It is quite interesting to note that while taking a pragmatic step in the right direction, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Meenki Devi vs State of H.P. (and connected appeal Ram Pal & Anr. vs. State of H.P.) in Cr. Appeal Nos. 526 & 528 of 2012 that was reserved on 09.12.2025 and then finally pronounced on 01.01.2026 has set aside the conviction of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and abetment of suicide case. It must be noted that the High Court clearly held that vague and omnibus allegations of harassment are insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. This culminated in Shimla High Court acquitting the appellants of charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). We thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla allowed the criminal appeals that had been filed by Meenki Devi and Ram Pal thus overturning the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala dated November 30, 2012.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced as under:-
Accused Ram Pal and Sanjeev Kumar: –
Under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC – To suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years each, pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC – To suffer simple imprisonment for four years each, pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
Accused Meenki Devi: –
Under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC – To suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years each, pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC – To suffer simple imprisonment for two years, pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case mentioning briefly that, “Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Kashmir Singh (PW1), is the brother of Sapna @ Kiran (since deceased). Sapna was married to the accused Ram Pal on 08.03.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. She was kept properly for about one month after her marriage. Thereafter, accused Ram Pal, Meenki Devi and Sanjeev Kumar started beating and harassing her. They used to demand dowry and money. She used to leave her matrimonial home. The informant, his mother, Krishna Devi (PW3) and Shakuntla Devi (PW2) used to counsel the accused. The accused would apologise and assure not to harass Kiran in future. However, the situation did not improve. One daughter was born to Sapna and Ram Pal. Kashmir Singh (PW1) went to drop Sapna in her matrimonial home on 04.07.2008 and stayed with her. He returned to his home at about 5:45 PM. Nobody talked to Sapna after her return to her matrimonial home; rather, the accused taunted her. Sapna consumed some insecticide on 05.07.2008. The matter was reported to the police, and entry (Mark ‘A’) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Partap Singh (PW12) went to the hospital to verify its correctness, and entry Mark ‘B’ was recorded to this effect. ASI Partap Singh (PW12) recorded Kashmir Singh’s statement (Ext.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW11/A) was registered. Ajay Kumar (PW7) took the photographs (Ext.PA to Ext.PC), which were transferred to a CD (Ext. PD). ASI Partap Singh (PW12) conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared a report (Ext.PW1/B). He filed an application (Ext.PW1/C) for conducting the postmortem examination of Sapna. Dr R.K. Ahluwalia (PW6) and Dr. Pankaj Katoch conducted the postmortem of Sapna. They found that the cause of death was shock. They preserved the viscera and handed them over to the police official accompanying the dead body. They issued the report (Ext.PW6/A). The samples were sent to SFSL Junga for analysis, and a report (Ext.PX) was issued mentioning that the viscera, blood sample of the deceased and gastric lavage contained phosphene gas. The final report issued by Dr R.K. Ahluwalia (PW6) stated that the cause of death was shock from phosphide poisoning. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharmshala (learned Trial Court) for trial.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “Learned Trial Court held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. It was duly proved on record that the accused used to harass the deceased. They were counselled not to do so, and they apologized. The apology made by them corroborated the prosecution’s version regarding the harassment. Their harassment led the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 revealing that, “Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have filed separate appeals asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove that the accused had maltreated the deceased. The evidence was not appreciated holistically. The statements of interested witnesses were required to be seen with due care and caution. No complaint was ever made to Pradhan regarding the harassment, which falsifies the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses about the harassment of the deceased. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 21 that, “The informant’s statement (Ext.PW1/A) does not contain any details of the harassment. He had made general allegations that the accused started harassing the deceased one month after her marriage. They used to demand dowry and money. The nature of the harassment or demand was not specified. It was not mentioned as to how much money was demanded by the accused from the deceased and whether the informant or any other person had satisfied the demand. Therefore, the statement (Ext.PW1/A) does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Simply put, the Bench points out in para 22 that, “Kashmir Singh (PW1) stated that all three accused started maltreating and insulting Sapna to meet their demand for dowry and money after about one month of her marriage. The marriage of Sapna was solemnized without any dowry because she belonged to a poor family; however, her relatives gave her a few gifts. Sapna used to inform her relatives about the maltreatment, beating and demand of dowry. The informant, his mother Krishna Devi (PW3), Shankuntla Devi (PW2) and Jaswant Singh (PW5) went to the house of the accused to counsel them, and the accused apologized. However, their behaviour did not improve. Sapna visited her parental home 14-15 days before her death, and told her relatives about the harassment. He accompanied the deceased to her matrimonial home on 04.07.2008. He stayed in her matrimonial home during the night and returned on 05.07.2008 at about 5-6 PM. The accused taunted Sapna and misbehaved with her.”
It has to be taken into account that the Bench notes in para 23 that, “The testimony of this witness that the accused taunted and misbehaved with Sapna in his presence is not supported by his conduct. He stayed with Sapna in her matrimonial home till 5-6 PM and did not make any effort to bring her back or to counsel the accused. He had not told his mother or Shakuntla Devi (PW2) about the harassment of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to rely upon his testimony that the accused had taunted the deceased in his presence.”
Do note, the Bench then notes in para 24 that, “He made a general statement that accused used to harass the deceased and demand dowry and cash. He has not given the particulars of the harassment and its nature. He has also not specified the kind of dowry or the amount of cash demanded by the accused. He admitted that the accused had not demanded any dowry at the time of the marriage because of his poverty. It is not explained why the accused would start demanding the dowry after the marriage when they were aware of the informant’s financial condition.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 25 that, “He specifically stated in his cross-examination that no demand for dowry was made from him. If the accused were desperate to get the dowry from the deceased, nothing prevented them from making the demand directly from the informant. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any complaint to any person during the lifetime of the deceased, which makes it difficult to rely upon his version that the accused were harassing the deceased. He claimed that he had made a complaint to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat of the accused, but the Pradhan was not examined to establish this fact. Thus, the testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon to prove the harassment/cruelty.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 26 that, “Shakuntla Devi (PW2) stated that Sapna was the sister of her daughter-in-law. The accused started maltreating, insulting and beating Sapna to meet the demand of dowry and cash. The marriage of Sapna was solemnized without any dowry because her mother and brother were very poor, and her father had died before her marriage. She (Shakuntla Devi) went to the house of the accused to counsel them. The accused apologize but their behaviour did not improve. She also called Lok Ram (PW4) (Pradhan of Rajot) to settle the matter, but he refused to do so. Ex-Pradhan Dhogru was also associated, and he also counselled the accused.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 27 noting that, “Her testimony is also vague and general in nature. She has not specified the nature of the dowry or the amount of cash demanded by the accused. She also admitted that the marriage was solemnised without any dowry because the relatives of Sapna were poor. She claimed that she had told Lok Ram and Dhogru, but none of these witnesses was examined to corroborate this version. She is the relative of the deceased, being the mother-inlaw of Sapna’s sister and cannot be called an independent person.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then points out in para 29 that, “Her cross-examination shows that Ram Pal was serving in Delhi. Therefore, he could not have harassed the deceased in her matrimonial home. She admitted that the deceased refused to reside in Delhi with her husband, which falsifies the version that the deceased was being harassed in her matrimonial home. She would have been happy to leave the matrimonial home where she was being harassed and settle in Delhi, but she refused to do so. She also admitted that she had not made any complaint to any person regarding the harassment. All these circumstances make it difficult to rely upon her testimony regarding the harassment of the deceased.”
To be sure, the Bench observes in para 39 that, “In the present case, the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 40 that, “Learned Trial Court was impressed by the fact that witnesses had made consistent statements regarding the apologies, which showed that the prosecution’s case was true; otherwise, the accused had no reason to apologize for their conduct. However, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no satisfactory evidence of this fact. The witnesses who claimed to be present on the spot at the time of the apology were never examined, and the prosecution relied upon the statements of the related witnesses. Therefore, this fact by itself was not sufficient to record the conviction of the accused.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 42 that, “In view of the above, the judgments and order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained; hence, the present appeals are allowed, and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The fine, if deposited be refunded to the appellants/accused after the expiry of the period of limitation, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
What’s more, the Bench then also directs and holds in para 43 that, “In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellants/accused are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellants/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in para 44 that, “A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.”
Author Bio
