Guman Singh and Others v. State of Uttarakhand And Another

applicants, which is challenged in this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants under Sections 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the Court of ACJM, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that statements of Mahesh Singh (brother of the deceased) and other relatives were recorded by the Police in which they have submitted that due to the death of the deceased, they were in shock and anger with the applicants, therefore, respondent no. 2 had lodged an FIR against the applicants. They, in their statements given to the Police, have further stated the applicants have never demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased; that respondent no. 2 – Smt. 3 Kaushalya Devi has filed her counter-affidavit and in her counter-affidavit, she has annexed an affidavit given to the complainant authority, where, she has specifically stated that due to sudden death of her daughter and instigation by the relatives, she has lodged an FIR against the applicants. She has further submitted that her daughter had consumed poison on her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her daughter; that the brother of the deceased also filed an affidavit, wherein, he has submitted that the applicants were not responsible for death of his sister and they don’t want to take any action against the applicants.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 214. Paragraph 5 to 7 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- “5. .......................................................................................... ............................................................................................... “304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). 4 (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304- B: a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage; c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. the dowry death. Section 2 of

7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to the Dowry have caused Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC.”

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mubarak Ansari and Another Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5240, whereby the Hon’ble Court in its paragraphs 12, 13 and 25, has held as hereunder:- 5 “12. In order to convict an accused for an offence under Section 304-B of following the Penal Code, 1860, essentials must be satisfied;

1. The death of woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise that under normal circumstances;

2. Such death must have occurred within seven years of marriage;

3. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband;

4. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

13. It is only when the aforementioned ingredients are established by acceptable evidence such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In a criminal case normally an accused can be punished for an offence of establishment of the commission of offence on the basis of evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both but a case under Section 304B of Penal Code, 1860 an exception is made by demanding provision as the nature of death of “dowry death” and the husband or his relative as the case may be is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of an ingredient of the said offence by convincing evidence. So, there is need for care and caution in scrutinising the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above ingredients of the offence are put by the prosecution. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that the first two ingredients mentioned above are satisfied. I have now to see whether the remaining two ingredients are also satisfied looking to the evidence on record.

25. So far as the subjecting the deceased to cruelty or torture over the dowry demand by the appellants soon before her death is concerned, the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused persons used to torment the deceased over the dowry demand but they have not stated about the time of tormenting the deceased for the aforesaid demand in the marital house. On a plain reading of the language used in Section 304B Penal Code, 1860 it is clear that in order to attract provision of Section 304-B, the deceased must have been subjected to harassment of cruelty “soon before her death”. In other words, there should be a perceptible nexus between her death and dowry related harassment. It is never that harassment or cruelty was caused to the woman with a 6 the words “soon before her death” occurring demand for at sometime if Section 304B is to be invoked, but it should happen soon before her death. The said phrase, no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it. Thus, having regard to the interpretation Section 304B Penal Code, 1860 it must be seen whether the death of the deceased in this case is only for the cruelty or harassment. It is said by the de-facto complainant (PW10) that the victim was at her parental house with the de-facto complainant and she came back to the matrimonial house on 25.05.2007 and died on 26.07.2007. There is no evidence brought by the prosecution that in between 25.07.2007 and 26.05.2007 the victim was subjected to torture by the appellants and moreover soon before her death she was at her parental house and the question of torture by the appellants soon before her death does not arise at all.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that no ingredients of Section 304-B are made out against the applicants. There is no evidence brought by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the applicants or any other relatives soon before her death, which is the essential ingredient of Section 304-B. Moreover, complainant as well as other witnesses, in their statements given to the Police, afterwards stated that the deceased had consumed poison on her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her daughter and they don’t want take any action against the applicants.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that there are sufficient credible evidences available on record against the applicants for their involvement in commission of the crime. Though, they also admit the fact that complainant as well as 7 other witnesses, in their statements given to the Police, afterwards stated that the deceased had consumed poison on her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her daughter and they don’t want take any action against the applicants.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is only when the essential ingredients of Section 304-B are established by acceptable evidence, such death shall be called “dowry death” and such husband or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In a criminal case, normally an accused can be punished for an offence of establishment of the commission of offence on the basis of evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both but in a case under Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 an exception is made by demanding provision as the nature of death of “dowry death” and the husband or his relative as the case may be is deemed to have caused such death, even in the absence of evidence to prove these aspects but on proving the existence of an ingredient of the said offence by convincing evidence. So, there is need for care and caution in scrutinising the evidence and in arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the above ingredients of the offence are put by the prosecution. 8

10. In the instant case, prosecution could not prove or establish any of the ingredient of Section 304-B of IPC. Moreover, all the witnesses, in their statements given to the Police, have further stated the applicants have never demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased; that respondent no. 2 – Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who is the complaint in the case, in her affidavit annexed with the counter-affidavit has specifically stated that due to sudden death of her daughter and instigation by the relatives, she has lodged an FIR against the applicants. She has further submitted that her daughter had consumed poison on her own and applicants have no role to play in death of her daughter; that the brother of the deceased also filed an affidavit, wherein, he has submitted that the applicants were not responsible for death of his sister and they don’t want to take any action against the applicants.

11. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of 9 Criminal Case No. 527 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.08.2025