Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
State, Through Secretary, GNCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Raj Thakur, S/o. Sh. Anand Thakur – Respondent
Crl. A. 1563 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal under ipc sections (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. testimony of witnesses regarding deceased (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. arguments challenging acquittal (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. prosecution's claims and rebuttals (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. court's interpretation of cruelty under ipc (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 6. legal definitions of abetment and mens rea (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101) |
| 7. absence of specific acts of instigation (Para 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108) |
| 8. conclusion on the suicide's causation (Para 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117) |
| 9. final conclusion and dismissal of appeal (Para 119 , 120 , 121) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/State against the Order dated 10.02.2017 of learned ASJ-04, Delhi whereby the Respondent/Ritu Raj Thakur, has been acquitted under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ') in FIR No. 36/2011, registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar.
2. The brief facts are that Ms. Sharmistha and Accused, Ritu Raj Thakur, got married on 06.03.2010, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Ms. Sharmistha committed suicide on 01.02.2011 by hanging herself with a bed sheet with the ceiling fan at her matrimonial home/rented accommodation at H. No. 655, Pocket-V, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, leaving a suicide note in her diary.
3. The incident was recorded vide DD No. 32A dated 01.02.2011 at 22:50 hours in the Police Station Pandav Nagar, on receipt of telephone call from LBS Hospital wherein it was recorded that she was brought dead due to strangulation by her husband for which MLC No. 1025/11 was prepared. The investigations were taken over by SI Sehdev Singh, who collected the MLC from the Hospital. The proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C were conducted by SDM, Preet Vihar, who tried to contact Ms. Ranjeeta Sharma and Ms. Sharbani Kaushik, sister and mother of the deceased on their telephones but they did not respond. The Crime Team also visited the spot and conducted the investigations. Mr. Hukam Singh, the SDM, Preet Vihar reached the spot on 02.02.2011, on receiving information from SI Sehdev Singh.
4. IO/SI Sehdev Singh conducted investigations and made enquiry from the neighbours, seized the exhibits from the spot and also the diary containing suicide note, mobile phone, dry blood and also earth control from the spot. On 03.02.2011, the mother, sister and other family members of the deceased, came to Delhi. Statement of Ms. Ranjeeta Sharma, the mother was recorded and on the basis of which, FIR No. 36/2011, Police Station Pandav Nagar, was registered.
5. After completion of investigations, the Charge-Sheet was filed in the Court on 26.04.2011 for the offence under Section 498A/304B IPC .
6. The Charges were framed on 19.11.2011 under Section498A/304B/306 IPC .
7. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 135/2012 was preferred before this Court whereby the offence under Section 304B IPC , was set-aside. The Respondent/Accused faced the trial for the offence under Section 498A/306 .
8. The Prosecution in support of its case, examined 21 Prosecution witnesses.
9. PW-1, Ms. Sharbani Kaushik and PW-4, Ms. Ranjeeta Sharma sister and mother of the deceased, deposed that she had been subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws for dowry demands and expressed their suspicion against the Respondent. They also proved the note book, Ex.PW-1/B containing handwriting of the deceased and the diary, Ex.PW-1/C in which, the deceased had written a suicide note.
10. PW-3, Hukam Singh, SDM, Preet Vihar, deposed that he had conducted the enquiry from the neighbours as no family member was available at the spot on 02.02.2011. He
The prosecution failed to prove cruelty or instigation linked to the suicide, resulting in acquittal under IPC Sections 498A and 306.
Point of law: Dowry harassment - Abatement of suicide =-evidence of prosecution witnesses on record does not demonstrate the unqualified clarity and conviction any role played by the accused in caus....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused to drive ....
Insufficient evidence of specific ill-treatment and lack of direct link to suicide led to the quashing of convictions under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
Conviction under sections 306 and 498-A RPC requires clear evidence of harassment and direct causation of suicide, which was not established in this case.
Cruelty – Every harassment does not amount to cruelty – What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person.
Conviction under IPC Sections 498A and 306 requires clear evidence of cruelty and instigation, which was not established in this case.
Prosecution must establish clear intent and mens rea for abetment of suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC.
For conviction under Sections 306 and 498A, clear evidence of instigation or aiding in suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
