Uttarakhand (2025) 2 SCC 815, it was held as under:
"16. When all the above ingredients of "dowry
death" are proved, the presumption under Section
113-B⁴ of the Evidence Act is to be raised against
the accused that he has committed the offence of
"dowry death". What is important is that the
presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect
of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment,
in connection with any demand for dowry, which is
one of the essential ingredients of the offence of
"dowry death". The presumption, however, is in
respect of commission of the offence of "dowry
death" by the accused when all the essential
ingredients of "dowry death" are proved beyond
reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence,
which means that to prove the essential ingredients
of an offence of "dowry death the burden is on the
prosecution."
49. In both the aforementioned cases, the Supreme Court held that
conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires strict proof that soon before
death the woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with a specific
dowry demand, only then does the presumption under Section 113B IEA
arise. As demand and harassment were not proved beyond reasonable doubt,
the Court upheld/ordered acquittal, reiterating that mere unnatural death
within seven years of marriage does not by itself constitute dowry death.
Conclusion
50. In view of the above, this Court finds that the Prosecution has failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before
her death.
51. The impugned order of acquittal is hereby upheld and the appeal is
dismissed.
52. The Bail Bonds and Surety Bonds of Respondents are discharged.
53. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2026/Av
