The judgment emphasizes the need for direct evidence of dowry demands and a nexus between cruelty and suicide, while also highlighting the presumption of innocence in cases of abetment of suicide.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 372 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents of the charges under Section 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:

“(1) The case of the prosecution is based on an unfortunate incident of suicide committed by Ms. Savita at her matrimonial House No. 438, Gali No. 8, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi on 04.11.2000. Information of this incident was received in PS : Mandawali vide DD No. 10-A and thereafter, police as well as SDM Preet Vihar and family members of deceased visited the place of incident. The father of deceased namely Sh. Kuber Dutt Sharma gave statement before SDM alleging that his daughter was married to Dinesh Gautam on 25.11.1993. Before her death, she had gone to her parents’ house in Delhi and was taken back by her husband in the night of 02.11.2000. His daughter was harassed by her in-laws on account of dowry demands and demand for money to construct the house at their village as well as on account of birth of a child to her sister-in-law (nanad). The celebration of ‘chuchak’ ritual was to be conducted in Agra on account of birth of son of sister-in-law of deceased, for which mother-in-law and sister-in-law had made demand of Rs. 2 lacs as gift from the deceased. Accused Kishan (brother-in-law of deceased) had also asked the deceased to attend this function necessarily and had given threats of spoiling of the relationship, if she did not attend the same. The deceased was also harassed in the past by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth) and others on account of several demands. On the basis of such allegations, present FIR was registered U/s 498-A/304-B IPC. (2) During inspection of dead body, a suicide note was also recovered from the dead body, which was sent to FSL along with admitted handwriting of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, present charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 498-A/304-B IPC against accused Vimlesh, Anil Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Mohan Lal Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki. During pendency of trial of this case, accused Mohan Lal Gautam expired and the case was abated against him. (3) Charges were framed against accused Vimlesh, Dinesh Kumar Gautam, Kishan Dutt Gautam, Anil Kumar Gautam and Pratibha @ Pinki for offence U/s 498-A/304-B/34 IPC on 13.07.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

3. In order to prove its case and to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses in all.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, the respondents examined two witnesses in their support.

5. Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the material available on record and the same is based upon surmises and conjectures and has resulted in miscarriage of justice and thus it is liable to be set aside and the respondents be held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned trial court erred in holding that none of the allegations make out a case of demand of dowry and of cruelty even though the demand of money and consequent cruelty for the purpose of construction of house as well as ‘chuchak’ has been proved by the testimony of PW2, PW6 and PW26 and thus an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is made out.

7. Counsel for the appellant next contended that the learne