IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 103 STATE OF HARYANA VIKRAM STATE OF HARYANA VIKRAM CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. by the State of by the learned Additional case FIR No. Code, 1860, registered at Police Station whereby the under Section 304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRA-D HARYANA Versus (2) CRA-S HARYANA Versus Date of decision: August 18 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Amicus Curiae for the respondent. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. The first appeal (CRA-D-662- by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment dated by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) case FIR No.186 dated 25.06.2000 under Section , registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, whereby the respondent-accused i.e. Vikram under Section 304-B IPC but convicted under Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH D-662-DBA-2004 (O&M) ...Appellant ...Respondent S-1109-SB-2004 ...Appellant ...Respondent August 18, 2025 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Mr. Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Amicus Curiae -DBA-2004) has been preferred the judgment dated 22.01.2024 rendered District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jhajjar in under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, i.e. Vikram was acquitted of the charges convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. ...Appellant ...Respondent ...Appellant ...Respondent preferred rendered in Indian Penal , charges Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 2. enhancement of the sentence and 498-A IPC. 3. mentioned appeals as they pertain to the same occurrence. 4. imprisonment as follows: Name of the accused Vikram 306 IPC 498 5. 304-B IPC, contending that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the marriage had taken place beyond 7 years from the date of death of deceased Bimlesh, and in not applying the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 6. lodged on 25.06.2000 by Kuldeep Singh (PW11), cousin of deceased Bimlesh, daughter of Om Prak respondent-accused Vikram of village Luksar. DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB The second appeal (CRA-S-1109 enhancement of the sentence of the respondent A IPC. Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned appeals as they pertain to the same occurrence. The respondent-accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as follows:- Offence under Section Period of Sentence imposed 306 IPC RI for 4 years Rs.3,000/ 498-A IPC RI for 3 years Rs.2,000/ The State of Haryana has assailed the acquittal under Section B IPC, contending that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the marriage had taken place beyond 7 years from the date of death of deceased and in not applying the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: The prosecution case originated from a statement lodged on 25.06.2000 by Kuldeep Singh (PW11), cousin of deceased Bimlesh, daughter of Om Prakash (PW5). Bimlesh had been married to the accused Vikram of village Luksar. SB-2004 -2 1109-SB-2004) has been filed for of the respondent-accused under Sections 306 Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of the above- mentioned appeals as they pertain to the same occurrence. accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Rs.3,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.2,000/- RI for 3 months assailed the acquittal under Section B IPC, contending that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the marriage had taken place beyond 7 years from the date of death of deceased and in not applying the presumption under Section 113B of the The prosecution case originated from a statement (Ex.PB) lodged on 25.06.2000 by Kuldeep Singh (PW11), cousin of deceased ash (PW5). Bimlesh had been married to the accused Vikram of village Luksar. - accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous Period of sentence assailed the acquittal under Section B IPC, contending that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the marriage had taken place beyond 7 years from the date of death of deceased and in not applying the presumption under Section 113B of the (Ex.PB) lodged on 25.06.2000 by Kuldeep Singh (PW11), cousin of deceased ash (PW5). Bimlesh had been married to the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 7. given at the time of marriage, the accused was dissatisfied and continued to raise demands. It was alleged that about 1½ years prior to the date of the incident, Om Prakash (PW5) before the occurrence, another sum of Rs.2,000/ such payment, Nimlesh was subjected to harassment and beatings. 8. visited the matrimonial home being beaten for dowry demands. The next morning i.e. 25.06.2000, PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh Bimlesh lying dead in her matrimonial house. 9. Bhim Singh (PW10) conducted inquest proceedings (Ex.PF), seized blood stained earth and the body for postmortem. postmortem on 26.06.2000, found injuries including an incised wound on the dorsum of the right hand, contusions on the face and neck, and reserved opinion pending Viscera analysis. presence of any common poison. 10. offences under Sections 304 Sessions, the respondent 304-B IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB According to the complainant, although sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, the accused was dissatisfied and continued to raise demands. It was alleged that about 1½ years prior to the date of the incident, Om Prakash (PW5) paid Rs.5,000/ before the occurrence, another sum of Rs.2,000/ such payment, Nimlesh was subjected to harassment and beatings. On 24.06.2000, PW8 Shamo, aunt of the deceased Bimlesh, visited the matrimonial home and was told by the deceased that she was being beaten for dowry demands. The next morning i.e. 25.06.2000, PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh reached village Luksar Bimlesh lying dead in her matrimonial house. On the basis of Ex.PB, FIR (Ex.PB/1) was registered. Inspector Bhim Singh (PW10) conducted inquest proceedings (Ex.PF), seized blood stained earth and a bed sheet (Ex.PG), prepared site plan (Ex.PH), and sent the body for postmortem. Dr. Luv Sharma (PW6), who conducted the m on 26.06.2000, found injuries including an incised wound on of the right hand, contusions on the face and neck, and reserved opinion pending Viscera analysis. The Viscera Report (Ex.PK), ruled out presence of any common poison. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Sessions, the respondent-accused was charged for B IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed SB-2004 -3- According to the complainant, although sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, the accused was dissatisfied and continued to raise demands. It was alleged that about 1½ years prior to the date of the paid Rs.5,000/- to the accused. Some days before the occurrence, another sum of Rs.2,000/- was allegedly paid. Despite such payment, Nimlesh was subjected to harassment and beatings. On 24.06.2000, PW8 Shamo, aunt of the deceased Bimlesh, was told by the deceased that she was being beaten for dowry demands. The next morning i.e. 25.06.2000, PW5 reached village Luksar and found Bimlesh lying dead in her matrimonial house. (Ex.PB/1) was registered. Inspector Bhim Singh (PW10) conducted inquest proceedings (Ex.PF), seized blood- (Ex.PG), prepared site plan (Ex.PH), and sent Dr. Luv Sharma (PW6), who conducted the m on 26.06.2000, found injuries including an incised wound on of the right hand, contusions on the face and neck, and reserved The Viscera Report (Ex.PK), ruled out completion of investigation, challan was presented for A IPC. On committal to the Court of accused was charged for an offence under Section B IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. According to the complainant, although sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage, the accused was dissatisfied and continued to to the accused. Some days was allegedly paid. Despite On 24.06.2000, PW8 Shamo, aunt of the deceased Bimlesh, was told by the deceased that she was being beaten for dowry demands. The next morning i.e. 25.06.2000, PW5 and found (Ex.PB/1) was registered. Inspector - (Ex.PG), prepared site plan (Ex.PH), and sent Dr. Luv Sharma (PW6), who conducted the m on 26.06.2000, found injuries including an incised wound on of the right hand, contusions on the face and neck, and reserved The Viscera Report (Ex.PK), ruled out completion of investigation, challan was presented for On committal to the Court of offence under Section Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT 11. were:-      12. Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed cordial relations He stated that he was away at his sister’s house on the fateful night. In defence, evidence was adduced. DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The main witnesses PW5 Om Prakash (father of the deceased), who stated that dowry was given at marriage of the deceased; demands of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/ also alleged that the deceased was harassed and beaten up. PW11 Kuldeep Singh (complainant) reiterated allegations of dowry demands, including a larger demand of Rs.50,000/ which was only partly met. He also spoke of harassment being metted out to the deceased by the respondent PW8 Shamo (aunt of the deceased) partly supported the case but turned hostile regarding dowry demands. PW6 Dr. Luv Sharma proved postmortem report (Ex confirming injuries but no poison was detected as per the Viscera Report. PW10 Inspector Bhim Singh proved FIR report (Ex.PF), recovery memos The accused denied the allegations in his statement Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed cordial relations that he was away at his sister’s house on the fateful night. In defence, evidence was adduced. SB-2004 -4- PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT: The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The main witnesses PW5 Om Prakash (father of the deceased), who stated that dowry was given at marriage of the deceased; thereafter, and Rs.2,000/- were made and paid. He also alleged that the deceased was harassed and beaten up. PW11 Kuldeep Singh (complainant) reiterated allegations of dowry demands, including a larger demand of Rs.50,000/-, only partly met. He also spoke of harassment being metted out to the deceased by the respondent-accused. PW8 Shamo (aunt of the deceased) partly supported the case but turned hostile regarding dowry demands. PW6 Dr. Luv Sharma proved postmortem report (Ex.PC/1) confirming injuries but no poison was detected as per the PW10 Inspector Bhim Singh proved FIR (Ex.PB/1), inquest recovery memos (Ex.PG) and site plan (Ex.PH). The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed cordial relations, and pleaded false implication. that he was away at his sister’s house on the fateful night. In The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The main witnesses PW5 Om Prakash (father of the deceased), who stated that thereafter, were made and paid. He PW11 Kuldeep Singh (complainant) reiterated allegations of , only partly met. He also spoke of harassment being PW8 Shamo (aunt of the deceased) partly supported the case .PC/1) confirming injuries but no poison was detected as per the inquest under and pleaded false implication. that he was away at his sister’s house on the fateful night. In Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 13. follows:- (i) had taken place on 1993, well beyond 7 years of the death of the deceased in June 2000. (ii) lacked corroboration. (iii) harassment, and injuries on her body showed that she was beaten before death. 14. charge under 498-A IPC, and sentenced him as already recorded in the earlier part of this order. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL 15. erred in holding the year of marriage as 1993. PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently deposed that the marriage took place in the year 1997 as also reflected in the FIR (Ex.PB/1) the defence failed to prove that th respondent-accused in the year 1993 by way of any documentary evidence. It was submitted that in the circumstances, it was clearly a case of dowry DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found as The marriage between the deceased and respondent had taken place on 1993, well beyond 7 years of the death of the deceased in Evidence regarding dowry demands was discrepant, vague, lacked corroboration. However, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment, and injuries on her body showed that she was beaten before Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 304-B IPC but convicted him under Sections 306 and and sentenced him as already recorded in the earlier part of this SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL Learned State counsel contended that the learned trial Court erred in holding the year of marriage as 1993. PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently deposed that the marriage took place in the year 1997 as also reflected in the FIR (Ex.PB/1) the defence failed to prove that the marriage of the deceased with the accused in the year 1993 by way of any documentary evidence. It was submitted that in the circumstances, it was clearly a case of dowry SB-2004 -5- appreciation of evidence, found as The marriage between the deceased and respondent-accused had taken place on 1993, well beyond 7 years of the death of the deceased in Evidence regarding dowry demands was discrepant, vague, and However, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment, and injuries on her body showed that she was beaten before Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the B IPC but convicted him under Sections 306 and and sentenced him as already recorded in the earlier part of this SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL: Learned State counsel contended that the learned trial Court erred in holding the year of marriage as 1993. Both PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently deposed that the marriage took place in the year 1997 as also reflected in the FIR (Ex.PB/1). It was also argued that e marriage of the deceased with the accused in the year 1993 by way of any documentary evidence. It was submitted that in the circumstances, it was clearly a case of dowry appreciation of evidence, found as accused had taken place on 1993, well beyond 7 years of the death of the deceased in and However, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment, and injuries on her body showed that she was beaten before Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the B IPC but convicted him under Sections 306 and and sentenced him as already recorded in the earlier part of this Learned State counsel contended that the learned trial Court Both PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently deposed that the marriage took place in . It was also argued that e marriage of the deceased with the accused in the year 1993 by way of any documentary evidence. Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA death, moreso keeping in view the injuries found on the person of the deceased during her postmortem, coupled with evidence of dowry demands, established cruelty and harassment “soon before death” attracting Section 304-B IPC. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 16. finding that the marriage was in the year 1993 was ba circumstances deceased and respondent suggesting that she must have been born in the year 1994, which in turn corroborated that the marriage of the deceased with the respondent had taken place 17. PW11 Kuldeep Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were discrepant and not corroborated by marriage card or record. 18. proced by any reliable evidence. Furthermore, medical opinion also did not confirm the cause of death of the deceased; Viscera Report rules out poison; death was not homicidal. Learned circumstances, the B IPC was rightly declined. DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB death, moreso keeping in view the injuries found on the person of the during her postmortem, coupled with evidence of dowry demands, established cruelty and harassment “soon before death” attracting Section BMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the learned trial Court’s finding that the marriage was in the year 1993 was ba circumstances including the age of the children. deceased and respondent-accused was 9 years old in the year 2003, suggesting that she must have been born in the year 1994, which in turn corroborated that the marriage of the deceased with the respondent had taken place around 1993. It was further argued that testimonies of PW5 Om Pr PW11 Kuldeep Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were discrepant corroborated by any independent or documentary proof such as marriage card or record. It was also asserted that the alleged dowry demands were not proced by any reliable evidence. Furthermore, medical opinion also did not confirm the cause of death of the deceased; Viscera Report rules out poison; death was not homicidal. Learned Amicus Cur circumstances, the conviction of the respondent B IPC was rightly declined. SB-2004 -6- death, moreso keeping in view the injuries found on the person of the during her postmortem, coupled with evidence of dowry demands, established cruelty and harassment “soon before death” attracting Section BMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF mitted that the learned trial Court’s finding that the marriage was in the year 1993 was based on material including the age of the children. The eldest daughter of the 9 years old in the year 2003, suggesting that she must have been born in the year 1994, which in turn corroborated that the marriage of the deceased with the respondent-accused ed that testimonies of PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were discrepant any independent or documentary proof such as It was also asserted that the alleged dowry demands were not proced by any reliable evidence. Furthermore, medical opinion also did not confirm the cause of death of the deceased; Viscera Report rules out poison; Amicus Curiae submitted in such of the respondent-accused under Section 304- death, moreso keeping in view the injuries found on the person of the during her postmortem, coupled with evidence of dowry demands, established cruelty and harassment “soon before death” attracting Section BMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF mitted that the learned trial Court’s sed on material The eldest daughter of the 9 years old in the year 2003, suggesting that she must have been born in the year 1994, which in turn accused akash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh, being close relatives of the deceased, were discrepant any independent or documentary proof such as It was also asserted that the alleged dowry demands were not proced by any reliable evidence. Furthermore, medical opinion also did not confirm the cause of death of the deceased; Viscera Report rules out poison; submitted in such - Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 19. submissions made by the learned State counsel, has argued that there was no cogent evidence on behalf of prosecution to attract the mischief of Section 304-B IPC, rather his conviction under Section also erroneous been made to the 498-A IPC, learned however, made for dismissing the second the instant judgment did not warrant any interference. 20. evidence on record. 21. establish:- (a) occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances; (b) (c) husband or his relatives; (d) demand for dowry; (e) DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB Learned Amicus Curiae, while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned State counsel, has argued that there was no cogent evidence on behalf of prosecution to attract the mischief of Section B IPC, rather his conviction under Section erroneous. On being pointedly asked as to whether any challenge has been made to the accused-respondent’s conviction under Sections 306 and , learned Amicus Curiae has replied in the negative. however, made for dismissing the second appeal ( the instant judgment did not warrant any interference. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. For an offence under Section 304 The death of a woman was caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances; Such death occurred within 7 years of her marriage; The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her or his relatives; Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection demand for dowry; Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. SB-2004 -7- while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned State counsel, has argued that there was no cogent evidence on behalf of prosecution to attract the mischief of Section B IPC, rather his conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC was . On being pointedly asked as to whether any challenge has respondent’s conviction under Sections 306 and has replied in the negative. A prayer was, appeal (CRA-S-1109-SB-2004) as the instant judgment did not warrant any interference. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the For an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must n was caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances; Such death occurred within 7 years of her marriage; to cruelty or harassment by her assment was for, or in connection with, cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. while vehemently opposing the submissions made by the learned State counsel, has argued that there was no cogent evidence on behalf of prosecution to attract the mischief of Section A IPC was . On being pointedly asked as to whether any challenge has respondent’s conviction under Sections 306 and A prayer was, ) as We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the B IPC, the prosecution must n was caused by burns, bodily injury, or to cruelty or harassment by her , Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 22. occurred within 7 23. was in the year 1997 in the FIR, however, during his deposition before the learned trial Court, he stated that the marriage between the deceased and the respondent-accused Prakash (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased had got married to the respondent had arranged the marriage, admitted during her cross marriage had taken place in 1993. Section 313 Cr.P.C. disclosed that his eldest daughter was 9 years old in July 2003, clearly suggesting that she was born in 1994, consistent with his marriage with the d 24. record further weakens the claim of the prosecution that the marriage had taken place in the year 1997. The natural inference from the age of the children of the deceased Shamo is that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1993. 25. thereby exclu presumption under Section 26. record shows that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB In this case, the pivotal question is whether the marriage occurred within 7 years of the death. The complainant PW11 Kuldeep Singh stated that the marriage was in the year 1997 in the FIR, however, during his deposition before the learned trial Court, he stated that the marriage between the deceased and the accused had taken place in the year 1995. Prakash (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased had got married to the respondent-accused on 26.07.1995. PW8 Shamo, on the other hand, who had arranged the marriage, admitted during her cross marriage had taken place in 1993. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. disclosed that his eldest daughter was 9 years old in July 2003, clearly suggesting that she was born in 1994, consistent with his marriage with the deceased around 1993. The absence of any marriage card, photographs o independent record further weakens the claim of the prosecution that the marriage had taken place in the year 1997. The natural inference from the age of the children of the deceased and respondent-accused and testimony of PW8 Shamo is that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1993. Thus, the death in June 2000 occurred after 7 years of marriage, thereby excluding applicability of Section 304 on under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. Although Section 304-B IPC is not attracted, the material on record shows that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in SB-2004 -8- In this case, the pivotal question is whether the marriage The complainant PW11 Kuldeep Singh stated that the marriage was in the year 1997 in the FIR, however, during his deposition before the learned trial Court, he stated that the marriage between the deceased and the had taken place in the year 1995. Similarly, PW5 Om Prakash (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased had got married to accused on 26.07.1995. PW8 Shamo, on the other hand, who had arranged the marriage, admitted during her cross-examination that The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. disclosed that his eldest daughter was 9 years old in July 2003, clearly suggesting that she was born in 1994, consistent with his of any marriage card, photographs o independent record further weakens the claim of the prosecution that the marriage had taken place in the year 1997. The natural inference from the age of the accused and testimony of PW8 Shamo is that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1993. Thus, the death in June 2000 occurred after 7 years of marriage, ing applicability of Section 304-B IPC. Consequently, the 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. B IPC is not attracted, the material on record shows that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty in In this case, the pivotal question is whether the marriage The complainant PW11 Kuldeep Singh stated that the marriage was in the year 1997 in the FIR, however, during his deposition before the learned trial Court, he stated that the marriage between the deceased and the Similarly, PW5 Om Prakash (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased had got married to accused on 26.07.1995. PW8 Shamo, on the other hand, who The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. disclosed that his eldest daughter was 9 years old in July 2003, clearly suggesting that she was born in 1994, consistent with his of any marriage card, photographs o independent record further weakens the claim of the prosecution that the marriage had taken place in the year 1997. The natural inference from the age of the accused and testimony of PW8 Thus, the death in June 2000 occurred after 7 years of marriage, Consequently, the B IPC is not attracted, the material on Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA her matrimonial home. PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently stated that monetary demands were made, though details regarding the same varied. The deceased had confided in PW8 Shamo about beatings just a day before he ante-mortem 27. absence of poison in Viscera Report, the surrounding circumstances including injuries and deprivation of her children, indicate mental and physical harassment 28. driven to suicide conduct of the accused except to end her life. separation from children, and physical assault shortly before death cumulatively establish abetment of suicide. proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The inconsistencies in timing and amounts of alleged fact of harassment 29. infirmity in the impugned judgment. place in the evidence and circumstances. was rightly declined. DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB her matrimonial home. PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently stated that monetary demands were made, though details regarding the same varied. The deceased had confided in PW8 Shamo about beatings just a day before her death. Further, medical evidence established injuries on her neck, face, and her hand. Even if the exact cause of death could not be ascertained due to absence of poison in Viscera Report, the surrounding circumstances including injuries and deprivation of her children, indicate mental and harassment sufficient to drive her to suici The offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted when a person is driven to suicide by cruelty or harassment. The standard of proof is that of the accused must be such as to leave no option for the victim except to end her life. In the present case, the persistent demands, cruelty, separation from children, and physical assault shortly before death cumulatively establish abetment of suicide. proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The nsistencies in timing and amounts of alleged harassment, corroborated by injuries and disclosures to relatives. On a comprehensive re-appraisal of evidence, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The finding place in the year 1993, beyond 7 years of the death, is well evidence and circumstances. Hence, conviction under Section was rightly declined. SB-2004 -9- her matrimonial home. PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently stated that monetary demands were made, though details regarding the same varied. The deceased had confided in PW8 Shamo about r death. Further, medical evidence established face, and her hand. Even if the exact cause of death could not be ascertained due to absence of poison in Viscera Report, the surrounding circumstances including injuries and deprivation of her children, indicate mental and sufficient to drive her to suicide. he offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted when a person is by cruelty or harassment. The standard of proof is that must be such as to leave no option for the victim nt case, the persistent demands, cruelty, separation from children, and physical assault shortly before death cumulatively establish abetment of suicide. The evidence on record also proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The nsistencies in timing and amounts of alleged payments do not efface the uries and disclosures to relatives. appraisal of evidence, we find no The finding that the marriage had taken 1993, beyond 7 years of the death, is well-supported by conviction under Section 304-B IPC her matrimonial home. PW5 Om Prakash and PW11 Kuldeep Singh consistently stated that monetary demands were made, though details regarding the same varied. The deceased had confided in PW8 Shamo about r death. Further, medical evidence established Even if the exact cause of death could not be ascertained due to absence of poison in Viscera Report, the surrounding circumstances including injuries and deprivation of her children, indicate mental and he offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted when a person is by cruelty or harassment. The standard of proof is that must be such as to leave no option for the victim nt case, the persistent demands, cruelty, separation from children, and physical assault shortly before death The evidence on record also proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The do not efface the appraisal of evidence, we find no that the marriage had taken supported by B IPC Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA-D-662-DBA 30. conviction of the respondent Section 304-B IPC appeal seeking (CRA-S-1109 dismissed. August 18, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur DBA-2004 (O&M) and CRA-S-1109-SB Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State seeking conviction of the respondent-accused (CRA B IPC is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed. appeal seeking enhancement of sentence of the respondent 1109-SB-2004) also does not warrant interference and stands August 18, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable SB-2004 -10- Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State seeking CRA-D-662-DBA-2004) under is devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed. Similarly, the of sentence of the respondent-accused ) also does not warrant interference and stands (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE (H.S. GREWAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State seeking ) under Similarly, the accused ) also does not warrant interference and stands Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.22 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh