Appeals by a husband and his brother and sister-in-law convicted of dowry death and cruelty after the wife's suicide. The court affirmed the husband's conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC but acquitted the in-laws, finding only vague, belated allegations against them without specific acts in temporal proximity to the death.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 1st September, 2025 Pronounced on: 16th December, 2025 Uploaded on: 16th December, 2025 + CRL.A.382/2018 YOGESH KUMAR & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Mr. Salabh Bhardwaj, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Nivedita Pandas, Mr. Pranav Dixit, OmKumar, Advocates versus THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. SI Ramanuj, P.S. Nangloi. + CRL.A. 413/2018 VIKAS KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Mr. Salabh Bhardwaj, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Nivedita Pandas, Mr. Pranav Dixit, Om Kumar, Advocates for Yogesh Kumar versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. SI Ramanuj, P.S. Nangloi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 1 of 35
304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 arising out of the death of Bharti, wife of appellant Vikas Kumar. Appellant Yogesh Kumar is Vikas’s elder brother (jeth) and appellant Swati @ Savita is Yogesh’s wife (jethani). Bharti died by suicide at her parental home within seven years of her marriage. The prosecution alleges that, in the period leading up to her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by all three appellants, thereby attracting the offence of “dowry death” in law. The appellants, deny any demand for dowry, dowry-related cruelty or any form of cruelty and maintain that Bharti’s suicide was the result of other unfortunate circumstances unconnected with dowry, which, according to them, takes the case outside the ambit of Section 304B IPC.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1 “IPC”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 2 of 35
of dowry, including during a visit by her parents in January 2005 and again on 10th June, 2005, when they accompanied her to the matrimonial house but the in-laws allegedly refused to keep her unless the demands were met. This conduct is said to have continued up to 13th June, 2005, when Vikas Kumar allegedly reiterated the demand over the telephone. Taken together, this pattern of harassment, it is asserted, constitutes dowry-related cruelty “soon before her death” and to have driven Bharti to commit suicide at her parental home on 14th June, 2005, thereby attracting the offence of “dowry death” punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC in addition to the other charges.
Prosecution evidence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 3 of 35
arguments.
APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 4 of 35
settled criminal law principles. It suffers from serious factual and legal infirmities, and on a correct appreciation of the material, the appellants deserve acquittal.
8.2 The Trial Court ignored the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted the appellants on conjecture rather than credible evidence.
8.3 Serious infirmities in the prosecution case, such as contradictions, material omissions, improvements, and alleged investigative manipulations, were overlooked, rendering the judgment unsustainable.
8.4 There is no reliable evidence that the appellants subjected the deceased to dowry-related harassment. The prosecution’s attempt to attribute cruelty is speculative. The Trial Court relied selectively on examination-inchief and failed to properly consider the cross-examinations.
8.5 The alleged suicide note (Ex. P-2) contains only vague, omnibus allegations, without imputing any specific dowry demand or “soon before death” harassment to the appellants. If such generality was sufficient, the Trial Court was required to explain why similarly-placed family members named in the note were not convicted. Early statements of PW-2 and PW-8 (including the SDM statements and Ex. PW-11/X, reply to the PCR officials) contain no dowry allegations; the detailed version first appears in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, indicating improvement and tutoring.
8.6 PW-2, PW-3, PW-8, PW-21 and PW-22 admitted in crossexamination that no demand for cash or vehicle was made prior to or at the time of marriage. In this background, the prosecution’s claim that the appellants suddenly made aggressive demands after marriage is inherently
2 “Cr.P.C.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 5 of 35
improbable.
8.7 The Trial Court ignored the admitted alternative cause for suicide. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 accepted that the deceased was disturbed by the husband’s alleged affair and the non-consummation of marriage. Ex. P-2 itself reflects this distress; the passing reference to a “bigger car” is frustration, not a sustained dowry demand “soon before” death.
8.8 All material witnesses were confronted with their earlier statements, where the present detailed dowry narrative does not appear. The alleged demands on 17th May, 2005 and 13th June, 2005, are contradicted by PW-22, who categorically denied any dowry demand in his presence. No call detail records were produced to support the alleged telephonic conversation on 13th June, 2005. These aspects were ignored by the Trial Court.
8.9 No independent neighbour from the matrimonial home was examined. Statement of PW-21 statement was recorded after nearly two months without explanation. These factors erode the prosecution’s credibility.
8.10 PW-2 Ved Prakash, a Delhi Police Head Constable, lodged no contemporaneous complaint despite alleging sustained dowry harassment, undermining the prosecution story and supporting the alternative narrative of marital discord due to the husband’s alleged affair and non-consummation. His claim of agreeing to pay ₹3-4 lakhs from “land compensation” is also belied by PW-3’s admission that he owned no land, rendering the alleged demand inherently doubtful.
8.11 The cross-examination of PW-2 Ved Prakash substantially weakens the prosecution case. PW-2 admitted, inter alia , that no dowry articles including any vehicle or cash were ever demanded from him. He had told the SDM there was no demand of dowry prior to marriage and he came to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 6 of 35
know immediately after the marriage about the husband’s alleged love affair. He further stated that he never personally enquired from the accused whether they had actually made any dowry demand through his daughter. He also admitted that he could not say whether the marriage had even been consummated. He conceded that several specific allegations now made against individual in-laws do not figure in his earlier statement Ex. PW-2/A or his police statement. He further admitted that during the month-long stay of the deceased at her parental home no relative or mediator was approached and no complaint was lodged regarding dowry demands. These admissions, omissions, contradictions and improvements elicited in cross-examination have been ignored by the Trial Court.
8.12 PW-3 Daya Ram admitted that there was no pre-marriage demand for any vehicle or cash, and that the deceased became depressed after learning of Vikas’s alleged affairs. PW-8 Raj Dulari stated that no enquiry was made from her by the SDM or police on the day of the incident and that whatever was given at the wedding was voluntary. She also accepted, when shown the diary entries (Ex. PW-2/DA to DE), that the deceased had called her marriage “only a label”. These admissions, along with the absence of any earlier dowry allegation, support the defence case that the deceased’s distress arose from the husband’s alleged affair and the non-consummation of the marriage, not dowry harassment.
8.13 The accounts of PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-21 about a visit to the matrimonial home on 10th June, 2005, are mutually inconsistent and do not appear in their earliest statements, suggesting that this episode was later introduced to satisfy the “soon before death” requirement of Section 304B IPC. PW-21 also stated that she questioned Jayawanti about Vikas’s alleged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 7 of 35
affairs, and Jayawanti admitted she had advised him to be loyal but he did not listen. This supports the alternative narrative that the real strain in the marriage stemmed from the husband’s alleged extra-marital affairs, later projected as a dowry dispute.
8.14. PW-22, the deceased’s brother, admitted that no accused ever made a dowry demand in his presence and that no such demand was made when Vikas left the deceased at their home. This directly contradicts PW-2 and PW-8 and weakens the prosecution’s case.
8.15. As regards Yogesh and Swati, there are no clear, specific or proximate allegations of any particular act of dowry demand or dowry‑related cruelty referable to either of them, the material being confined to omnibus references to “in‑laws” without particulars of date, place, amount or role. Their alleged participation in any demand for a car or cash appears for the first time in later statements and in examination‑in‑chief, and is absent from the earliest versions, amounting to material improvements and over‑implication of relatives merely due to their status as jeth and jethani. There is no evidence that Yogesh and Swati shared any common intention with Vikas or acted in concert so as to attract Section 34 IPC, nor is there any independent material establishing “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC against them.
8.16 Taken together, these admissions, omissions, contradictions and improvements, show that the prosecution has failed to prove a consistent or credible case of dowry demand or dowry-related cruelty, let alone “soon before death”. The Trial Court erred in relying only on examination-in-chief while ignoring decisive cross-examination.
8.17 Accordingly, the ingredients of Sections 498A, 406 and 304B IPC are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 8 of 35
not established against any appellant and the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.
STATE’S SUBMISSIONS
9.1 All ingredients of Section 304B IPC stand satisfied: the deceased committed suicide within seven years of marriage; her family consistently spoke of demands for a Santro/bigger car and cash; and her suicide note and diary reflect financial expectations and marital discord. These foundational facts trigger the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act,3 which the appellants have not rebutted.
9.2 The defence has attempted to project the husband’s alleged love affair and non-consummation of marriage as an “alternative” and exclusive cause for the suicide. This is a false dichotomy. Human conduct is complex and more than one factor can operate together. The fact that the deceased was distressed about her husband’s conduct does not exclude, and is in fact compatible with, her simultaneous harassment for dowry. Ex. P-2 itself refers to dowry-related demands and the desire for a bigger car, which cannot be explained away as a mere “frustrated flourish” when read with the oral evidence of her family members.
9.3 The absence of full detail in the earliest SDM or PCR statements is natural for grieving parents. What matters is the overall consistency on the core allegations, dissatisfaction with dowry, demand for a better car and money, and related taunts, which clearly emerges from the cumulative evidence adduced during trial.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 9 of 35
9.4 The so-called “improvements” in the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-8, PW-21 and PW-22 are minor matters of dates, amounts or names, routine embellishments in criminal trials, and do not undermine the core, consistent narrative of dowry-related harassment, which is reinforced by the suicide note and the deceased’s diary.
9.5 The defence reads the testimony of PW-2 selectively. While he agreed there was no pre-marriage demand, he clearly spoke of post-marriage dissatisfaction, demands and taunts. Not confronting the accused personally or filing a complaint, immediately despite being in the police, does not negate what his daughter disclosed. In many such cases, parents hesitate to report, hoping the marriage will be salvaged.
9.6 Reliance on the admissions of PW-22 is misplaced. The prosecution never claimed that demands were made in the brother’s presence. The case rests on what the deceased confided to her parents and elders. Lack of corroboration from every family member does not defeat credible, consistent testimonies supported by the deceased’s own writings.
9.7 The criticism regarding non-examination of neighbours and the timing of PW-21’s statement is also not fatal to the prosecution ‘s case. Dowryrelated cruelty is often domestic, subtle, and confined within the family. Expecting neighbours to depose about intimate dowry disputes is unrealistic. PW-21’s statement, even if recorded later, aligns with the prosecution narrative and reinforces that the matrimonial relationship was strained; the delay by itself does not demolish the case.
9.8 The absence of call detail records for the alleged conversation of 13th June, 2005, is a minor investigative lapse, insufficient to discredit consistent
3 “the Evidence Act”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 10 of 35
oral testimony, particularly for an incident from 2005, when call-record retention was not as robust.
9.9 The defence has offered no plausible alternative that breaks the link between dowry harassment and the suicide. The cumulative evidence, unnatural death within seven years, the suicide note and diary, and the statements of the parents and relatives, establishes dowry-related cruelty “soon before” the death. The Trial Court was therefore justified in invoking Section 113B of the Evidence Act, and convicting the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The statutory scheme
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 11 of 35
the level of the substantive offence.
The undisputed facts
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 12 of 35
The core controversy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 13 of 35
The documentary evidence: suicide note and diary writings
4 Rekha Rani v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6853; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 14 of 35
marriage, but also with dissatisfaction over the Maruti 800 and expectations of a better car and money. Secondly, they show that these concerns were alive in her mind close to the time of the suicide, and were not a later reconstruction by family members. What they do not do, standing alone, is to set out a dated, self-contained episode of dowry demand or cruelty in the precise temporal window “soon before her death”. They speak to the atmosphere and to Bharti’s perception of continuing pressure, rather than to a particular conversation or incident tied to a specific date.
Re-appraisal of oral evidence and standard of proof
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 15 of 35
cruelty in reasonable temporal proximity to her death.5 The ordinary rules in Sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act continue to govern the principle of burden of proof. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts: that the woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and that, “soon before her death”, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. Only once these facts are proved does the presumption in Section 113B arise. Even then, the prosecution must still meet the criminal standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, while any rebuttal by the accused is tested on a preponderance of probabilities. The presumption cannot be permitted to substitute or dilute the initial requirement of proof; it rests on facts already established and does not create them.
Appellant Vikas Kumar (husband)
PW-2 Ved Prakash (father)
5 Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , (2003) 8 SCC 80; Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2017) 1 SCC 101).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 16 of 35
6 Mange Ram v State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 962
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 17 of 35
reappear, with greater narrative detail, in his examination-in-chief, where he maintains the same timeline, including the visit of 10th June, 2005, and again asserts that Vikas consistently tied Bharti’s return to the fulfilment of these monetary and car-related demands.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 18 of 35
statement and therefore constitute later additions. The omissions in the SDM statement, however, are readily explained by its timing, as it was recorded on the very day of the incident in the immediate aftermath of Bharti’s death. 30. On that footing, PW-2’s evidence, does two things. First, it shows that his later attempts to particularise the role of each in-law suffer from omissions in the earliest version and are therefore unsafe to sustain liability against Yogesh and Swati. Secondly, and more importantly for present purposes, it leaves intact a coherent and consistent account of Vikas subjecting Bharti, in the months immediately preceding her death, to sustained pressure to bring substantial money (and, in the later articulation, a better car) as a condition for resuming cohabitation. Read with the contemporaneous writings, that core is sufficient, on a criminal standard, to support a finding that Vikas subjected Bharti “soon before her death” to dowry-related harassment, even if the precise figures and some narrative detail are treated as embellishments rather than as verbatim reconstruction. PW-8 Raj Dulari (mother)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 19 of 35
phone, that he again repeated the demand for money and a Santro car and refused to take her back unless those demands were met, and that Bharti cried after the call and did not eat that night. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement these core allegations against Vikas are reiterated and she adds that, on visits to the matrimonial home, the mother-in-law, jeth and jethani also voiced dissatisfaction with the Maruti 800 and raised demands for money and a Santro car. Her examination-in-chief substantially follows this line, giving further narrative detail regarding these visits and demands.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 20 of 35
the range of Rs. 4 lakhs, coupled with an insistence on a Santro car, and she links his refusal to take Bharti back on 17th May, 2005, and again on 13th June, 2005, to the fulfilment of those demands. Her later statements add detail, but they do not disown or contradict that central narrative. Therefore, PW-8 strengthens the picture that Bharti felt both emotionally rejected and under sustained financial pressure from her husband, and that, in the crucial weeks and days before the suicide, Vikas was making her return to the matrimonial home conditional upon the provision of substantial money and a better car. At the same time, the gaps and later elaborations in her account, particularly regarding Yogesh and Swati, justify treating her evidence with caution so far as the other relatives are concerned, while still according it significant weight in assessing Vikas’s liability under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
PW-3 Daya Ram (grandfather)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 21 of 35
insist on further dowry, being told that she would not be kept without a Santro car and one lakh rupees, and later hearing from Bharti that the pressure continued. He also states that when Vikas left Bharti at her parents’ house around 17th May 2005, he said he would not come again, and that PW-3 urged his son to “manage” a Santro and one lakh rupees, though he realised that such a demand was beyond his son’s means.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 22 of 35
the discovery of Vikas’s other relationship and the breakdown of the marriage. On a fair appreciation, therefore, PW-3 can be treated as a corroborative witness whose testimony adds to the cumulative case of dowry-linked pressure by Vikas and a troubled matrimonial environment, but his evidence, by itself, is too general and too intertwined with the wider marital discord to provide a standalone foundation for a 304B conviction or for invoking the presumption under Section 113B, particularly against the collateral relatives.
PW-21 Leelawati (Aunt)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 23 of 35
persistently sad during her visits. These elements surface for the first time in her testimony before the Court. To that extent, her evidence suffers from embellishment and is largely derivative, resting on what Bharti and Ved Prakash are stated to have conveyed to her, rather than on consistently recorded, contemporaneous observations of cruelty.
PW-22 Vikas Vats (brother)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 24 of 35
not share every detail of the matrimonial discord with him, but he nevertheless perceived from the atmosphere at home that “there was some problem” in her marriage. He deposes that Bharti told him she was being beaten by the in-laws. On one visit to her matrimonial home he confronted the family members about her treatment and left without taking a meal. He further states that on 17th May, 2005, Vikas left Bharti at their house. According to PW-22, his parents later informed him that the in-laws had linked her return to the payment of Rs. 3-4 lakhs and a Santro car, and that on 10th June, 2005, when his parents took Bharti back to the matrimonial home, she was not kept there. He also states that on 13th June, 2005, Vikas telephoned; his parents requested him to take Bharti back, he declined; and when Bharti herself spoke to him she was told that unless a Santro car and Rs. 3-4 lakhs were arranged she would not be taken back. PW-22 describes Bharti as extremely upset after this call, not eating that night, and he is the person who found her hanging the next morning.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 25 of 35
instance of dowry harassment “soon before” the death that could, standing alone, sustain the presumption under Section 113B, particularly against Yogesh and Swati. What his testimony does add, and with some force, is corroboration of the broad factual sequence and Bharti’s state of mind: Vikas leaving her at the parental home, the unsuccessful efforts to persuade him to resume cohabitation, the occurrence of a significant telephonic exchange on the night of 13th June 2005, and Bharti’s extreme distress immediately thereafter. Those aspects dovetail with the parents’ evidence and the suicide note, and are consistent with a finding of mental cruelty and financial expectations weighing on the question of her return. Given his own candid concessions about the absence of any demand in his presence, however, his evidence is best viewed as corroborative of the core case already made out against Vikas, rather than as a separate source capable of enlarging liability or bridging gaps in the proof required for a conviction under Section 304B, particularly so far as the collateral relatives are concerned.
Liability of Vikas under Section 304B
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 26 of 35
tears and did not eat. These three strands appear in substance in the SDM versions, are amplified but not contradicted in the Section 161 statements, and are repeated in Court. PW-22, though not privy to the exact words used, corroborates the broad chronology of abandonment, the unsuccessful effort on 10th June, 2005, to restore Bharti to the matrimonial home, the crucial call on 13th June, and Bharti’s distressed state immediately thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 27 of 35
in that context. The diary entries repeatedly express her loneliness and hurt over Vikas’s emotional attachment elsewhere, while also referring to the strain caused by the financial expectations placed on her parental family. Taken alone, these writings show intertwined causes of distress. When they are read with the consistent oral evidence that Vikas refused to resume cohabitation unless a Santro car and substantial money were provided, they fit with, rather than contradict, the prosecution’s version that emotional rejection and dowry-linked pressure were operating together in the period immediately before the suicide.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 28 of 35
not as the primary source on the exact words used in negotiations between adults. The principal evidence on the demand for a Santro car and money comes from PW-2 and PW-8, and is anchored in their SDM statements, Section 161 statements and depositions. PW-22’s concessions do not undermine that matrix.
Liability of Vikas under Section 498A IPC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 29 of 35
includes any wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health. It does not insist that the cruelty be exclusively dowry-related, although economic pressure and dowry-linked taunts may form an important part of its content. 51. The defence has referred to decisions where an extra-marital relationship, by itself, has been held not to automatically amount to “cruelty” or to attract Section 304B IPC, the principle being that such conduct may or may not rise to the level of criminal cruelty depending on the surrounding facts and the impact on the spouse. In this case, Bharti’s perception that Vikas was emotionally involved elsewhere and that the marriage was unconsummated is not the sole feature. It sits alongside a pattern of abandonment, physical assault after the “compromising position” incident, and continuing financial expectations linked to her return to the matrimonial home. Those circumstances together are crucial for the assessment of charge under Section 498A. 52. The evidence, including Bharti’s own writings, shows that Vikas entered the marriage while emotionally attached elsewhere. Bharti experienced the relationship as unconsummated and described the marriage as “only a label”. She states that she saw him in a compromising situation with Swati and that he beat her thereafter. He left her at her parental home in May 2005 and made no meaningful attempt at reconciliation. In the crucial period before her death she repeatedly felt unwanted and rejected. Alongside this, demands for a Santro car and substantial cash were allowed to colour the basic question whether she would be taken back into the matrimonial home at all. Read together, this combination of emotional rejection, physical violence and conditional withdrawal of cohabitation over a sustained period
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 30 of 35
amounts to mental cruelty of the gravity contemplated by Section 498A IPC. 53. The fact that Bharti ultimately took the extreme step at her parental home does not blunt the effect of that cruelty, nor does the coexistence of several sources of distress assist the defence once cruelty of this order is proved. On this basis, distinct from the specific ingredients of Section 304B, the requirements of Section 498A stand satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and Vikas’s conviction for cruelty under that provision is rightly sustained. Evidence and liability of Yogesh and Swati
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 31 of 35
weakens the reliability of this allegation and lends weight to the defence contention that it represents a later improvement introduced to extend the net of implication to the in-laws.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 32 of 35
Section 161 statements and the depositions. As regards Yogesh and Swati, there is no such specific corroboration. In the absence of clearly proved acts on their part in the relevant period, the generic reference in Ex. P-2 cannot, by itself, supply the foundational facts for invoking Section 304B against collateral relatives.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 33 of 35
Conclusion
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 34 of 35
foundational facts necessary to attract Section 304B IPC as against them. The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is therefore not attracted, and the independent charge under Section 498A IPC is also not proved, the allegations being vague, general, and unsupported by reliable material. Their conviction under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC cannot be sustained.
(ii) The appeal of Vikas Kumar is dismissed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC are affirmed. He is directed to surrender forthwith.
(iii) A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial court and to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
DECEMBER 16, 2025/MK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 18:36:41
CRL.A.382/2018 & CRL.A. 413/2018 Page 35 of 35
3 issues framed by the court
Was the husband's dowry-related cruelty 'soon before' the wife's suicide proved so as to sustain conviction under Section 304B IPC?
Were the foundational facts for the Section 113B Evidence Act presumption established against the in-laws (jeth and jethani)?
Did the evidence prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC against the in-laws?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rekha Rani v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶19
Rekha Rani v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6853 · Who else cites this
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶19
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 · Who else cites this
Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶24
Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 8 SCC 80 · Who else cites this
Baijnath v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶24
Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 SCC 101 · Who else cites this
Mange Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.Relied on¶25
Mange Ram v State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 962 · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 3 enactments
Yogesh Kumar
Swati @ Savita
Vikas Kumar
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
