Dowry Death Conviction Cannot Be Based On Prior Matrimonial Conduct Unconnected To Death: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that evidence relating to alleged conduct in a prior marriage cannot substitute proof of statutory ingredients of dowry offences, and that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable.
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations concerning conduct in an accused’s prior matrimonial relationship cannot be relied upon to establish offences under Sections 498-A or 304-B IPC in another marriage unless there is proof that the deceased herself was subjected to dowry-related cruelty soon before her death.
The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in a case involving charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain observed that “the reliance placed by the prosecution on the testimony regarding alleged conduct of the accused in a previous marriage also does not advance its case, …at best, it appears to disclose some prior matrimonial discord involving the accused in an earlier relationship, but such past conduct, unrelated to the deceased and unconnected in time, place or circumstance with her death, cannot substitute for proof of the statutory ingredients of Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.”
Background
The prosecution's case arose from information received at a police station that a woman had been taken to the hospital by her husband in an unconscious condition, where she was declared dead.
The deceased’s mother alleged that her daughter had been harassed for dowry by her husband and in-laws and expressed suspicion regarding their involvement in her death.
The trial court, after appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC on the ground that no reliable evidence existed to show harassment for dowry, and also rejected the charge under Section 302 IPC in view of medical evidence indicating suicide.
Aggrieved, the State filed the present appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court first reiterated the settled appellate principle governing interference with acquittals, holding that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that interference is justified only if the trial court’s view is perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unreasonable. Where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.
The Court then examined the medical evidence and noted that the forensic experts who conducted the post-mortem had unequivocally opined that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from antemortem hanging. The Court recorded that forensic indicators typical of hanging were present and that the experts’ final opinion remained clear in favour of suicide.
On that basis, it held that there was no medical foundation for the allegation of homicidal strangulation and that the charge under Section 302 IPC had rightly been rejected.
Turning to the allegation of dowry harassment, the Court analysed the testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses who were family members of the deceased. It noted that their statements contained only general allegations and lacked particulars regarding dates, specific incidents, or circumstances of alleged demands. No prior complaint had been lodged by the deceased or her relatives regarding dowry harassment.
The Court further observed inconsistencies among these witnesses. While one alleged demand at the time of marriage, the others did not support such claims and instead stated that the marriage ceremony had been conducted peacefully without dispute. Independent witnesses who attended the marriage also did not observe any quarrel or dispute.
The allegation that the accused demanded a car was also found doubtful because evidence indicated that he already possessed a car, and no witness specified any model or details of the alleged demand or identified any particular date when such a demand was made.
The Court then addressed the reliance placed by the prosecution on testimony regarding the alleged conduct of the accused in a previous marriage. It held that such evidence, even if accepted, only disclosed prior matrimonial discord and could not establish the statutory requirement that the deceased herself must have been subjected to dowry-related cruelty soon before her death.
“The law requires proof that the deceased herself was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry soon before her death. Evidence of alleged behaviour in a previous marriage, howsoever discreditable it may appear, does not establish a proximate or live link between any dowry-related cruelty and the death of the deceased”, the Bench further explained.
Having independently reassessed the entire evidentiary record, the Bench found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning and concluded that its view was a plausible one based on the evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B or 302 IPC and that the trial court’s assessment of evidence was neither perverse nor unreasonable, while further stating that in these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not arise.
The Court accordingly declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal.
Cause Title: State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. Aftab & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1334-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Divya Yadav & Lalit Luthra, Advocates
Respondents: R. K. Tarun, Reyazul Haque, Capt. Subedita Rani, Aditi Shivadhatri, Khushi Gupta and Hemant Jain, Advocates