The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act requires concrete evidence of harassment or cruelty shortly before death; general and vague allegations are insufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned judgment dated 15th December, 2024 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the ld. Trial Court acquitted the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the following observations:

“40. After, analyzing the evidence on the record (as discussed herein before) on the parameters of aforesaid case laws, I do find that prosecution has failed to prove charge of offence under Section 498 -A/304-B IPC against the accused persons because there is no reliable evidence on the record even to suggest that any sort of harassment was being caused to deceased Ruby for any kind of demand.
XXX
42. In this case, a charge for offence under Section 302/34 was also framed against both the accused persons. However, there is no evidence to such effect to even raise a suspicion that it was a case of culpable homicide. Rather, the medical evidence coming through PW-14 and PW-27 give a total clean chit to the accused persons for the allegations of culpable homicide. These two witnesses were doctor/forensic experts. Both had conducted postmortem examination and their common opinion was that it was a case of suicide, rather than strangulation. Therefore, charge of Section 302 also does not hold ground.
43. In view of my aforesaid findings, accused persons namely Aftab and Zareena are acquitted of all the charges against them. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.”

BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.2010, information was received at Police Station Gokalpuri vide DD No. 60-B at about 7:25 PM to the effect that a lady, namely Ruby, had been taken to GTB Hospital by her husband in an unconscious condition, where she was declared “brought dead” by the attending doctors. Upon receipt of the said information, ASI Dev Raj reached GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of the deceased. It further transpired that the deceased had been married to Respondent no.1 approximately seven months prior to the incident. The MLC of the deceased is reproduced hereinbelow:

3. ASI Dev Raj informed the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, whereupon Sh. A.K. Sharma, SDM, reached GTB Hospital and recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased, namely Smt. Ruksana (PW-1). In her statement, she alleged that her daughter Ruby was married to accused Aftab on 30.05.2010 and that on 23.12.2010 at about 5:00 PM, accused Aftab informed her that Ruby was not feeling well and that he was taking her to the hospital. The relevant statement of PW-1 dated 23.12.2010 before the SDM is reproduced hereinunder:

4. Thereafter, PW-1 reached a hospital at Yamuna Vihar, where the accused Aftab was present with Ruby, and the doctors there advised that Ruby be taken to GTB Hospital, where she was declared brought dead.

5. On the basis of the said statement, FIR No. 379/2010 was registered initially under Sections 304 -B/34 IPC at PS Gokalpuri. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet dated 23.03.2011 under Sections 498 -A/304-B/34 was filed against accused persons namely Aftab (Husband), Zareena (Mother-in-law), Farukh (Uncle of Aftab) and Naushad Ali (Maternal Uncle).

6. Vide order dated 06.08.2011, the ld. Trial Court passed an order on charge, whereby accused Farukh and Naushad were discharged, and accused Aftab and Zareena were directed to be charged for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 IPC , 304B/34 and, in the alt