CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CRA-S-175 2-SB-2004 (O&M) Reserved onn: 11.03.2026 Pronouncedd on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded o n: 29.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is PPronounced : No Whether full j udgment is pronounced: Yes JIT KAUR && OTHERS ....Appellants Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellants no. 1 and 2. Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate For appellant no. 3. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjjab. ***** RUPINDERJJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. The present appeal arises out off the judgment of conviction andd order of senttence dated 10.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,, Sangrur, in FFIR No. 122 dated 03.05.2003 rregistered under Sections 304-BB and 498-A off the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Dhuri, Districtt Sangrur, wheereby the appellants were convvicted under Section 304-B IPCC and sentenceed to undergo rigorous imprisonnment for a period of 10 yearss PUNEET SHARMA along with finne of ₹2,000/- each and, in defauult of payment of fine, to furtherr 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 1 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

undergo rigoorous imprisonment for six monnths each. The appellants weree also convicteed under Section 498-A IPC andd sentenced to undergo rigorouss imprisonmennt for one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to runn concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the FIR in question wass registered onn the statement of complainaant Manjeet Singh, brother off deceased Gurrmeet Kaur. 2.1. As per the prosecution, Gurmeeet Kaur was married to appellantt no.2 Jaspal SSingh on 17.03.2002. At the timme of marriage, sufficient dowryy articles weree allegedly given according too the financial capacity of thee parental fammily of the deceased and a furrther amount of ₹25,000/- wass allegedly pai d on the occasion of the receptioon ceremony. 2.2. It is alleged that after a few mmonths of marriage, the accusedd persons (apppellants herein) namely Jaspall Singh (husband), Jeet Kaurr (mother-in-laaw) and Seema Rani (sister- in-law) started harassing andd maltreating tthe deceased on account of innsufficient dowry and raised aa demand for aa scooter. The deceased is statedd to have informed her parentall family on varrious occasions regarding the saiid harassment.

2.3. The prosecution further allegedd that approximately two and aa half months prior to the occurrence, both faamilies had attended a marriagee where substaantial dowry had allegedly been ggiven and thereafter the accusedd again tauntedd the deceased for not bringingg adequate dowry and reiteratedd their demandd for a scooter. 2.4. It is further the case of the pros ecution that about 22 days priorr to her death, the deceased delivered a femalee child and while admitted in thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 2 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) hospital at Sangrur, she again disclosed to hher mother and brother that shee was being haarassed on account of dowry demmands. 2.5. On 03.05.2003, information reegarding the death of Gurmeett Kaur was recceived by the complainant party. It was alleged that being unablee to bear the ccontinuous harassment and crueelty at the hands of the accusedd persons, the ddeceased consumed poisonous suubstance and died. 2.6. After investigation, challan wass presented against the accusedd persons. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. R.P. Jinndal, PW-2 Manjeet Singh, PPW-3 Jeet Kaur, PW-4 MHCC Satwinder S ingh, PW-5 Constable Jagtar Singh, PW-6 DSP Gurbachann Singh, PW-7 Jagdev Sharma, PW-8 ASI Balbbir Chand and PW-9 SI Kulwantt Singh.

4. After the closure of the prosecuution evidence, the statements off the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PP.C. were recorded, wherein alll the incriminaating circumstances appearing aagainst them in the prosecutionn evidence werre put to them. 4.1. The accused (appellants here in) denied all the allegationss levelled by the prosecution and pleaded fafalse implication and examinedd DW-1 Gurindder Singh and DW-2 Inder Singhh. It was specifically denied thatt any demand for dowry had ever been raisedd or that the deceased had beenn subjected to hharassment or cruelty on accounnt thereof. The defence taken byy the accused wwas that the deceased was treatted properly in her matrimoniall home and thhat she remained under mentall stress after giving birth to aa PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 3 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) female child,, as there were already six daugghters in the in-laws family andd she had givenn birth to the seventh daughter. 4.2. The learned trial Court, after aappreciating and evaluating thee evidence avaailable on record, held the accuused guilty and convicted themm under Sectionns 304-B and 498-A IPC. 5. For sake of convenience, argguments advanced by learnedd counsel for appellants No.1 and 2 and argguments advanced for appellantt No.3 are takeen up together to avoid repetitionn.

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellannts have vehemently argued thatt the prosecutiion has failed to prove the esssential ingredients required forr constituting an offence under Section 304-BB IPC. Learned counsel for thee appellants coontended that the allegation reegarding payment of ₹25,000/--towards the rreception ceremony expenses ar e totally vague. It is argued thatt the complainnant, during the course of cross-eexamination, categorically statedd that the said amount had allegedly been arraanged by mortgaging the housee with one Suubegh Singh of Patiala, howeever, the prosecution failed too examine himm before the Court. It has been further argued that noo documentaryy evidence whatsoever, includinng mortgage documents, bankk withdrawal rrecords, receipts, or any othe r financial material, has beenn produced byy the prosecution to establish tthat the complainant party hadd actually borroowed any amount or was compeelled to arrange funds on accountt of any allege d demand raised by the appellannts. 5.2. It has been contended that therre is no cogent, independent orr reliable evideence to establish any demand off dowry or cruelty in connectionn therewith. Thhe allegations regarding demandd of scooter are vague, omnibuss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 4 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

and unsuppoorted by any independent witnesss. No independent witness hass been produceed to prove such demand. Moreoover, it has come on record thatt the appellantt-Jaspal Singh was already in posssession of a scooter prior to thee marriage, whhich renders the alleged demand doubtful. 5.3. It is further argued that the me diators of the marriage, namelyy Sangat Singgh and Kaka Singh, who weere material and independentt witnesses, weere neither examined nor associaated with the investigation. Thiss omission waarrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of thee Evidence Acct, 1872 that their testimony woould have been unfavourable too the prosecuti on. 5.4. Learned counsel for the apppellants submit that there aree material conttradictions in the statements of PW-2 Manjeet Singh and PW-3 Jeet Kaur reggarding the mediators and the all eged instances of harassment. 5.5. It is further contended that thhe medical evidence does nott support the pprosecution version of physical ccruelty, inasmuch as no externall injury was ffound on the body of the deceaased as per post-mortem reportt Ex.PA. 5.6. It is further argued that no compplaint, panchayat, or legal actionn was ever innitiated by the complainant paarty during the lifetime of thee deceased. Suuch silence is inconsistent withh the allegations of continuouss harassment aand creates a serious doubt abouut the veracity of the prosecutionn case.

5.7. It has further been argued thatt the deceased had delivered aa female child merely 22 days prior to the occcurrence and was suffering fromm PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 5 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) post-partum depression. The accused familyy had taken proper care of thee deceased andd got her admitted in a private hoospital at their own expense. 5.8. Reliance has also been placedd upon the testimony of DW-1 Gurinder Sinngh, who stated that there wwas no demand of dowry orr harassment, aand DW-2 Inder Singh, who depposed regarding the possibility off post-partum ddepression after childbirth. 5.9. On the basis of the aforesaid suubmissions, learned counsel forr the appellantts submit that the prosecution has failed to prove cruelty orr harassment ““soon before death”, which is a sine qua non for attractingg Section 304- B IPC. The essential ingredient s of Sections 304-B, 498-A andd 306 IPC are nnot made out, and the impugned judgment of conviction is liablee to be set asidde. The appellants, therefore, deeserve to be acquitted of all thee charges by giiving them the benefit of doubt. 6. Per contra, learned State counssel has supported the impugnedd judgment annd contended that the prosecutioon has successfully establishedd that the deceaased was subjected to cruelty andd harassment in connection withh dowry demannds.

6.1. It is argued that the testimoniees of PW-2 Manjeet Singh andd PW-3 Jeet Kaaur clearly prove that the accuseed persons were dissatisfied withh the dowry given and were persistently demmanding a scooter. It is furtherr submitted thhat the death of the deceased ooccurred within seven years off marriage andd under unnatural circumstancces. The Chemical Examiner’ss report establlished presence of organophospphorus pesticide in the viscera,, thereby proviing death by poisoning. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 6 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) 6.2. Learned State counsel furtheer contends that once it iss established thhat a woman died otherwise thhan under normal circumstancess within seven years of marriage and was subjeected to cruelty or harassment inn connection wwith dowry demand soon befoore her death, the presumptionn under Sectionn 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act automatically arises againstt the accused. 6.3. It is thus argued that the proosecution has duly proved alll foundational facts necessary for attracting Seection 498-A and 304-B IPC andd the learned trrial Court rightly convicted the aappellants. 7. Heard the counsels appearing foor both sides and have carefullyy gone throughh the record. Sections 498-A andd 304-B of IPC read as under: "4988-A. Husband or relative of huusband of a woman subjectingg her to cruelty.-

Whooever, being the husband or thhe relative of the husband of aa womman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished withh imprrisonment for a term which mayy extend to three years and shalll also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of thiis section, "cruelty" means- (a) aany wilful conduct which is of suuch a nature as is likely to drivee the wwoman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger too life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) hharassment of the woman wheree such harassment is with a vieww to coercing her or any person relatted to her to meet any unlawfull demmand for any property or valuabble security or is on account off PUNEET SHARMA failuure by her or any person related tto her to meet such demand." 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 7 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) "3044-B. Dowry death.- (1) WWhere the death of a woman iss caused by any burns or bodilyy injurry or occurs otherwise than undder normal circumstances withinn seveen years of her marriage and itt is shown that soon before herr deatth she was subjected to cruelty oor harassment by her husband orr any relative of her husband for, or iin connection with, any demandd for dowry, such death shall be caalled "dowry death", and suchh husbband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.-For the purpose of tthis sub-section, "dowry" shalll havee the same meaning as in Sectiion 2 of the Dowry Prohibitionn Act,, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry deeath shall be punished withh imprrisonment for a term which shaall not be less than seven yearss but wwhich may extend to imprisonmment for life." 8. The following are the essentiaal ingredients of Section 304-BB IPC: a) The deathh of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodilyy injury, or muust have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seeven years of her marriage; c) Soon beffore her death, she must havee been subjected to cruelty orr harassment bby the husband or any relative off her husband; and d) Cruelty orr harassment must be for, or in cconnection with, any demand forr dowry. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 8 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

9. It is undisputed in the present case that the wife of appellantt no.2 died wwithin seven years of their marrriage, thereby it is to be seenn whether the provisions of Section 113-B oof the Indian Evidence Act aree attracted or nnot. Section 113-B of Indian Eviddence Act reads as under: "1133-B. Presumption as to dowry ddeath.-Wheen the question is whether a peerson has committed the dowryy deatth of a woman and it is shown tthat soon before her death suchh womman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassmentt for, or in connection with, any demmand for dowry, the Court shalll pressume that such person had causedd the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of thhis section, "dowry death" shalll havee the same meaning as in Sectioon 304-B of Indian Penal Codee (45 of 1860)." 10. The presumption under Sectionn 113-B of Indian Evidence Actt will apply whhen it is established that soon bbefore her death, the woman hass been subjecteed by the accused to cruelty or hharassment for, or in connectionn with, any demmand for dowry. Therefore, evenn for attracting Section 113-B off Indian Evideence Act, the prosecution must establish that the deceased wass subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harasssment for or in connection withh any demand of dowry soon before her deathh. Unless these facts are proved,, the presumpptions under Section 113-B off the Evidence Act cannot bee invoked.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment of Satbir Singh v. State of Harryana, 2021 AIR (SC) 2627; has summarised the law underr Section 304-BB, IPC and Section 113-B, Evideence Act as under: PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 9 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) "i. SSection 304-B, IPC must be innterpreted keeping in mind thee legisslative intent to curb the social eevil of bride burning and dowryy demmand. ii. TThe prosecution must at first establish the existence of thee neceessary ingredients for constitutinng an offence under Section 304--B, IIPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttablee pressumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidencee Act operates against the accused. iii. TThe phrase "soon before" as apppearing in Section 304-B, IPCC cannnot be construed to mean `immeediately before'. The prosecutionn mus t establish existence of "proximmate and live link" between thee dowwry death and cruelty or harasssment for dowry demand by thee husbband or his relatives. iv. SSection 304-B, IPC does not ttake a pigeonhole approach inn cateegorizing death as homicidal oor suicidal or accidental. Thee reasson for such non categorizationn is due to the fact that deathh occuurring "otherwise than under nnormal circumstances" can, inn casees, be homicidal or suicidal or acccidental."

12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the death of thee deceased toook place within seven years oof marriage and that the samee occurred othherwise than under normal circuumstances. However, these twoo circumstancees alone are insufficient to attracct the provisions of Section 304--B IPC. The pprosecution is further required too establish that the deceased wass subjected to cruelty or harassment in connnection with demand for dowryy soon before hher death. It is only upon prooff of these foundational facts thatt PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 10 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) the statutory presumption under Section 1133-B of the Indian Evidence Actt can be invokeed against the accused.

13. Adverting to the facts of thhe present case, upon carefull appraisal of tthe entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that thee prosecution has failed to establish beyonnd reasonable doubt that thee deceased, Guurmeet Kaur, was subjected too cruelty or harassment by thee appellants inn connection with a demand forr dowry soon before her death.. Though it haas been alleged by the compla inant–PW2 Manjeet Singh thatt sufficient doowry articles were given at thhe time of marriage. However,, except for the bald and omnibus asserttions of the complainant, noo independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiatee the said alleegation which forms the substraatum of the FIR. Even if it iss presumed thaat certain customary articles werre given at the time of marriage,, there is nothiing on record to establish that thhe same were given pursuant too any specific demand raised by the accused ppersons. Mere giving of gifts orr articles at thee time of marriage, in the absencce of cogent evidence regardingg demand, cannnot be termed as dowry within thhe meaning of law.

14. The second allegation against the appellants pertains to ann alleged demaand of ₹25,000/-, which, accorrding to the complainant party,, was paid towards the reception party exppenses after the marriage. Thee complainant,, during cross-examination, has stated that the above amount off ₹25,000/- waas arranged by mortgaging the hhouse with one Subegh Singh off Patiala. Said Subegh Singh would have beenn the best witness to corroboratee the version oof the complainant regarding thhe alleged financial compulsionn and borrowinng of money to satisfy the alleeged demand of the appellants.. However, thhe prosecution has failed too examine the said witness.. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 11 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) Furthermore,, no documentary evidence succh as bank withdrawal records,, mortgage doocuments, or any other financiaal record has been produced too establish thatt the complainant party had borrrowed money or was compelledd to arrange fuunds to meet any alleged demandd raised by the accused persons.. No relative, employer, or even the maternaal uncles of the deceased, whoo allegedly conntributed towards the marriage expenses, have been examinedd by the proseccution to lend support to the commplainant’s version.

15. The further allegation regardingg demand of a scooter at the timee of birth of aa female child also does not finnd support from any reliable orr independent evidence available on record. RRather, it has come in evidencee that the in-laaws of the deceased had borne tthe medical expenses relating too the delivery and had got the deceased addmitted in one of the reputedd hospitals in tthe town. In such circumstancess, the allegation that, on the onee hand, the a ccused persons were bearing the medical expenses of thee deceased andd, on the other hand, simultanneously raising a demand for aa scooter, appeears improbable. Moreover, it haas also come on record that thee appellant’s ffamily was already in possesssion of a scooter prior to thee marriage, theereby rendering the said allegatioon further doubtful. 16. Even in the FIR and in the staatements of the complainant, noo specific insttance of harassment immediateely prior to the death of thee deceased hass been mentioned so as to satissfy the essential requirement off “soon beforee death”. Neither the FIR nor the testimonies of the materiall witnesses sppecify with clarity the date, tiime, place, or manner of anyy particular inccident of cruelty. 17. The prosecution case mainly ressts upon the testimonies of PW-22 Manjeet Singgh, brother of the deceased, andd PW-3 Jeet Kaur, mother of theePUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 12 of 23

CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

deceased. Hoowever, a close scrutiny of theeir depositions reveals materiall discrepanciess and omissions, which render ttheir testimonies unreliable andd unworthy of reliance. Manjeet Singh (PW-2)), during the course of his cross--examination, admitted that he had not stateed in his statement made to thee police, Ex.PEE, that the accused used to beat tthe deceased. The said assertion,, having been introduced for the first time durring trial, amounts to a materiall improvementt. PW-3 Jeet Kaur, mother of tthe deceased, during her cross--examination, admitted that in her statement s he did not mention the names off the accused and only referred to the family of the in-laws of her deceasedd daughter. Shee further stated that she had not recorded in her statement underr Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had mmisbehaved with them at Renuu Singla Hospital. She also admitted that shhe had not got it recorded thatt Seema (appeellant no.3/ sister-in-law) had tolld them that upon their return too the hospital, they should have given a scootter, failing which their daughterr would be seent back. PW-2 Manjeet Singh,, during his cross-examination,, stated that thhe mediators did not meet themm after the marriage and that hee had not compplained to them regarding the allleged harassment or demand forr a scooter maade by the accused family. He sppecifically stated that he did nott visit their houuse. On the other hand, PW-3 Jeeet Kaur stated during her cross--examination that Sangat Singh and his son KKaka were the mediators of thee marriage, andd that they had approached bothh mediators informing them thatt the accused were harassing Gurmeet Kaur (since deceased). According too her, the mediiators told them that they would ccall the accused.

18. This contradiction between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 with regard to approaching the mediators oof the marriage for the allegedd demand of doowry and harassment caused to deceased Gurmeet Kaur createss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 13 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) a serious douubt in the prosecution story, paarticularly when the prosecutionn has failed too examine the mediators of thee marriage who were the mostt natural and inndependent witnesses to whom ccomplaints were allegedly made.. Their non-exxamination, without any plausiblee explanation, invites an adversee inference unnder Section 114(g) of the Inndian Evidence Act that theirr testimony woould not have supported the pros ecution case.

19. On the contrary, the defence exxamined DW-1 Gurinder Singh,, who categoriically stated in his examination -in-chief that he had acted as aa mediator in tthe marriage of Gurmeet Kaur wwith Jaspal Singh and had beenn visiting their house even after the marriage. HHe further deposed that Gurmeett Kaur was livving happily in her matrimonial home and had never made anyy complaint to him regarding any demand of ddowry, scooter or harassment att the hands off the accused persons. He also stated that neither the brother,, father, motheer nor any other member of the pparental family of Gurmeet Kaurr had ever commplained to him regarding any deemand of dowry by the accused.. Though the witness was cross-examined att length by the prosecution, noo suggestion wwas put to him that he was not a mediator of the marriage. Hee was also not confronted on any material aspeect of his testimony, except for aa bald suggesttion that he had deposed falssely to save the accused, hiss testimony remmained substantially unshaken. 20. Another important circumstancce which creates doubt in thee prosecution case is the absence of any m edical evidence supporting thee allegations oof physical assault or beating. The post-mortem examination off the deceasedd was conducted by Dr. R.P. J indal (PW-1), who specificallyy stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no external mark of injuryy on the body of the deceased. Had the deceaased been subjected to physicall PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 14 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) cruelty or be atings, as alleged by the prosecuution, some visible injury markss would ordinaarily have been found on her bbody. The absence of any suchh injury materiially weakens the prosecution ve rsion regarding physical cruelty.

21. Another aspect which assummes significance is that PW-22 Manjeet Singgh during cross-examination admmitted that when Gurmeet Kaurr was expectinng a child, she was not brought to her parental home as Singlaa Nursing Homme, was considered to be a rreputed hospital which was att Sangrur. He further admitted that although thhere exists a customary practicee whereby the first delivery of a woman ordinnarily takes place at her parentall home, but neeither did he request the accuseed to send Gurmeet Kaur to herr parental housse, nor did the accused ever exppressed any intention to send herr there. It is also an admitted position that the deceased continued to reside att her matrimonnial home at the time of her dellivery. The defence has stronglyy contended thhat this circumstance demonstrattes that the deceased was beingg properly lookked after by her in-laws; otherwwise, in the ordinary course off human conduuct and prevailing custom, she would have been taken to herr parental homme for delivery. The testimony off PW-2, therefore, to some extentt supports the inference that the deceased w as receiving adequate care andd attention at hher matrimonial home.

22. It is an admitted position on record that the deceased hadd delivered a ffemale child about 22 days priorr to the occurrence. The defencee has taken thhe plea that the deceased waas suffering from post-partumm depression aand remained under mental streess after the birth of the child,, particularly aas there were already six daughtters in the in-laws family of thee deceased. In support of the said plea, the defence examined DW-2 Inderr Singh, who stated in his examination-in-chhief that after the birth of thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 15 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) female child, Gurmeet Kaur used to remainn under depression. Though thee said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-eexamination by the prosecution,, no suggestioon was put to him disputing tthe fact that the deceased wass suffering fro m depression after childbirth. TThe Division Bench of Hon’blee Karnataka HHigh Court in State of Karnatakka v. Prakash, Law Finder Docc Id # 21472744, decision dated 13.12.2022; affter taking into consideration thee fact of post ppartum depression apart from othhers could be a possible cause off suicide of thee deceased and upheld the acquuittal of the accused therein. Thee relevant paraagraph is reproduced below:

“24. In the case on hand, within a shhort period of time from the timee of mmarriage, she had given birth to aa female child and she started too live in the village which was smalleer than the village in which shee was brought up. Further, it is alsoo available on record that thee accuused as well as PWs 1 and 3 wwere earning their livelihood byy coollie work. The cross-examinatioon of the prosecution witnessess alsoo disclose that deceased was nott sent for the coolie work and itt was only accused Nos. 1 to 3 who aare going for coolie work. If thatt is sso, the question of harassmeent appears to be figment off imaggination but nothing else. Eviddently, such harassment is nott disc losed to a close relative who waas instrumental in the marriagee of thhe accused and the deceased. TThe hostility of PW- 12 who wass instrrumental in settling the marriagge raises a serious doubt aboutt the ccontention of the prosecution annd also the evidence of PWs 1,33 and 4. The possibility of a ppost partum depression andd compmplications cannot be ruled out in the fact circumstances of thee casee.” PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 16 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

23. Though the defence version byy itself may not be sufficient too discard the prrosecution case in toto, yet in thee present matter, the prosecutionn has failed to produce any convincing and reeliable evidence to establish thatt the deceasedd was subjected to cruelty or hharassment in connection withh demand for ddowry soon before her death. 24. In the present case, the conducct of the complainant party alsoo creates doubbt regarding the prosecution veersion. The evidence on recordd shows that ddespite the alleged harassment, nno complaint was ever made too any Panchayyat, respectable persons of the vvillage or any legal proceedingss were initiatedd by the complainant party. Botth PW-2 Manjeet Singh, brotherr of the deceassed, and PW-3 Jeet Kaur, motherr of the deceased, have admittedd that neither aany Panchayat was ever convenedd, nor respectable persons of thee Village weree met to complain about the allleged harassment on account off dowry. Theree is also no reliable evidence to show that the complainant partyy had ever appproached the alleged mediatoors of the marriage regardingg harassment oof the deceased on account of dowwry demands.

25. Insofar as the presumption undeer Section 113-B of the Evidencee Act is concerrned, the same arises only when the prosecution first establishess the foundatioonal facts, particularly cruelty or harassment for dowry soonn before deathh. The allegations levelled by thhe prosecution remain general,, vague and unnsupported by any independent evidence. Most importantly, thee prosecution hhas failed to prove that any suuch cruelty or harassment wass meted out to the deceased “soon before her death”, which is a sine qua nonn for attractingg the provisions of Section 3304-B IPC. Consequently, thee statutory pre sumption does not arise. Reliannce in this regard is placed uponn decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BBaijnath v. State of Madhyaa PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 17 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

Pradesh, 20017 (1) SCC 101; wherein it was held that the factum off unnatural deaath in the matrimonial home andd that too within seven years off marriage is ipso facto not sufficient to bbring home the charge underr Sections 304B and 498A of I.P.C. against accused and to convict thee accused pros ecution has to prove ingredient oof cruelty on account of demandd of dowry by cogent evidence beyond reasonaable doubt. It was also held thatt general alleggations unsupported by cogeent and reliable evidence aree insufficient tto invoke the statutory presummption under section 113-B off Indian Evidennce Act. The relevant paragraphss are reproduced below: “31.. Section 113B of the Act enjoinns a statutory presumption as too dowwry death in the following terms: "1133B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question iss whe ther a person has committed thee dowry death of a woman and itt is shhown that soon before her death such woman has been subjectedd by ssuch person to cruelty or harasssment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court sshall presume that such personn had caused the dowry death. Expllanation - For the purpose of thhis section, "dowry death" shalll havee the same meaning as in Secction 304B of the Indian Penall Codde (45 of 1860)"

32. NNoticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof off crueelty or harassment of the womann dead for or in connection withh any demand for dowry by the persoon charged with the offence. Thee pressumption as to dowry death thuss would get activated only uponn the pproof of the fact that the deceaased lady had been subjected too PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 18 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) crueelty or harassment for or in coonnection with any demand forr dowwry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity off deatth. Such a proof is thus the legiislatively mandated prerequisitee to iinvoke the otherwise statutorrily ordained presumption off commmission of the offence of dowryry death by the person chargedd thererewith.

33. AA conjoint reading of these threee provisions, thus predicate thee burdden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate thee ingrredients of the two offences by diirect and convincing evidence soo as tto avail the presumption engrafafted in Section 113B of the Actt agaiinst the accused. Proof of crueltyty or harassment by the husbandd or hhis relative or the person chargged is thus the sine qua non too insppirit the statutory presumption,, to draw the person chargedd withhin the coils thereof. If the prossecution fails to demonstrate byy cogeent coherent and persuasive evvidence to prove such fact, thee persson accused of either of the aboove referred offences cannot bee heldd guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up thee shorrtfall in proof. 34. The legislative primature of reelieving the prosecution of thee rigoour of the proof of the often pra ctically inaccessible recesses off life within the guarded confines oof a matrimonial home and off repleenishing the consequential voidd, by according a presumptionn agaiinst the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss-over andd conddone its failure to prove crediblyy, the basic facts enumerated inn the SSections involved, lest justice is tthe casualty. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 19 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

35. This Court while often dwellinng on the scope and purport off Secttion 304B of the Code and SSection 113B of the Act havee proppounded that the presumption iss contingent on the fact that thee prossecution first spell out the iingredients of the offence off Secttion 304B as in Shindo Alias SSawinder Kaur and another v.

Statte of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (CCriminal) 878 : 2011(3) Recentt Apexex Judgments (R.A.J.) 123 : (22011) 11 SCC 517 and echoedd in RRajeev Kumar v. State of Haryyana, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal)) 964 : 2013(6) Recent Apex Judgmments (R.A.J.) 362 : (2013) 166 SCCC 640. In the latter pronouncem ent, this Court propounded thatt one of the essential ingrediennts of dowry death underr Secttion 304B of the Code is that thhe accused must have subjectedd the woman to cruelty in connectionn with demand for dowry soonn befoore her death and that this ingrredient has to be proved by thee prossecution beyond reasonable douubt and only then the Court willl pressume that the accused has commmitted the offence of dowry deathh undeer Section 113B of the Act. It referred to with approval, thee earllier decision of this Court in K. PPrema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasaa Raoo, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 697 :: (2003) 1 SCC 217 to the effectt that to attract the provision of Sectiion 304B of the Code, one of thee mainn ingredients of the offence whiich is required to be establishedd is thhat "soon before her death" sh e was subjected to cruelty andd haraassment "in connection with the ddemand for dowry 36. Tested on the judicially adumbbrated parameters as above, wee are of the unhesitant opinion thaat the prosecution has failed too provve beyond reasonable doubt, ccruelty or harassment to thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 20 of 23

CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) deceeased for or in connection wiith any demand for dowry ass conttemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code underr whicch the accused persons had been charged. Noticeably, thee allegged demand centers around a mootorcycle, which as the evidencee of tthe prosecution witnesses wouuld evince, admittedly did nott surfaface at the time of finalisation off the marriage. PW-5, the motherr of thhe deceased has even conceded tthat there was no dowry demandd at thhat stage. According to her, whenn the husband (who is dead) hadd insissted for a motorcycle thereafter hhe was assured that he would bee provvided with the same, finances peermitting. Noticeably again, thee demmand, as sought to be projected bby the prosecution, if accepted too be ttrue had lingered for almost two years. Yet admittedly, noo compmplaint was made thereof to anyyone, far less the police. Apartt fromm the general allegations in thee same tone in geminated withh parrrot like similarity by the prosecuution witnesses, the allegation off crueelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on thee conffidential communications by her to her parents in particular andd is noot supported by any other quarteer.". …….emphasis supplied

26. In the present case the prosecutiion has not been able to producee on record suufficient material to indicate thatt the deceased was subjected too cruelty or harrassment by the appellants in connnection with demand of dowry.. There is alsoo no specific allegation that thhe appellants directly incited orr compelled thhe deceased to commit suicide. 27. Criminal jurisprudence mandattes that prosecution must provee PUNEET SHARMA its case beyoond reasonable doubt. Where maaterial contradictions, and otherr 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 21 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) factors coexiist, the benefit of doubt must neecessarily ensue to the accused,, In Sharad Biirdhichand Sarda v. State of MMaharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116;; while relyingg upon its previous decision in KKali Ram v. State of Himachall Pradesh, 19973 (2) SCC 808; had emphassised that where circumstancess create reasonnable doubt, the accused is entiitled to its benefit. The relevantt part is reprodduced below:

“1622. We then pass on to another iimportant point which seems too havee been completely missed by thhe High Court. It is well settledd that where on the evidence two posssibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prrosecution and the other whichh beneefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to thee beneefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. Statte of Himachal Pradesh, (1973)) 2 SCCC 808, this Court made the folloowing observations : "Anoother golden thread which rruns through the web of thee admministration of justice in criminaal cases is that if two views aree posssible on the evidence adduced iin the case, one pointing to thee guiltt of the accused and the other too his innocence, the view whichh is faavourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has aa speccial relevance in cases wherein ththe guilt of the accused is soughtt to bee established by circumstantial eevidence." 28. More recently, In Narendra Singgh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,, 2026 (2) RCRR (Criminal) 800; the Hon’ble SSupreme Court has held that in aa criminal triaal, in case there are two infeerences possible, then the onee favouring thee accused must be followed. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 22 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

29. Accordingly, the present appeeal is allowed. The impugnedd judgment of conviction and order of sentennce dated 10.08.2004 passed byy the learned SSessions Judge, Sangrur, are hereeby set aside. The appellants aree acquitted of the charges framed against themm by extending benefit of doubtt to them. 31. The bail bonds/surety bonds of the appellants shall standd discharged. PPending miscellaneous applicaations, if any, shall also standd disposed of. (RUUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 29.05.2026 JUDGE Puneet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 23 of 23

CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CRA-S-175 2-SB-2004 (O&M) Reserved onn: 11.03.2026 Pronouncedd on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded o n: 29.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is PPronounced : No Whether full j udgment is pronounced: Yes JIT KAUR && OTHERS ....Appellants Versus STATE OF PPUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM: HHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellants no. 1 and 2. Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate For appellant no. 3. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjjab. ***** RUPINDERJJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. The present appeal arises out off the judgment of conviction andd order of senttence dated 10.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,, Sangrur, in FFIR No. 122 dated 03.05.2003 rregistered under Sections 304-BB and 498-A off the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Dhuri, Districtt Sangrur, wheereby the appellants were convvicted under Section 304-B IPCC and sentenceed to undergo rigorous imprisonnment for a period of 10 yearss PUNEET SHARMA along with finne of ₹2,000/- each and, in defauult of payment of fine, to furtherr 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 1 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

undergo rigoorous imprisonment for six monnths each. The appellants weree also convicteed under Section 498-A IPC andd sentenced to undergo rigorouss imprisonmennt for one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to runn concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the FIR in question wass registered onn the statement of complainaant Manjeet Singh, brother off deceased Gurrmeet Kaur. 2.1. As per the prosecution, Gurmeeet Kaur was married to appellantt no.2 Jaspal SSingh on 17.03.2002. At the timme of marriage, sufficient dowryy articles weree allegedly given according too the financial capacity of thee parental fammily of the deceased and a furrther amount of ₹25,000/- wass allegedly pai d on the occasion of the receptioon ceremony. 2.2. It is alleged that after a few mmonths of marriage, the accusedd persons (apppellants herein) namely Jaspall Singh (husband), Jeet Kaurr (mother-in-laaw) and Seema Rani (sister- in-law) started harassing andd maltreating tthe deceased on account of innsufficient dowry and raised aa demand for aa scooter. The deceased is statedd to have informed her parentall family on varrious occasions regarding the saiid harassment.

2.3. The prosecution further allegedd that approximately two and aa half months prior to the occurrence, both faamilies had attended a marriagee where substaantial dowry had allegedly been ggiven and thereafter the accusedd again tauntedd the deceased for not bringingg adequate dowry and reiteratedd their demandd for a scooter. 2.4. It is further the case of the pros ecution that about 22 days priorr to her death, the deceased delivered a femalee child and while admitted in thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 2 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) hospital at Sangrur, she again disclosed to hher mother and brother that shee was being haarassed on account of dowry demmands. 2.5. On 03.05.2003, information reegarding the death of Gurmeett Kaur was recceived by the complainant party. It was alleged that being unablee to bear the ccontinuous harassment and crueelty at the hands of the accusedd persons, the ddeceased consumed poisonous suubstance and died. 2.6. After investigation, challan wass presented against the accusedd persons. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. R.P. Jinndal, PW-2 Manjeet Singh, PPW-3 Jeet Kaur, PW-4 MHCC Satwinder S ingh, PW-5 Constable Jagtar Singh, PW-6 DSP Gurbachann Singh, PW-7 Jagdev Sharma, PW-8 ASI Balbbir Chand and PW-9 SI Kulwantt Singh.

4. After the closure of the prosecuution evidence, the statements off the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PP.C. were recorded, wherein alll the incriminaating circumstances appearing aagainst them in the prosecutionn evidence werre put to them. 4.1. The accused (appellants here in) denied all the allegationss levelled by the prosecution and pleaded fafalse implication and examinedd DW-1 Gurindder Singh and DW-2 Inder Singhh. It was specifically denied thatt any demand for dowry had ever been raisedd or that the deceased had beenn subjected to hharassment or cruelty on accounnt thereof. The defence taken byy the accused wwas that the deceased was treatted properly in her matrimoniall home and thhat she remained under mentall stress after giving birth to aa PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 3 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) female child,, as there were already six daugghters in the in-laws family andd she had givenn birth to the seventh daughter. 4.2. The learned trial Court, after aappreciating and evaluating thee evidence avaailable on record, held the accuused guilty and convicted themm under Sectionns 304-B and 498-A IPC. 5. For sake of convenience, argguments advanced by learnedd counsel for appellants No.1 and 2 and argguments advanced for appellantt No.3 are takeen up together to avoid repetitionn.

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellannts have vehemently argued thatt the prosecutiion has failed to prove the esssential ingredients required forr constituting an offence under Section 304-BB IPC. Learned counsel for thee appellants coontended that the allegation reegarding payment of ₹25,000/--towards the rreception ceremony expenses ar e totally vague. It is argued thatt the complainnant, during the course of cross-eexamination, categorically statedd that the said amount had allegedly been arraanged by mortgaging the housee with one Suubegh Singh of Patiala, howeever, the prosecution failed too examine himm before the Court. It has been further argued that noo documentaryy evidence whatsoever, includinng mortgage documents, bankk withdrawal rrecords, receipts, or any othe r financial material, has beenn produced byy the prosecution to establish tthat the complainant party hadd actually borroowed any amount or was compeelled to arrange funds on accountt of any allege d demand raised by the appellannts. 5.2. It has been contended that therre is no cogent, independent orr reliable evideence to establish any demand off dowry or cruelty in connectionn therewith. Thhe allegations regarding demandd of scooter are vague, omnibuss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 4 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

and unsuppoorted by any independent witnesss. No independent witness hass been produceed to prove such demand. Moreoover, it has come on record thatt the appellantt-Jaspal Singh was already in posssession of a scooter prior to thee marriage, whhich renders the alleged demand doubtful. 5.3. It is further argued that the me diators of the marriage, namelyy Sangat Singgh and Kaka Singh, who weere material and independentt witnesses, weere neither examined nor associaated with the investigation. Thiss omission waarrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of thee Evidence Acct, 1872 that their testimony woould have been unfavourable too the prosecuti on. 5.4. Learned counsel for the apppellants submit that there aree material conttradictions in the statements of PW-2 Manjeet Singh and PW-3 Jeet Kaur reggarding the mediators and the all eged instances of harassment. 5.5. It is further contended that thhe medical evidence does nott support the pprosecution version of physical ccruelty, inasmuch as no externall injury was ffound on the body of the deceaased as per post-mortem reportt Ex.PA. 5.6. It is further argued that no compplaint, panchayat, or legal actionn was ever innitiated by the complainant paarty during the lifetime of thee deceased. Suuch silence is inconsistent withh the allegations of continuouss harassment aand creates a serious doubt abouut the veracity of the prosecutionn case.

5.7. It has further been argued thatt the deceased had delivered aa female child merely 22 days prior to the occcurrence and was suffering fromm PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 5 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) post-partum depression. The accused familyy had taken proper care of thee deceased andd got her admitted in a private hoospital at their own expense. 5.8. Reliance has also been placedd upon the testimony of DW-1 Gurinder Sinngh, who stated that there wwas no demand of dowry orr harassment, aand DW-2 Inder Singh, who depposed regarding the possibility off post-partum ddepression after childbirth. 5.9. On the basis of the aforesaid suubmissions, learned counsel forr the appellantts submit that the prosecution has failed to prove cruelty orr harassment ““soon before death”, which is a sine qua non for attractingg Section 304- B IPC. The essential ingredient s of Sections 304-B, 498-A andd 306 IPC are nnot made out, and the impugned judgment of conviction is liablee to be set asidde. The appellants, therefore, deeserve to be acquitted of all thee charges by giiving them the benefit of doubt. 6. Per contra, learned State counssel has supported the impugnedd judgment annd contended that the prosecutioon has successfully establishedd that the deceaased was subjected to cruelty andd harassment in connection withh dowry demannds.

6.1. It is argued that the testimoniees of PW-2 Manjeet Singh andd PW-3 Jeet Kaaur clearly prove that the accuseed persons were dissatisfied withh the dowry given and were persistently demmanding a scooter. It is furtherr submitted thhat the death of the deceased ooccurred within seven years off marriage andd under unnatural circumstancces. The Chemical Examiner’ss report establlished presence of organophospphorus pesticide in the viscera,, thereby proviing death by poisoning. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 6 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) 6.2. Learned State counsel furtheer contends that once it iss established thhat a woman died otherwise thhan under normal circumstancess within seven years of marriage and was subjeected to cruelty or harassment inn connection wwith dowry demand soon befoore her death, the presumptionn under Sectionn 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act automatically arises againstt the accused. 6.3. It is thus argued that the proosecution has duly proved alll foundational facts necessary for attracting Seection 498-A and 304-B IPC andd the learned trrial Court rightly convicted the aappellants. 7. Heard the counsels appearing foor both sides and have carefullyy gone throughh the record. Sections 498-A andd 304-B of IPC read as under: "4988-A. Husband or relative of huusband of a woman subjectingg her to cruelty.-

Whooever, being the husband or thhe relative of the husband of aa womman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished withh imprrisonment for a term which mayy extend to three years and shalll also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of thiis section, "cruelty" means- (a) aany wilful conduct which is of suuch a nature as is likely to drivee the wwoman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger too life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) hharassment of the woman wheree such harassment is with a vieww to coercing her or any person relatted to her to meet any unlawfull demmand for any property or valuabble security or is on account off PUNEET SHARMA failuure by her or any person related tto her to meet such demand." 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 7 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) "3044-B. Dowry death.- (1) WWhere the death of a woman iss caused by any burns or bodilyy injurry or occurs otherwise than undder normal circumstances withinn seveen years of her marriage and itt is shown that soon before herr deatth she was subjected to cruelty oor harassment by her husband orr any relative of her husband for, or iin connection with, any demandd for dowry, such death shall be caalled "dowry death", and suchh husbband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.-For the purpose of tthis sub-section, "dowry" shalll havee the same meaning as in Sectiion 2 of the Dowry Prohibitionn Act,, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry deeath shall be punished withh imprrisonment for a term which shaall not be less than seven yearss but wwhich may extend to imprisonmment for life." 8. The following are the essentiaal ingredients of Section 304-BB IPC: a) The deathh of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodilyy injury, or muust have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seeven years of her marriage; c) Soon beffore her death, she must havee been subjected to cruelty orr harassment bby the husband or any relative off her husband; and d) Cruelty orr harassment must be for, or in cconnection with, any demand forr dowry. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 8 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

9. It is undisputed in the present case that the wife of appellantt no.2 died wwithin seven years of their marrriage, thereby it is to be seenn whether the provisions of Section 113-B oof the Indian Evidence Act aree attracted or nnot. Section 113-B of Indian Eviddence Act reads as under: "1133-B. Presumption as to dowry ddeath.-Wheen the question is whether a peerson has committed the dowryy deatth of a woman and it is shown tthat soon before her death suchh womman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassmentt for, or in connection with, any demmand for dowry, the Court shalll pressume that such person had causedd the dowry death. Explanation.-For the purposes of thhis section, "dowry death" shalll havee the same meaning as in Sectioon 304-B of Indian Penal Codee (45 of 1860)." 10. The presumption under Sectionn 113-B of Indian Evidence Actt will apply whhen it is established that soon bbefore her death, the woman hass been subjecteed by the accused to cruelty or hharassment for, or in connectionn with, any demmand for dowry. Therefore, evenn for attracting Section 113-B off Indian Evideence Act, the prosecution must establish that the deceased wass subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harasssment for or in connection withh any demand of dowry soon before her deathh. Unless these facts are proved,, the presumpptions under Section 113-B off the Evidence Act cannot bee invoked.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment of Satbir Singh v. State of Harryana, 2021 AIR (SC) 2627; has summarised the law underr Section 304-BB, IPC and Section 113-B, Evideence Act as under: PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 9 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) "i. SSection 304-B, IPC must be innterpreted keeping in mind thee legisslative intent to curb the social eevil of bride burning and dowryy demmand. ii. TThe prosecution must at first establish the existence of thee neceessary ingredients for constitutinng an offence under Section 304--B, IIPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttablee pressumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidencee Act operates against the accused. iii. TThe phrase "soon before" as apppearing in Section 304-B, IPCC cannnot be construed to mean `immeediately before'. The prosecutionn mus t establish existence of "proximmate and live link" between thee dowwry death and cruelty or harasssment for dowry demand by thee husbband or his relatives. iv. SSection 304-B, IPC does not ttake a pigeonhole approach inn cateegorizing death as homicidal oor suicidal or accidental. Thee reasson for such non categorizationn is due to the fact that deathh occuurring "otherwise than under nnormal circumstances" can, inn casees, be homicidal or suicidal or acccidental."

12. In the present case, it is not disputed that the death of thee deceased toook place within seven years oof marriage and that the samee occurred othherwise than under normal circuumstances. However, these twoo circumstancees alone are insufficient to attracct the provisions of Section 304--B IPC. The pprosecution is further required too establish that the deceased wass subjected to cruelty or harassment in connnection with demand for dowryy soon before hher death. It is only upon prooff of these foundational facts thatt PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 10 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) the statutory presumption under Section 1133-B of the Indian Evidence Actt can be invokeed against the accused.

13. Adverting to the facts of thhe present case, upon carefull appraisal of tthe entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that thee prosecution has failed to establish beyonnd reasonable doubt that thee deceased, Guurmeet Kaur, was subjected too cruelty or harassment by thee appellants inn connection with a demand forr dowry soon before her death.. Though it haas been alleged by the compla inant–PW2 Manjeet Singh thatt sufficient doowry articles were given at thhe time of marriage. However,, except for the bald and omnibus asserttions of the complainant, noo independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiatee the said alleegation which forms the substraatum of the FIR. Even if it iss presumed thaat certain customary articles werre given at the time of marriage,, there is nothiing on record to establish that thhe same were given pursuant too any specific demand raised by the accused ppersons. Mere giving of gifts orr articles at thee time of marriage, in the absencce of cogent evidence regardingg demand, cannnot be termed as dowry within thhe meaning of law.

14. The second allegation against the appellants pertains to ann alleged demaand of ₹25,000/-, which, accorrding to the complainant party,, was paid towards the reception party exppenses after the marriage. Thee complainant,, during cross-examination, has stated that the above amount off ₹25,000/- waas arranged by mortgaging the hhouse with one Subegh Singh off Patiala. Said Subegh Singh would have beenn the best witness to corroboratee the version oof the complainant regarding thhe alleged financial compulsionn and borrowinng of money to satisfy the alleeged demand of the appellants.. However, thhe prosecution has failed too examine the said witness.. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 11 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) Furthermore,, no documentary evidence succh as bank withdrawal records,, mortgage doocuments, or any other financiaal record has been produced too establish thatt the complainant party had borrrowed money or was compelledd to arrange fuunds to meet any alleged demandd raised by the accused persons.. No relative, employer, or even the maternaal uncles of the deceased, whoo allegedly conntributed towards the marriage expenses, have been examinedd by the proseccution to lend support to the commplainant’s version.

15. The further allegation regardingg demand of a scooter at the timee of birth of aa female child also does not finnd support from any reliable orr independent evidence available on record. RRather, it has come in evidencee that the in-laaws of the deceased had borne tthe medical expenses relating too the delivery and had got the deceased addmitted in one of the reputedd hospitals in tthe town. In such circumstancess, the allegation that, on the onee hand, the a ccused persons were bearing the medical expenses of thee deceased andd, on the other hand, simultanneously raising a demand for aa scooter, appeears improbable. Moreover, it haas also come on record that thee appellant’s ffamily was already in possesssion of a scooter prior to thee marriage, theereby rendering the said allegatioon further doubtful. 16. Even in the FIR and in the staatements of the complainant, noo specific insttance of harassment immediateely prior to the death of thee deceased hass been mentioned so as to satissfy the essential requirement off “soon beforee death”. Neither the FIR nor the testimonies of the materiall witnesses sppecify with clarity the date, tiime, place, or manner of anyy particular inccident of cruelty. 17. The prosecution case mainly ressts upon the testimonies of PW-22 Manjeet Singgh, brother of the deceased, andd PW-3 Jeet Kaur, mother of theePUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 12 of 23

CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

deceased. Hoowever, a close scrutiny of theeir depositions reveals materiall discrepanciess and omissions, which render ttheir testimonies unreliable andd unworthy of reliance. Manjeet Singh (PW-2)), during the course of his cross--examination, admitted that he had not stateed in his statement made to thee police, Ex.PEE, that the accused used to beat tthe deceased. The said assertion,, having been introduced for the first time durring trial, amounts to a materiall improvementt. PW-3 Jeet Kaur, mother of tthe deceased, during her cross--examination, admitted that in her statement s he did not mention the names off the accused and only referred to the family of the in-laws of her deceasedd daughter. Shee further stated that she had not recorded in her statement underr Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had mmisbehaved with them at Renuu Singla Hospital. She also admitted that shhe had not got it recorded thatt Seema (appeellant no.3/ sister-in-law) had tolld them that upon their return too the hospital, they should have given a scootter, failing which their daughterr would be seent back. PW-2 Manjeet Singh,, during his cross-examination,, stated that thhe mediators did not meet themm after the marriage and that hee had not compplained to them regarding the allleged harassment or demand forr a scooter maade by the accused family. He sppecifically stated that he did nott visit their houuse. On the other hand, PW-3 Jeeet Kaur stated during her cross--examination that Sangat Singh and his son KKaka were the mediators of thee marriage, andd that they had approached bothh mediators informing them thatt the accused were harassing Gurmeet Kaur (since deceased). According too her, the mediiators told them that they would ccall the accused.

18. This contradiction between the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 with regard to approaching the mediators oof the marriage for the allegedd demand of doowry and harassment caused to deceased Gurmeet Kaur createss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 13 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) a serious douubt in the prosecution story, paarticularly when the prosecutionn has failed too examine the mediators of thee marriage who were the mostt natural and inndependent witnesses to whom ccomplaints were allegedly made.. Their non-exxamination, without any plausiblee explanation, invites an adversee inference unnder Section 114(g) of the Inndian Evidence Act that theirr testimony woould not have supported the pros ecution case.

19. On the contrary, the defence exxamined DW-1 Gurinder Singh,, who categoriically stated in his examination -in-chief that he had acted as aa mediator in tthe marriage of Gurmeet Kaur wwith Jaspal Singh and had beenn visiting their house even after the marriage. HHe further deposed that Gurmeett Kaur was livving happily in her matrimonial home and had never made anyy complaint to him regarding any demand of ddowry, scooter or harassment att the hands off the accused persons. He also stated that neither the brother,, father, motheer nor any other member of the pparental family of Gurmeet Kaurr had ever commplained to him regarding any deemand of dowry by the accused.. Though the witness was cross-examined att length by the prosecution, noo suggestion wwas put to him that he was not a mediator of the marriage. Hee was also not confronted on any material aspeect of his testimony, except for aa bald suggesttion that he had deposed falssely to save the accused, hiss testimony remmained substantially unshaken. 20. Another important circumstancce which creates doubt in thee prosecution case is the absence of any m edical evidence supporting thee allegations oof physical assault or beating. The post-mortem examination off the deceasedd was conducted by Dr. R.P. J indal (PW-1), who specificallyy stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no external mark of injuryy on the body of the deceased. Had the deceaased been subjected to physicall PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 14 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) cruelty or be atings, as alleged by the prosecuution, some visible injury markss would ordinaarily have been found on her bbody. The absence of any suchh injury materiially weakens the prosecution ve rsion regarding physical cruelty.

21. Another aspect which assummes significance is that PW-22 Manjeet Singgh during cross-examination admmitted that when Gurmeet Kaurr was expectinng a child, she was not brought to her parental home as Singlaa Nursing Homme, was considered to be a rreputed hospital which was att Sangrur. He further admitted that although thhere exists a customary practicee whereby the first delivery of a woman ordinnarily takes place at her parentall home, but neeither did he request the accuseed to send Gurmeet Kaur to herr parental housse, nor did the accused ever exppressed any intention to send herr there. It is also an admitted position that the deceased continued to reside att her matrimonnial home at the time of her dellivery. The defence has stronglyy contended thhat this circumstance demonstrattes that the deceased was beingg properly lookked after by her in-laws; otherwwise, in the ordinary course off human conduuct and prevailing custom, she would have been taken to herr parental homme for delivery. The testimony off PW-2, therefore, to some extentt supports the inference that the deceased w as receiving adequate care andd attention at hher matrimonial home.

22. It is an admitted position on record that the deceased hadd delivered a ffemale child about 22 days priorr to the occurrence. The defencee has taken thhe plea that the deceased waas suffering from post-partumm depression aand remained under mental streess after the birth of the child,, particularly aas there were already six daughtters in the in-laws family of thee deceased. In support of the said plea, the defence examined DW-2 Inderr Singh, who stated in his examination-in-chhief that after the birth of thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 15 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) female child, Gurmeet Kaur used to remainn under depression. Though thee said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-eexamination by the prosecution,, no suggestioon was put to him disputing tthe fact that the deceased wass suffering fro m depression after childbirth. TThe Division Bench of Hon’blee Karnataka HHigh Court in State of Karnatakka v. Prakash, Law Finder Docc Id # 21472744, decision dated 13.12.2022; affter taking into consideration thee fact of post ppartum depression apart from othhers could be a possible cause off suicide of thee deceased and upheld the acquuittal of the accused therein. Thee relevant paraagraph is reproduced below:

“24. In the case on hand, within a shhort period of time from the timee of mmarriage, she had given birth to aa female child and she started too live in the village which was smalleer than the village in which shee was brought up. Further, it is alsoo available on record that thee accuused as well as PWs 1 and 3 wwere earning their livelihood byy coollie work. The cross-examinatioon of the prosecution witnessess alsoo disclose that deceased was nott sent for the coolie work and itt was only accused Nos. 1 to 3 who aare going for coolie work. If thatt is sso, the question of harassmeent appears to be figment off imaggination but nothing else. Eviddently, such harassment is nott disc losed to a close relative who waas instrumental in the marriagee of thhe accused and the deceased. TThe hostility of PW- 12 who wass instrrumental in settling the marriagge raises a serious doubt aboutt the ccontention of the prosecution annd also the evidence of PWs 1,33 and 4. The possibility of a ppost partum depression andd compmplications cannot be ruled out in the fact circumstances of thee casee.” PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 16 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

23. Though the defence version byy itself may not be sufficient too discard the prrosecution case in toto, yet in thee present matter, the prosecutionn has failed to produce any convincing and reeliable evidence to establish thatt the deceasedd was subjected to cruelty or hharassment in connection withh demand for ddowry soon before her death. 24. In the present case, the conducct of the complainant party alsoo creates doubbt regarding the prosecution veersion. The evidence on recordd shows that ddespite the alleged harassment, nno complaint was ever made too any Panchayyat, respectable persons of the vvillage or any legal proceedingss were initiatedd by the complainant party. Botth PW-2 Manjeet Singh, brotherr of the deceassed, and PW-3 Jeet Kaur, motherr of the deceased, have admittedd that neither aany Panchayat was ever convenedd, nor respectable persons of thee Village weree met to complain about the allleged harassment on account off dowry. Theree is also no reliable evidence to show that the complainant partyy had ever appproached the alleged mediatoors of the marriage regardingg harassment oof the deceased on account of dowwry demands.

25. Insofar as the presumption undeer Section 113-B of the Evidencee Act is concerrned, the same arises only when the prosecution first establishess the foundatioonal facts, particularly cruelty or harassment for dowry soonn before deathh. The allegations levelled by thhe prosecution remain general,, vague and unnsupported by any independent evidence. Most importantly, thee prosecution hhas failed to prove that any suuch cruelty or harassment wass meted out to the deceased “soon before her death”, which is a sine qua nonn for attractingg the provisions of Section 3304-B IPC. Consequently, thee statutory pre sumption does not arise. Reliannce in this regard is placed uponn decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in BBaijnath v. State of Madhyaa PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 17 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

Pradesh, 20017 (1) SCC 101; wherein it was held that the factum off unnatural deaath in the matrimonial home andd that too within seven years off marriage is ipso facto not sufficient to bbring home the charge underr Sections 304B and 498A of I.P.C. against accused and to convict thee accused pros ecution has to prove ingredient oof cruelty on account of demandd of dowry by cogent evidence beyond reasonaable doubt. It was also held thatt general alleggations unsupported by cogeent and reliable evidence aree insufficient tto invoke the statutory presummption under section 113-B off Indian Evidennce Act. The relevant paragraphss are reproduced below: “31.. Section 113B of the Act enjoinns a statutory presumption as too dowwry death in the following terms: "1133B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When the question iss whe ther a person has committed thee dowry death of a woman and itt is shhown that soon before her death such woman has been subjectedd by ssuch person to cruelty or harasssment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court sshall presume that such personn had caused the dowry death. Expllanation - For the purpose of thhis section, "dowry death" shalll havee the same meaning as in Secction 304B of the Indian Penall Codde (45 of 1860)"

32. NNoticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof off crueelty or harassment of the womann dead for or in connection withh any demand for dowry by the persoon charged with the offence. Thee pressumption as to dowry death thuss would get activated only uponn the pproof of the fact that the deceaased lady had been subjected too PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 18 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) crueelty or harassment for or in coonnection with any demand forr dowwry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity off deatth. Such a proof is thus the legiislatively mandated prerequisitee to iinvoke the otherwise statutorrily ordained presumption off commmission of the offence of dowryry death by the person chargedd thererewith.

33. AA conjoint reading of these threee provisions, thus predicate thee burdden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate thee ingrredients of the two offences by diirect and convincing evidence soo as tto avail the presumption engrafafted in Section 113B of the Actt agaiinst the accused. Proof of crueltyty or harassment by the husbandd or hhis relative or the person chargged is thus the sine qua non too insppirit the statutory presumption,, to draw the person chargedd withhin the coils thereof. If the prossecution fails to demonstrate byy cogeent coherent and persuasive evvidence to prove such fact, thee persson accused of either of the aboove referred offences cannot bee heldd guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up thee shorrtfall in proof. 34. The legislative primature of reelieving the prosecution of thee rigoour of the proof of the often pra ctically inaccessible recesses off life within the guarded confines oof a matrimonial home and off repleenishing the consequential voidd, by according a presumptionn agaiinst the person charged, cannot be overeased to gloss-over andd conddone its failure to prove crediblyy, the basic facts enumerated inn the SSections involved, lest justice is tthe casualty. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 19 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

35. This Court while often dwellinng on the scope and purport off Secttion 304B of the Code and SSection 113B of the Act havee proppounded that the presumption iss contingent on the fact that thee prossecution first spell out the iingredients of the offence off Secttion 304B as in Shindo Alias SSawinder Kaur and another v.

Statte of Punjab, 2011(2) RCR (CCriminal) 878 : 2011(3) Recentt Apexex Judgments (R.A.J.) 123 : (22011) 11 SCC 517 and echoedd in RRajeev Kumar v. State of Haryyana, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal)) 964 : 2013(6) Recent Apex Judgmments (R.A.J.) 362 : (2013) 166 SCCC 640. In the latter pronouncem ent, this Court propounded thatt one of the essential ingrediennts of dowry death underr Secttion 304B of the Code is that thhe accused must have subjectedd the woman to cruelty in connectionn with demand for dowry soonn befoore her death and that this ingrredient has to be proved by thee prossecution beyond reasonable douubt and only then the Court willl pressume that the accused has commmitted the offence of dowry deathh undeer Section 113B of the Act. It referred to with approval, thee earllier decision of this Court in K. PPrema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasaa Raoo, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 697 :: (2003) 1 SCC 217 to the effectt that to attract the provision of Sectiion 304B of the Code, one of thee mainn ingredients of the offence whiich is required to be establishedd is thhat "soon before her death" sh e was subjected to cruelty andd haraassment "in connection with the ddemand for dowry 36. Tested on the judicially adumbbrated parameters as above, wee are of the unhesitant opinion thaat the prosecution has failed too provve beyond reasonable doubt, ccruelty or harassment to thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 20 of 23

CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) deceeased for or in connection wiith any demand for dowry ass conttemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code underr whicch the accused persons had been charged. Noticeably, thee allegged demand centers around a mootorcycle, which as the evidencee of tthe prosecution witnesses wouuld evince, admittedly did nott surfaface at the time of finalisation off the marriage. PW-5, the motherr of thhe deceased has even conceded tthat there was no dowry demandd at thhat stage. According to her, whenn the husband (who is dead) hadd insissted for a motorcycle thereafter hhe was assured that he would bee provvided with the same, finances peermitting. Noticeably again, thee demmand, as sought to be projected bby the prosecution, if accepted too be ttrue had lingered for almost two years. Yet admittedly, noo compmplaint was made thereof to anyyone, far less the police. Apartt fromm the general allegations in thee same tone in geminated withh parrrot like similarity by the prosecuution witnesses, the allegation off crueelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on thee conffidential communications by her to her parents in particular andd is noot supported by any other quarteer.". …….emphasis supplied

26. In the present case the prosecutiion has not been able to producee on record suufficient material to indicate thatt the deceased was subjected too cruelty or harrassment by the appellants in connnection with demand of dowry.. There is alsoo no specific allegation that thhe appellants directly incited orr compelled thhe deceased to commit suicide. 27. Criminal jurisprudence mandattes that prosecution must provee PUNEET SHARMA its case beyoond reasonable doubt. Where maaterial contradictions, and otherr 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 21 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M) factors coexiist, the benefit of doubt must neecessarily ensue to the accused,, In Sharad Biirdhichand Sarda v. State of MMaharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116;; while relyingg upon its previous decision in KKali Ram v. State of Himachall Pradesh, 19973 (2) SCC 808; had emphassised that where circumstancess create reasonnable doubt, the accused is entiitled to its benefit. The relevantt part is reprodduced below:

“1622. We then pass on to another iimportant point which seems too havee been completely missed by thhe High Court. It is well settledd that where on the evidence two posssibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prrosecution and the other whichh beneefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to thee beneefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. Statte of Himachal Pradesh, (1973)) 2 SCCC 808, this Court made the folloowing observations : "Anoother golden thread which rruns through the web of thee admministration of justice in criminaal cases is that if two views aree posssible on the evidence adduced iin the case, one pointing to thee guiltt of the accused and the other too his innocence, the view whichh is faavourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has aa speccial relevance in cases wherein ththe guilt of the accused is soughtt to bee established by circumstantial eevidence." 28. More recently, In Narendra Singgh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,, 2026 (2) RCRR (Criminal) 800; the Hon’ble SSupreme Court has held that in aa criminal triaal, in case there are two infeerences possible, then the onee favouring thee accused must be followed. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 22 of 23 CRA-S-17522-SB-2004 (O&M)

29. Accordingly, the present appeeal is allowed. The impugnedd judgment of conviction and order of sentennce dated 10.08.2004 passed byy the learned SSessions Judge, Sangrur, are hereeby set aside. The appellants aree acquitted of the charges framed against themm by extending benefit of doubtt to them. 31. The bail bonds/surety bonds of the appellants shall standd discharged. PPending miscellaneous applicaations, if any, shall also standd disposed of. (RUUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 29.05.2026 JUDGE Puneet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.29 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Page 23 of 23