SHASHI PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 442 of 2026

Shashi Pratap Singh
                                                        …..Appellant(s)

                               Versus

State of U.P. and 2 others
                                                      …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Manshi Upadhyay, Shashi Shekhar
                                   Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A., Jitendra Rana, Shardeshwar
                                   Mishra


Court No. - 46

            HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
            HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

(Dictated by Hon’ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Maurya, the learned counsel for appellant,
the learned AGA for State- opposite party -1, Mr. Jitendra Rana, the
learned counsel representing accused- opposite parties 2 and 3 and
perused the record.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 01.07.2026 passed
by Additional     Sessions   Judge/F.T.C.     (Crime Against Women),
Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2021 (State Vs. Arun Singh and
another) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 498-
A, 304-B, 323/34, 315, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station- Gulriha, District Gorakhpur, whereby the accused-
opposite parties 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges framed
against them.
                                     2
                                                    NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

3. Brief facts of the case are that younger sister of informant Shashi
Pratap Singh was married to Arun Singh in April 2019, according to
Hindu rites and customs. The informant gave his sister considerable
amount of gifts as per his means, but her husband and his family
members continued to demand money in one form or another. Upon
coming to know of the aforesaid fact, informant and his relatives visited
his sister, Asmita Singh alias Neha Singh to meet the husband and his
family members several times to explain the situation. Due to social
stigma, the brother of deceased did not report the matter to police. In the
night of 19.04.2020, the in-laws of Asmita Singh @ Neha Singh
quarreled with her and threatened her that if she informed the first
informant she will face dire consequences. On 20.04.2020, upon hearing
the news of his sister's death, he got deeply saddened by the incident that
occurred. Her husband, Arun Singh, brother-in-law, Ajit Singh, and
mother-in-law, Usha Singh, her father-in-law Mohan Singh are alleged to
have tortured and assaulted his sister and ultimately murdered her.

4. In view of above, first informant submitted a written report/Tehrir
(Ext. Ka-1) alleging therein that accused husband Arun Singh, Ajit Singh
(brother-in-law), Usha Singh (mother-in-law) have committed murder of
his sister Asmita Singh @ Neha Singh. On the aforementioned written
information of first informant, an FIR was registered on 20.04.2020 as
Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Gulriha,
District Gorakhpur at 18:57 hours against accused Arun Singh (husband)
and 2 others.

5. In furtherance of aforementioned written report, Investigating Officer
conducted inquest proceedings and prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-2)
alongwith other documents and sent the body of deceased for post
mortem examination.

6. Dr. Sunil Kumar, PW-4, conducted post mortem of the body of
deceased on 21.04.2020. Upon external examination, apart from a
                                    3
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

ligature mark on the neck, there were no other injuries found on the body
of deceased. Rigger Mortis was present on all limbs. Nails were
polished. Eyes were closed and the mouth was half open. Foam was
present in the nose. He found that a ligature mark was present on the
front of neck measuring 18cm x 1cm, 5cm below the right ear, 4cm
below the chin, and 2cm below the left ear. On cutting ligature
underneath ecchymosis was present, on opening trachea it wound found
congested and the hyoid bone was found intact. On internal examination,
brain was found congested. The lungs were found congested. The uterus
was found gravid with fetus of about three months old. The probable
time of death was about 1 day. Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-
mortem hanging.

7. During investigation, no credible evidence was found against accused
Ajit   Singh and therefore the investigating officer exculpated
aforementioned accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was submitted on 19.06.2020 only against accused Arun Singh and Usha
Singh i.e. husband and mother-in-law of deceased, who are accused-
opposite parties 2 to 3 herein under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC
and ¾ of D.P. Act. Thereafter, cognizance was taken upon same on
19.6.2020 and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After
hearing both the parties, charges were framed by concerned Sessions
Judge under Section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and in the alternative
an alternate charge under Section 302 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act was framed against accused opposite parties 2 to 3.

8. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Shashi Pratap
Singh (informant and brother of deceased), PW-2 Shailendra Singh
(uncle of deceased), PW-3 Harendra Singh (father of deceased), PW-4
Dr. Sunil Kumar (Autopsy Surgeon), PW-5 ASP, Rachna Mishra, PW-6
SI Virendra Mishra. The witnesses adduced by the prosecution have
given their respective oral evidence and also proved 07 prosecution
papers and 01 material object, which were marked as exhibits. The same
are tabulated herein below:-
                                   4
                                                    NC413 No. - 442 of 2026




Sl. No. Name                  Nature of evidence        Documents proved

PW-1    Shashi Pratap Singh   Informant, who is Written Report (Tehrir)
                              brother of deceased as Ext. Ka-1, Marriage
                              and witness of fact card as material Ext. -1
                              regarding demand of
                              dowry and harassment
                              of the deceased

PW-2    Shailendra Singh      Uncle of deceased and Inquest report as Ext.
                              witness      of   fact Ka-2
                              regarding demand of
                              dowry and harassment
                              of the deceased

PW-3    Harendra Singh        Father of deceased and
                              witness      of    fact
                              regarding demand of                 -
                              dowry and harassment
                              of the deceased

PW-4    Dr. Sunil Kumar       Doctor, who conducted Post mortem report as
                              post     mortem    of Ext. Ka-3
        (Autopsy Surgeon)     deceased

PW-5    ASP Rachna Mishra     Formal witness            Site plan as Ext. Ka-4
                                                        and Charge-sheet as
                                                        Ext. Ka-5

PW-6    SI. Virendra Mishra   Formal witness, who G.D. entry as Ext. Ka-6
                              prepared Check FIR and Check FIR as Ext.
                              and made G.D. entry Ka-7




9. After prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/ incriminating
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to accused
– opposite parties 2 to 3, in question answer form for their version of
occurrence as per mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the
suggestions put to them one by one by repeatedly saying that it is false
or they have been falsely implicated or the prosecution case is false or
the depositions of prosecution witnesses are false. Accused Arun Singh
additionally stated that deceased was having pregnancy of 3 months and
that child was of someone else, due to which, she committed suicide
under depression. Accused Usha Singh deposed that false case was got
                                     5
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

lodged and false charge-sheet was submitted after false investigation.
The deceased was having 3 months pregnancy and that child was not of
Arun Singh, due to which deceased committed suicide under depression.
Additionally they deposed that the FIR was got lodged ante time. Case
proceeded wrongly against them. They are innocent. They have not
committed any offence. In their defence they adduced Ajit Singh as
DW-1 and Sonmati as DW-2. The accused also produced original ticket
and boarding pass of opposite party -2 from Lucknow to Muscat dated
27.06.2019 and from Muscat to Qatar dated 28.06.2019, original
boarding pass from Qatar to Delhi dated 8.2.2020 and from Delhi to
Lucknow dated 9.2.2020, original passport vide list 16B, original sale
deed dated 17.03.2020 executed in the name of Usha Singh was also
produced in defence.

10. By the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2026, Court below acquitted
the accused- opposite parties 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 498-
A, 304-B, 323/34, 506 IPC as well as alternate charge under Section 302
IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal has
been preferred by the first informant.

12. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment is
manifestly illegal and erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set aside by
this Court.

13. It was argued by the learned counsel for appellant that prosecution
has been able to prove that informant’s daughter Asmita Singh @ Neha
Singh died on account of hanging within 07 years of her marriage. It is
established from record that death of deceased was unnatural. First
informant Shashi Pratap Singh himself as PW-1, his uncle Shailendra
Singh as PW-2 and his father Harendra Singh as PW-3 in their respective
testimonies, have proved the factum of demand of additional dowry
made by accused- opposite parties 2 and 3. It has also been proved in
their evidence that the accused – opposite parties 2 and 3 were not happy
                                    6
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were harassed the
deceased Asmita Singh @ Nehe Singh on account of non fulfillment of
additional demand of dowry. It has also been proved in evidence that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with
said demand of dowry by her in-laws, that too, soon before her death. As
a result, the prosecution was able to establish all the ingredients of
dowry death. All the circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly
established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. However,
Court below failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record. He, therefore, strenuously, urged that in
view of above, Court below has erred in acquitting the accused. As such,
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Court.


14.   Learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the present
appeal. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by Court below
does not suffer from any illegality of law or fact much less a legal error
so as to warrant interference by this Court. Court below has examined
prosecution case in the light of evidence on record threadbare, without
leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. In view of the findings /
reasons recorded by court below on each of the points of determination
which arose for determination, Court below has rightly arrived at the
conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the very story, which, it
set out to prove. The prosecution story is based solely on the allegation
that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of
additional demand of dowry, but after appreciation of evidence of PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3, Court below deduced that prosecution has not been
able to prove that any additional demand of dowry was made and no
specific instance regarding commit of cruelty coupled with persistent
harassment was brought on record, therefore, Court below rightly came
to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the essential
ingredients of Section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of
D.P. Act. Court below has also come to the conclusion that there was no
harassment of deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional
demand of dowry soon before death and prosecution has failed to prove
                                         7
                                                           NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, therefore, Court below
has rightly acquitted the accused. Lastly, it has been urged that no
ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order is made
out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of present appeal.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned AGA
for State- opposite party 1 and also carefully examined the record in the
light of above arguments.

16. Admittedly, this is an appeal against acquittal. While considering the
scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by
Supreme Court that if two views are possible, one supporting the
acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in
such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by Court below.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in
Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415 : AIR
2007 SCC (SUPP) 111.

17. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court in
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 561, has observed as under:-

       "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
       interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
       acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to
       be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
       (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
       (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
       material evidence on record;
       (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view
       consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
       available on record.
       40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of
       acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors
       if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
       trial Court."

18. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
                                      8
                                                       NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

there is double presumption in favour of an accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court. It has also been observed that the appellate court can interfere
with an order of acquittal only when it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of evidence on record is
that the guilt of accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion is possible.

19. In Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009)
10 SCC 636, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that
interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in
exceptional circumstance. It was further held that it is open to the High
Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions arrived at by the trial
court. However, it is limited to those cases where the judgment of the
trial court is perverse. Apex Court further went on to declare that the
word "perverse", as understood in law, means, "against the weight of
evidence". If there are two views parallel and the trial court has taken
one of the views merely because another view is plausible, the appellate
court will not be justified in interfering with the verdict of acquittal.

20. Perusal of impugned judgment in the light of above-noted well
settled legal position reveals that present case relates to dowry death of
deceased Asmita @ Neha. It is an admitted fact to the parties that
marriage of Asmita was solemnized with accused- opposite party 2, Arun
Singh on 23.04.2019 and she died on 19.04.2020 i.e. within one year of
her marriage. It is also an admitted fact that the death of deceased was
unnatural as the deceased died on account of hanging.

21. While dealing with an appeal against conviction for dowry death, the
Supreme Court in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine
                                          9
                                                            NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

214, has crystallized the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC as
under:-

“6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:
   a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or
       must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
   b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;
   c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment
       by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
   d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for
      dowry.

22. While setting aside a judgment of conviction, it has also been
observed in above mentioned judgment that presumption under Section
113-B of Indian Evidence Act, will apply only when it is established that
soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry by the accused.
Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must
establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or
in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death by the
accused. Unless the said burden is satisfactorily discharged, the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall not arise.

23. Thus, to bring home a charge under section 304-B IPC, prosecution
is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband/ her in-laws in connection with demand of
dowry and such demand of dowry was made soon before death. The
prosecution must prove demand of dowry and cruelty or harassment of a
lady by her in-laws including her husband in connection with any
demand for any property or valuable security as demand for dowry or in
connection thereof which are the common constituents of both the
offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC respectively.

24. Upon evaluation of impugned judgment in the backdrop of
aforementioned principles we find that Court below has recorded the
following reasons/ findings:-
                                   10
                                                      NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

I. The marriage of the deceased Asmita Singh @ Neha Singh was solemnized
with accused-opposite party-2 Arun Singh on 23.04.2019.


II. The informant PW-1 (brother of deceased Asmita Singh @ Neha Singh)
moved a written report/ Tehrir (Ext.Ka-1) alleging therein that after
solemnization of marriage of his sister with accused-opposite party-2,
accused opposite party-2 and his family members started harassing his sister
and were demanding money in one form or other.


III. Informant got information of harassment of his sister in the night of
19.04.2020 from deceased herself and also received information of her death
at around 12:00 Noon on 20.04.2020 from her husband, but no effort was
made by him to promptly lodge FIR. However, the delay in lodging FIR is
not such which can raise suspicion over prosecution story.


IV. As per FSL report (Ext. Ka-3) only one ante mortem injury in the shape of
an incomplete ligature mark was found on the body of deceased and hyoid
bone was found intact. Cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to ante
mortem injury. As per inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), the deceased was found
hanging from the hook of a fan in a locked room. The deceased has
committed suicide herself.


V. PW-1 in his cross examination has conceded that there was no dispute
whatsoever at the time of marriage.


VI. PW-1 in his examination in chief has stated that her sister called him in
the night of 19.04.2020 at around 12:00 Noon. However, in his cross
examination he stated that his other sister received aforesaid call and the
deceased had not called him. PW-1 also admitted that mobile number of
deceased and his elder sister (Didi) are registered in his name.


VII. PW-1 is a practicing advocate who in his cross examination stated that
inquest proceedings started at 11:00 AM on 20.04.2020. However, inquest
was conducted on 21.04.2020. PW-1 stated that when he arrived in the house
of in-laws of his sister on 19.04.2020, her dead body was lying outside
whereas as a witness of inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), it has been written that
dead body was found hanging in a locked room. PW-1 further stated that
dead body of his sister was sent for post mortem examination on 20.04.2020
whereas the same was sent on 21.04.2020. He also deposed that there were
visible marks of injury on the body of his sister. However, there was no mark
                                   11
                                                      NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

of injury except ligature mark on the body of deceased. Therefore, his
testimony was not found trustworthy.


VIII. PW-2 is also a signatory of inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), as a witness, who
has deposed that he immediately arrived on spot at 11 AM/12 AM, after
receiving information of death of his niece and when he arrived, police had
already reached there. Therefore, his statement that they informed police on
emergency no. 100 from spot is found false.


IX. PW-2 made contradictory statements in his cross examination. He made
contradictory statement regarding calling police on emergency no. 100. In
examination in chief he stated that he called police via 100 number from spot,
whereas in his cross examination he stated that when he arrived on spot,
police had already reached there. He has stated that Ajit Singh demanded
money for purchase of land not from him but from Shashi (informant). Arun
Singh and Asmita Singh visited informant’s house on the eve of Raksha
Bandhan whereas it is on record that Arun Singh was out of India from
27.05.2019 to 10.02.2020. His niece talked to informant Shashi on
20.04.2020, however there was no other evidence supporting it. This witness
is not a trustworthy witness as his evidence is full of contradictions.


X. From original boarding passes and passport of Arun Singh, it is
established on record that he traveled to Muskat from Lucknow on 27.6.2019
and then from Muskat to Qatar on 28.6.2019. He returned from Qatar to
Delhi on 8.2.2020 and then from Delhi to Lucknow on 9.2.2020. Thus he was
not in India from 27.6.2019 to 9.2.2020 as there is no entry in his passport of
his return to India in between. He was working in Merchant Navy and just
after about two months of his marriage, he went upon his journey and
returned to his home district Gorakhpur only on 10.2.2020. This fact is
admitted to both parties and it makes the deposition of PW-2 that he saw
Arun Singh and Asmita Singh on the eve of Raksha Bandhan patently false.


XI. PW-3 Harendra Singh in his cross examination has stated that he came to
his residence after 5 months of the death of his daughter. He was informed by
his wife, daughter and brother regarding incident. From his deposition it is
clear that there was no issue at the time of marriage and everything went
smoothly with mutual consent. He mostly resided in Andhra Pradesh.


XII. AT the time of death, deceased was stated to be three months pregnant as
per post mortem report (Ext. Ka-3) whereas she remained in the company of
                                        12
                                                           NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

      her husband from 10.2.2020 to 20.04.2020 for a total period of 2 months and
      10 days. Therefore, argument of defence that the fact she became pregnant by
      another man which caused her to commit suicide can not be out-rightly
      rejected.


      XIII. Prosecution could not prove that accused had been subjecting the
      deceased to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry soon before her
      death as there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution
      witnesses.


      XIV. Prosecution has not been able to prove a single instance of cruelty by
      accused and there is no concrete and credible evidence on record to prove any
      act of cruelty by accused with the deceased before her death. Therefore,
      prosecution has failed to prove demand of dowry and cruelty with the
      deceased soon before her death. Therefore, Section 113-B of Indian Evidence
      Act can not be invoked.


      XV. Court has already arrived at the conclusion that deceased committed
      suicide and there is no other ante mortem injury except ligature mark,
      therefore, accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC.


      XVI. There is no evidence on record to conclude that accused played any
      active role in instigating the deceased to commit suicide.


25. After recording above findings, Court below deduced that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against accused –
opposite parties 2 and 3 and thus acquitted them by means of the
impugned judgment.

26. The above conclusion derived by Court below on the basis of reasons
i.e. the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The
findings/reasons returned by Court below are based upon due evaluation
of allegations made in the complaint in the light of evidence on record.
Court below has assigned specific reasons for coming to the conclusion
that no offence under any of the charging Sections is made out against
accused. However, out of abundant caution and further to find out
whether as per the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the necessary
                                     13
                                                    NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

ingredients of the charging sections are borne out/ satisfied or not, we
have ourselves carefully perused and analyzed the depositions of
informant Shashi Pratap PW-1, Shailendra PW-2 and Harendra PW-3 as
transcripted in the impugned judgment.

BASIC PROSECUTION STORY

27. The basic prosecution story as unfolded in written report/ Tehrir (Ext.
Ka-1) is that marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused –
opposite party Arun Singh in April 2019. The informant spent an amount
of Rs. 10 lakhs in the said marriage, out of which, he gave Rs. 2,51,000/-
in cash and a Bullet motorcycle. The deceased’s husband and his family
members used to demand money in one or another form. The in-laws of
deceased quarreled with the deceased in the night of 19.4.2020,
regarding which deceased informed him. On 20.4.2020 they received
information that his sister is no more. She was assaulted, tortured and
then murdered by her husband, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law.
Therefore, as per written report Ext. Ka-1, deceased was murdered after
torturing and assaulting her. However, during course of investigation,
complicity of named accused Ajit Singh was not established and
therefore he was exculpated and charge-sheet was filed only against
accused- opposite parties 2 and 3.

28. Informant Shashi Pratap PW-1 has for the first time in his deposition
has stated that accused- opposite parties 2 and 3 alongwith Ajit Singh
were demanding Rs. 2,50,000/- cash in additional dowry and they used
to harass and assault his sister for this demand. He further deposed that
his sister visited her parental home on the eve of Raksha Bandhan and
informed regarding this. Thereafter he went to in-laws of his sister and
tried to convince them but they were adamant. His sister informed him in
the night of 19.04.2020 at around 12:00 AM telephonically that her in-
laws have quarreled and assaulted her for aforesaid additional demand of
dowry and have threatened to kill her if demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- is not
fulfilled. At around 12:00 Noon on 20.4.2020 husband of his sister
namely Arun Singh informed him that his sister Asmita @ Neha has
                                     14
                                                      NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

died. Her in-laws were in hurry to perform last rites of her dead body on
which he informed police on emergency no. 100 and also informed his
uncle who was residing in Gorakhpur.

29. PW-1 in his cross examination has fairly conceded that there was no
dispute whatsoever at the time of marriage and they bid adieu of his
sister very happily. He also stated that his sister visited him at the time of
Raksha Bandhan as well as in the month of March, 2020. He further
deposed that deceased talked to her elder sister in the night of 19.4.2020.
He further stated that his elder sister (Didi) received call from mobile no.
9559857878 on her mobile number 9198896397. He further conceded
that SIM of both mobile numbers were issued in his name, however he
had given these SIMs to his sisters. He further stated that he saw finger
prints upon neck of his sister from his eyes. He also fairly conceded that
inquest proceedings were conducted in his presence. Inquest proceedings
started at around 11:00 am on 20.4.2020 which continued for about 2-3
hours. His statement alongwith other Panch witnesses were recorded on
the spot. In the opinion of witnesses of inquest report, it has been clearly
stated that deceased was found hanging at around 12:30 PM on
20.4.2020 in a closed room. The dead body of his sister was sent for post
mortem examination in the evening of 20.4.2020. However, inquest
proceedings were conducted on 21.4.2020 and dead body was also sent
for post mortem examination on 21.4.2020. There is also no mark of
injury except ligature mark on the body of deceased. Therefore,
deposition of this witness does not inspire any confidence. Thus, PW-1
has leveled general allegations regarding demand of additional dowry
and commission of cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of additional
demand of dowry. He has not narrated any specific instance regarding
commission of cruelty upon deceased with date, time and place of
causing cruelty or harassment of his sister at the hands of accused –
opposite parties 2 and 3 soon before death of deceased i.e. his sister
Asmita @ Neha. He has also not proved any particular act of cruelty or
harassment by the accused- opposite parties 2 and 3 due to non
                                    15
                                                    NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and that too soon before death
of his sister.

30. We have carefully perused the deposition of PW-1. Except general,
vague and omnibus allegations regarding demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- cash
as additional dowry there are no other allegations regarding any other
demand being ever raised by accused- opposite parties 2 and 3. As this
witness has fairly conceded that it was his elder sister (Didi) who
received mobile call of deceased in night of 19.4.2020, therefore this
witness has not received any information from the deceased in the night
of 19.4.2020 and prosecution has not examined elder sister of this
witness to support alleged prosecution version regarding deceased
informing them telephonically on 19.4.2020.

31. Shailendra PW-2, is uncle of deceased, who in his deposition has
stated that in-laws of her niece were not satisfied with the dowry given at
the time of marriage. 5-6 months after marriage, in-laws of his niece
demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a piece of land.
They also agreed to give aforesaid amount however because of operation
of informant, all amount was spent, therefore, they could not give
aforesaid amount to in-laws of his niece. His niece visited her parental
home on the eve of Raksha Bandhan and informed them regarding
assault upon her on account of non fulfillment of aforesaid demand of
money. He got information of demise of his niece Asmita @ Neha from
his nephew. Then he alongwith his close associates visited the
matrimonial home of his niece where he found that the in-laws of his
niece were taking the dead body of deceased to perform last rites. They
were adamant upon this. He informed his nephew and also called police
on emergency no. 100. Thereafter, inquest of the dead body of his niece
was performed and he also signed the inquest report.

32. PW-2 in his cross examination has fairly conceded that he signed
inquest report alongwith his nephew Shashi Pratap. He also fairly
conceded that informant Shashi Pratap is a practicing advocate. He
arrived on the spot at around 11-12 AM and before his arrival police was
                                    16
                                                    NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

already there. The police did not went inside the room in which his niece
was found hanging, because of pandemic Corona-19. He further
conceded that it was Ajit Singh who demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- cash for
purchasing land from informant Shashi Pratap. He further conceded that
this fact of demand of aforesaid amount was informed to him by
informant Shashi Pratap as no demand was made to him by Ajit Singh.
On the eve of Raksha Bandhan his niece Asmita had visited her parental
home alongwith her husband. They both came together and after having
food they went together.

33. A perusal of deposition of this witness also reveals that only general
allegations regarding demand of additional dowry have been leveled by
this witness without there being any specific instance with any date, time
and place of causing cruelty or harassment of his niece at the hands of
accused – opposite parties 2 and 3. There is nothing in his deposition to
suggest that his niece suffered cruelty or harassment at the hands of
accused soon before her death that too on account of non fulfillment of
additional demand of dowry on account of a particular act of accused. It
has come on record that accused- opposite party-2 was out of India from
27.06.2019 to 09.02.2020, therefore, there is no question of his visiting
parental home of deceased on the eve of Raksha Bandhan. Court below
has thus rightly disbelieved the deposition of PW-2.

34. Harendra PW-3 is father of deceased Asmita Singh @ Neha, who
was not residing at his house in village Bajaha at the time of incident but
in Andhra Pradesh. He visited his home after several months of the
incident. This witness has fairly conceded in his examination in chief
that his daughter used to tell regrading additional demand of dowry to
his brother and mother whenever she used to visit her parental home.
Meaning thereby that the deceased had never disclosed to this witness
regarding demand of additional dowry. This witness has stated that
marriage of his daughter was solemnized according to Hindu rites and
customs without there being any dispute prior to marriage or at the time
of marriage or even after solemnization of marriage. He stated that his
                                   17
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

daughter was harassed for demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- as additional dowry.
He further stated that his daughter visited his house on the eve of Raksha
Bandhan in the month of August and informed about harassment caused
to her on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. He
also stated that one day prior to incident i.e. 19.04.2020 his daughter
informed him telephonically regarding her harassment and assault. He
asked his son to call back his sister however she was murdered in the
intervening night of 19-20.4.2020 by her in-laws. At the time of incident
he and his wife were residing in West Godawari, Andhra Pradesh. After
getting information of death of his daughter he came to his native place
only in the month of August. He further stated that he came to his native
place on the eve of Raksha Bandhan and after spending 10-12 days at his
home he went back to Andhra Pradesh. His wife stayed with him in
Andhra Pradesh from November, 2019 to June 2020. He came to his
residence only after one year. Meaning thereby that this witness
remained in Andhra Pradesh for the year 2019 to August 2020. He met
his daughter only on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan falling in the
month of August 2019. He stated that marriage was solemnized in a very
happy atmosphere and even wedding procession departed very happily.
This witness also stated that when his daughter died, then he came to
know that she was having pregnancy of 03 months. This witness
remained mostly in Andhra Pradesh not only at the time of death of his
daughter, but even prior to the death of his daughter. Moreover there is
no call details record available on record indicative of fact that his
daughter called this witness on 19.4.2020 at around 11:00 am. His son
PW-1 has not stated anything regarding this witness calling him on
19.04.2020 to call back the deceased. Therefore, this part of his
testimony lacks of corroboration. This witness has also miserably failed
to state any particular act of cruelty or harassment of his daughter on
account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry at the hands of
accused soon before her death.

35. Prosecution has examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as witnesses of
fact regarding harassment of deceased at the hands of accused for non
                                    18
                                                      NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

fulfillment of alleged additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.
2,50,000/- cash. However, it has consistently come on record that
aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was demanded by co-accused Ajit
Singh, who was not chargesheeted by the police and there is nothing on
record to show that any application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was ever
moved by informant or prosecution to summon aforesaid accused Ajit
Singh.

36. We have carefully perused the depositions of these 03 prosecution
witnesses. One glaring fact has clearly emerged on record and has also
been admitted by the father of deceased that the deceased was in family
way (for the last three months) at the time of death. It has also come on
record that deceased’s husband was out of India from 27.6.2019 to
9.2.2020 and he arrived at Gorakhpur only on 10.2.2020. Meaning
thereby that husband of deceased started cohabitation only on 10.2.2020.
However, inspite of above the deceased was having pregnancy of 3
months and her date of conceiving precedes the date of return of her
husband. In this background Court below has rightly held in paragraph
139 that defense stand cannot be brushed aside that the deceased came in
family way from someone else other than her husband. Aforesaid aspect
as rightly pointed out by Court below, cannot be lost sight. Infact this is
prima facie the case of suicidal death of deceased.

37. Dr. Sunil Kumar PW-4 the autopsy surgeon in his deposition has
proved the post mortem report of deceased as Ext. Ka-3. This witness
found only one ante- mortem injury on the body of deceased that too in
the shape of an incomplete ligature mark. In the opinion of autopsy
surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante
mortem injury. We have carefully perused the deposition of this witness
as well as the description occurring in the post mortem as transcribed in
paragraph 24 and 27 of the impugned judgment. We have also perused
the analysis of Court below as recorded in paragraph 73 to 87 of the
impugned judgment. However, upon evaluation of the same we find that
the deceased committed suicide by hanging and therefore, the cause of
                                    19
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of hanging. Court below has
therefore rightly concluded that the death of deceased is due to hanging.

38. We have carefully perused the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
as transcripted in the impugned judgment. However, there is nothing on
record to establish that there was any demand of additional dowry by the
accused prior to marriage or even at the time of marriage. None of the
above-mentioned witnesses have specified any date, time and place of
last alleged harassment and even no specific instance of harassment or
cruelty to the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of additional
demand of dowry has been narrated by these witnesses in their
respective oral depositions. There is no evidence to indicate that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of accused
soon before her death that too on account of non fulfillment of additional
demand of dowry. Except for a general and vague allegation regarding
demand of Rs. 2,50,000/- cash as additional dowry, no specific instance
attributable to accused – opposite parties 2 and 3 regarding any mental
and / or physical harassment of the deceased on a particular date, time
and place on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry
has emerged in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Thus, in our
considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt –
much less a reasonable doubt that cruelty or harassment upon the
deceased was committed in connection with any demand for dowry as
contemplated in the two provisions of India Penal Code (i.e. 498-A &
304-B IPC) under which, the accused- opposite parties have been
charged. Although, it is true that the deceased died on 20.4.2020, which
is about 11 months from the date of her marriage therefore within 07
years of her marriage and that the death of deceased occurred due to
hanging. Therefore, the factum of unnatural death of deceased in her
matrimonial home, that too, within 07 years of her marriage, is proved
by the prosecution, but the same is ipso-facto not sufficient to bring
home the charge under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC of the Code
against an accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that
deceased was harassed/ subjected to cruelty on account of non
                                   20
                                                   NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. The death of deceased is
suicidal and not homicidal. As the prosecution has failed to prove the
crucial ingredients of physical and mental cruelty committed upon
deceased by direct and cogent evidence, therefore, the statutory
presumption available under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act gets
clearly rebutted. As the death of deceased is prima facie not a dowry
death, therefore, Court below has rightly recorded a finding that
prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt i.e. beyond reasonable
doubt the charges leveled against opposite parties 2 to 3 under Sections
498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

39. As a logical consequence of above analysis we are, therefore, of the
opinion that the findings returned by the Court below regarding failure
of prosecution to prove that accused demanded additional dowry from
the deceased and that cruelty was committed upon her on account of
non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry as well as failure of the
prosecution to establish and prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty
or torture soon before her death are based upon due appreciation of the
depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 by Court below.

40. As prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges regarding
demand of additional dowry, harassment of deceased on account of
demand of additional dowry and dowry death, therefore, Court below
also examined the evidence available on record in respect of the alternate
charge against accused under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for
appellant argued that as unnatural death of deceased took place in the
house of accused- opposite parties 2 to 3, therefore, section 106 of
Evidence Act comes into picture and no explanation whatsoever has
been offered by the accused persons in their statements recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the manner of occurrence. Accused-
opposite parties 2 to 3 have failed to discharge the burden under Section
106 of Evidence Act as to how and under what circumstances, unnatural
death of deceased took place in their house. It was thus urged by learned
                                       21
                                                         NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

counsel for appellant that accused opposite parties 2 to 3 be convicted
for an offence under Section 302 IPC.

41. The Apex Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2021 SC 1249, has observed as under:-

      “22. It could thus be seen, that it is well-settled that Section 106 of the
      Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife
      staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased.
      Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of
      discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond
      reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if
      believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case,
      that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof
      would lie upon the accused.”

42. In the present case, we have already held that the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself. There was no other mark of injury
on the body of deceased. Therefore, no sign of any struggle was found
on the body of deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum
of homicidal death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased
was found hanging from the hook of a ceiling fan inside a locked room
as per inquest report Ext. Ka-2, PW-1 and PW-2 both are not only
signatories of aforesaid inquest report, but are also witnesses of inquest
in whose presence inquest proceedings were conducted and even their
opinion was recorded in it. The room in which deceased was found
hanging was locked from inside, meaning thereby that deceased
committed suicide. Thus, the prosecution has failed to discharge the
primary burden of proving the prosecution case of murder of deceased
by accused – opposite parties 2 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
in the present case, Section 106 of Evidence Act does not help the
prosecution. In view of above circumstance, it cannot be presumed that
accused- opposite parties 2 to 3 have committed murder of deceased
either. We are therefore of the considered opinion that prosecution has
failed to prove that accused opposite parties 2 to 3 have committed
murder of deceased. Since the prosecution has failed to discharge it’s
                                                                22
                                                                                NC413 No. - 442 of 2026

                            primary burden of proving charge of murder of deceased against accused
                            opposite parties 2 to 3, therefore, statutory presumption available under
                            Section 106 of the Evidence Act also does not get attracted. The analysis
                            of evidence by the trial Court, in our view, has been in proper
                            perspective i.e. factual and legal and thus the findings recorded by it are
                            correct and cogent findings and therefore the same are not liable to be
                            upset by this Court.

                            43. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any perversity
                            in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by Court
                            below. The conclusion drawn by Court below is the outcome of due
                            appreciation of evidence on record. No misreading or omission on the
                            part of Court below could be pointed out by the learned counsel for
                            appellant either. However, being the last Court of fact, we have ourselves
                            evaluated the evidence on record to find out whether there is any
                            perversity in the impugned judgment or Court below has misconstrued
                            any material evidence. However, we could not gather any such fact from
                            the record so as to conclude that the conclusion drawn by Court below is
                            against the weight of evidence on record. It thus, cannot be said that only
                            the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible as per the
                            evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to
                            entertain the present appeal filed under Section 413 BNSS, which
                            consequently fails and is, accordingly dismissed.




                                                          (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

                            September 15, 2026
                            Dhirendra/




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad