Dismissed

Rama Shankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025NC413/705/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant's appeal against acquittal of his son-in-law and in-laws in a dowry death case. The court held that general allegations without specific instances of cruelty or dowry demand soon before death failed to prove Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC or murder under Section 302 IPC, and dismissed the appeal upholding the acquittal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rama Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 705 of 2025

¶2

Rama Shankar

¶3

.....Appellant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Arvind Kumar Dubey, Raju Kanaujia : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 47

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Mr. A. Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party-1.

¶9

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 2, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2016 (State vs. Rajkumar), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and alternate section 302 IPC, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, whereby the accused opposite parties 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that the informant Rama Shankar married his daughter Shivrani with Rajkumar, resident of village Naricha Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur in May, 2013. Shivrani's husband Rajkumar, her father-in-law Siyaram, her mother-in-law Surajkali (Siyaram's second wife) alongwith her brother-in-law Shivkumar, sister-in-law Nisha Devi and Suman Devi frequently taunted, beated, abused and harassed Shivrani for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and a motorcycle. Nandkishore and Matru (from the husband's family) also supported the in-laws in demand of dowry and harassment of Shivrani. Nandkishor used to ensure them that nothing would happen and that he would handle everything. His daughter told all the episode and misery faced by her to him on phone as well as whenever she visited her parental home. In the early hours of the day (morning) on 16.08.2016, a phone call came from someone in village Naricha, informing him that his daughter had been

¶11

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶12

¶13

forcibly poisoned and killed by her in-laws. Upon receiving this information, the informant alongwith his brother Dayashankar went to his marital home and found his daughter dead. He informed the Police about the incident and the Police arrived, conducted the necessary formalities and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem examination.

¶14

In view of above, the informant/appellant submitted a Written Report (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur alleging therein that accused Rajkumar (husband), Siyaram (father-in-law), Surajkali (mother-in-law), Shivkumar (brother-in-law), Nisha Devi and Suman Devi (sisters-in-law), Nandkishore and Matru (from husband's family) have committed dowry death of his daughter Shivrani. On the aforementioned Written Report (Tehrir) of the appellant, an FIR was registered at 04:30 pm on 20.08.2016 as Crime No. 223 of 2016 (State vs. Rajkumar), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur against accused opposite parties 2 to 4 alongwith Shivkumar (brother-in-law), Nisha Devi and Suman Devi (sistersin-law), Nandkishore and Matru.

¶15

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against opposite parties 2 to 4, namely, Rajkumar, Siyaram, Surajkali, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act whereas the other named accused were exculpated. Thereafter, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional magistrate. As offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties, charges were framed against accused-opposite parties 2 to 4, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and alternate charge under section 302 IPC, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, was also framed.

¶16

In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Rama Shankar (informant and father of the deceased), PW-2 Shivkumari (neighbour of informant) PW-3 Dr. R.S. Prajapati, (Autopsy Surgeon), PW-4 Ramesh Chandra Pandey (Naib Tehsildar), who conducted inquest proceedings and PW-5 Anurag Kumar (Head Constable) The witnesses adduced by the prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 12 prosecution papers, namely, Written Report (Tehrir) as Ext. Ka-1, Death Information as Ext. Ka-2, Post Mortem Report as Ext. Ka-3, Inquest Report (Panchayatnama) as Ext. Ka-4, Challan Naash as Ext. Ka-5, Photo Naash as Ext. Ka-6, Letter to C.M.O. as Ext. Ka-7, Stamp and Seal of the dead body as Ext. Ka-8, Check First Information Report as Ext. Ka-9, Kayami G.D. as Ext. Ka-10, Site Plan as Ext. Ka-11 and Charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-12.

¶17

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶18

¶19

After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused in question answer form for their version of the occurrence as per the man date of Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the questions put to them 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.

¶20

By the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2025, Court below acquitted the accused-opposite parties of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and alternate section 302 IPC, Police Station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur.

¶21

Thus, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by Court below, the present appeal has been preferred by the informant-appellant.

¶22

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

¶23

It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant that prosecution has been able to prove that informant's daughter died on account of demand of dowry within seven years of her marriage. Informant-appellant Rama Shankar himself as PW-1 and PW-2 Shivkumari, in their respective testimonies, have proved the factum of demand of dowry made by accusedopposite parties. It has also been proved by their evidence that accusedopposite parties were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were harassing the deceased on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. It has further been proved in evidence that the deceased was subjected to 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. The varied circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly establish 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.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has however vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by Court below does not suffer from any infirmity of law or fact much less a legal error so as to warrant interference by this Court. Court below has examined prosecution case threadbare in the

¶25

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶26

¶27

light of evidence on record without leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. Court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the 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 being harassed on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. No specific instance regarding cruelty coupled with persistent harassment was brought on record, therefore, Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Court below has also come to the conclusion that there is no credible and reliable evidence on record to show that there was harassment of the deceased on account of non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry soon before death. Furthermore prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. As such, Court below has rightly acquitted the accused. Thus, it has been argued that no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order is made out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of present appeal.

¶28

We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and perused the record.

¶29

Court below, while acquitting the accused, has recorded the following findings:-

¶30

(i) The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accusedopposite party 2 Rajkumar in the year 2013.

¶31

(ii) Deceased Shivrani died on 16.08.2016 because of poisoning by DDVP insecticide, within seven years of her marriage.

¶32

(iii) Informant-appellant Rama Shankar PW-1 in his testimony has not given any evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to any physical assault or harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry soon before her death. PW-1 has made general allegations regarding demand of dowry and that too in a very formal manner.

¶33

(iv) Shivkumari PW-2 in her deposition has stated that Shivrani met this witness, when she visited her parental house. She had disclosed that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law were demanding Rs. 1.5 lakhs and a motor-cycle in dowry but this witness failed to specify that for how much period, the deceased resided in her matrimonial home/in-law's house. This witness even could not specify that when Shivrani met her and she fairly stated that she has come to depose with deceased's father.

¶34

(v) Shivkumari PW-2 has not given any evidence to suggest that deceased Shivrani was subjected to any cruelty soon before her death.

¶35

(vi) The prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was harassed soon before her death on account of demand of additional dowry.

¶36

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶37

¶38

(vi) Prosecution also failed to prove cruelty before death, therefore, no ground to invoke the presumption under section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act against accused was made out.

¶39

(vii) There was no visible injury on the body of the deceased, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was forcibly poisoned.

¶40

After recording the above findings, Court below concluded that since prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of the charges framed against them.

¶41

It is by now well settled that if on the same evidence, two opinions can be formed as to whether the accused has committed the crime or not, then the Court must accept the option, which is in favour of accused as the benefit of doubt is available to the accused alone. In line with the above proposition, Court below deduced that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as prosecution has failed to establish the very story, which it set out to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Court below has acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them by extending the benefit of doubt.

¶42

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 qua the fallacy in the prosecution case are based upon due evaluation of prosecution case in the light of evidence on record. Court below has assigned specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that no offence under any of charging Sections is made out against accused. Upon examination of the said findings by us in the light of depositions of the prosecution witnesses as noted in the impugned judgment, we could not come across any such fact on the basis of which, any of the findings returned by Court below pointing out the inherent weakness in the prosecution case can not be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous, inasmuch as the prosecution itself himself could not prove the very story which it set out to prove against accused by his own evidence. As such, the conclusion drawn by Court below that no criminality as alleged to have been committed by the accused-opposite parties is borne out from the record is neither illegal nor perverse.

¶43

While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the 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

¶44

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶45

¶46

recorded by Court below.

¶47

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, wherein Apex Court has observed as under:

¶48

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

¶49

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;

¶50

(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶51

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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.

¶52

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

¶53

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

¶54

"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:-

¶55

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶56

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

¶57

(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.

¶58

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."

¶59

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶60

¶61

It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the 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 the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.

¶62

The Supreme Court in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636 , has observed 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 was perverse. This Court went on to declare that the word "perverse", as understood in law, has been understood to mean, "against the weight of evidence". If there are two views 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.

¶63

Perusal of the impugned judgment in the light of above-noted well settled legal position reveals that present case relates to dowry death of the deceased Shivrani. It is an admitted fact to the parties that the marriage of Shivrani was solemnized with accused-opposite party 2 Rajkumar in the year 2013 and she died on 16.08.2016 i.e. within seven years of her marriage. The deceased died on account of poisoning, therefore, death of the deceased within 07 years of her marriage on that account is also a proved fact. However, to bring home a charge under section 304-B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry and such demand of dowry was made soon before death. The prosecution must prove firstly demand of dowry. Cruelty or harassment of a lady by her inlaws including her husband in connection with any demand for any property or valuable security as a 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.

¶64

Out of abundant caution and further to find out whether as per the

¶65

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶66

¶67

depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, the necessary ingredients of the charging section are borne out/satisfied or not, we have carefully perused the statements of informant Rama Shankar PW-1, and Shivkumari PW-2, as referred to in the impugned judgment.

¶68

PW-1 Rama Shankar in his deposition has stated that he married his daughter Shivrani to Rajkumar in May, 2013. His daughter's husband Rajkumar, mother-in-law Surajkali, father-in-law Siyaram, sisters-in-law Suman and Nisha often taunted at his daughter Shivrani for bringing less dowry. His daughter was beaten and abused by her in-laws. They demanded Rs. 1.5 lakhs and a motorcycle as additional dowry on the instigation of Nandkishore and Matru. He received a call from Rajkumar at 12:00 midnight and thereafter a call from Matru and they informed him that his daughter has died. His daughter was killed by administering poison. He had gone to his daughter's house with his brother Dayashankar and found his daughter lying dead.

¶69

Informant-appellant Rama Shankar, who is the father of deceased Shivrani in his Written Report (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) as well as in his deposition as PW-1 before Court below has not stated anything regarding goods articles given by him at the time of marriage of his daughter. This witness has not stated any specific instance of harassment or torture of his daughter Shirvani by accused-opposite parties 2 to 4. Only general allegations against in-laws of the deceased were levelled regarding demand of dowry. This witness has arrayed nearly all the family members of husband of the deceased. As per deposition of this witness, his daughter was continuously harassed on account non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry but, there is nothing on record indicative of the fact that in-spite of said consistent demand of dowry and harassment, any complaint was made at the earliest regarding the same. This witness has not proved any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the accused that too, soon before death of his daughter, i.e. deceased Shivrani.

¶70

PW-2 Shivkumari in her examination-in-chief stated that Ramashankar's daughter, whose name was Shivrani, lived earlier in her neighbourhood. She (Shivani) was married and after marriage, when she came to her father's house, she met her. When she saw her, she looked very sad. When she asked her the reason for her sadness, she told her that her in-laws demanded Rs. 1.5 lakh and a motorcycle as dowry. They also beat her because of non fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry. A few days later, she heard that she had died. Upon hearing the news of her death, she went to Shivrani's in-law's house where her body was lying outside the house. On reaching inlaws' house of Shivrani, PW-2 heard that Shivrani had been poisoned and

¶71

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶72

¶73

killed by her in-laws because of non fulfillment of the demand of additional dowry.

¶74

PW-2 Shivkumari in her cross-examination failed to tell that when Shivrani came and informed regarding her harassment on account of the demand of additional dowry. This witness could not state that for how many days deceased earlier stayed at her in-laws' house. This witness has not given any evidence to suggest that deceased was subjected to any physical assault or harassment for the demand of additional dowry soon before her death.

¶75

PW-3 Dr. R. S. Prajapati, the Autopsy Surgeon, in his examination-inchief stated that on 17.08.2016, he was posted on Emergency Duty at District Hospital, Fatehpur. On that day, the post mortem examination of the deceased started at 3:45 pm and concluded at 4:15 pm. The deceased was approximately 150 cm in height, fair complexion and had double cut hair. Rigor mortis had passed off. Both eyes and mouth were closed. There was no external injury present on the body of accused. Upon internal examination, the brain membranes were found congested and the brain substance was soft and congested. Both lungs were congested. The right chamber of the heart was filled with blood, while the left chamber was empty. Approximately 200 ml of greenish fluid was present in the stomach, which was congested. The small intestine was empty and contained gas, while the large intestine contained fecal matter and gas. The liver was congested, the gall-bladder was full, both kidneys were congested and the spleen was also congested. The urinary bladder was half-filled and the uterus was empty. In his opinion, the death had occurred approximately one and half day prior to the time of post-mortem examination. No definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death. As the cause of death could not be ascertained, the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis.

¶76

PW-4 Naib Tehsildar, Ramesh Chandra Pandey has stated that on 16.08.2016, he reached the residence of deceased's in-laws' for conducting the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased Shivrani Devi on the orders of the then Sub Divisional Magistrate. At the spot, SHO Subhash Chaurasia, SSI Rakesh Maurya, Constable Harishchandra Saroj and Constable Shishupal were present alongwith the inquest papers, death information report and other documents. The deceased' body was shown to her mother and upon examination, no external injuries were found. He proved inquest report and other accompanying documents.

¶77

As per FSL Report, DDVP insecticide was found in the viscera of deceased, therefore, deceased died on account of consuming DDVP insecticide poison. At the time of inquest, Naib Tehsildar, Ramesh Chandra

¶78

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶79

¶80

Pandey, PW-4 had shown the body of deceased to the mother of deceased. No external injuries were found at the time of inquest. The above statement of PW-4 finds support from the deposition of DR. R.S. Prajapati PW-3 who had conducted the post mortem examination of deceased and has stated that there was no mark any external injury on the body of deceased, therefore, possibility of cruelty or torture soon before death of Shivrani, (deceased), is bleak.

¶81

PW-1 and PW-2 have failed to specify any place, time and date of additional dowry demand as well as any specific instance of cruelty, torture or harassment of Shivrani (deceased) on account of non fulfillment of such demand.

¶82

Even if there was any consistent demand of additional dowry and harassment of deceased on account of non fulfillment of such demand, then it was quite natural that informant PW-1 would have complained regarding same at the earliest and not after the death of deceased, which is an adverse circumstance in the prosecution story and has remained unexplained by the prosecution.

¶83

While dealing with an appeal against conviction for dowry death, the Supreme Court in Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine 214, has observed as under:-

¶84

" 5. Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read thus:

¶85

" 498-A IPC- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- however, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶86

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means

¶87

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶88

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

¶89

" 304-B IPC- Dowry death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

¶90

Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

¶91

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a

¶92

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶93

¶94

term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

¶95

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

¶96

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;

¶97

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

¶98

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

¶99

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

¶100

7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 304-B of IPC."

¶101

While setting aside the judgment of conviction, it has also been observed in the above mentioned judgment that the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, will apply 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 discharged by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked.

¶102

When the prosecution case is tested on the anvil of above-noted well settled parameters, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cruelty or harassment to the deceased was committed in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in the two provisions of the India Penal Code (i.e. 498-A & 304-B IPC) under which, the accused have been charged. Admittedly, no demand of dowry arose at the time of marriage. It is alleged by the prosecution that soon after marriage demand for additional dowry started, which continued till the death of deceased. Yet irrespective of above, no complaint was made thereof to anyone. Although, it is true that the deceased died on 16.08.2016, which was within seven years of her marriage, it is equally true that her death was due to poisoning. Therefore, the factum of unnatural death in her matrimonial home, that too, within seven years of the marriage, is proved by the prosecution, but the same ipso-facto is not

¶103

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶104

¶105

sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC against the accused. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has rather failed to prove that the deceased was harassed/subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. As a logical consequence of above, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings returned by Court below regarding failure of prosecution to prove that the accused demanded dowry from the deceased and that she was tortured for not fulfilling the additional demand of dowry as well as failure of the prosecution to establish and prove that Shivrani (deceased) was subjected to cruelty or torture immediately before her death are based upon due appreciation of the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2.

¶106

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 duly considered the evidence available on record with respect to an alternate charge against accused under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for appellant argued that as unnatural death of deceased has taken place in the house of accused-opposite parties 2 to 4, therefore, section 106 of Evidence Act comes into picture. Accused–opposite parties 2 to 4 have failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act as they are the inmates of the house where the incident occurred as to how and under what circumstances, unnatural death of deceased took place in their house. It was thus urged by learned counsel for appellant that accused opposite parties 2 to 4 are liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.

¶107

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

¶108

"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.

¶109

The deceased died on account of poisoning as is evident from the postmortem report. There was no mark of any injury on the body of the deceased, which could have established that deceased was forcibly poisoned, therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was administered poison forcibly. There is not even an iota of evidence that someone has either seen accused-opposite parties with deceased soon before her death or accused-opposite parties were in their house with deceased on the date of her

¶110

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶111

¶112

death. 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 4 beyond reasonable doubt. Reference at this stage be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Joydeb Patra and others vs. State of West Bengal, (2014) 12 SCC 444 , wherein Apex Court has observed as under:

¶113

“10. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to establish that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab , this Court held:

¶114

'19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue to special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.'

¶115

‘ 14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule e.g. where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.’ ”

¶116

Therefore, in the present case, Section 106 of Evidence Act does not help the prosecution. Thus, in the above circumstances it cannot be even presumed that the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 had committed murder of deceased. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused opposite parties 2 to 4 have committed murder of deceased.

¶117

As the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredients of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence, therefore, 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. Court below has, therefore, rightly recorded it's finding that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge levelled against opposite parties 2 to 4 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution has failed to discharge it's primary burden of proving charge of murder of deceased against accused opposite parties 2 to 4 and therefore, statutory presumption available under Section 106 of 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

¶118

NC413 No. 705 of 2025

¶119

¶120

and thus the findings recorded by it are correct and cogent findings. Having perused the impugned judgment, we do not find any perversity in the finding/conclusion drawn by Court below. We do not find that Court below has misconstrued evidence.

¶121

In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any good ground 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 could be pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant. The conclusion drawn by Court below is in consonance with 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.

¶122

December 10, 2025 Monika

¶123

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

¶124

Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rama Shankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rama Shankar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Chandra Saxena Advocate vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deen Dayal Varma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shankarpal Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sharif Khan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others