Past Matrimonial Conduct Cannot Prove Dowry Death in Subsequent Marriage: Delhi High Court Rules

The Delhi High Court has held that a conviction for dowry death cannot be sustained in the absence of clear and specific evidence that the deceased herself was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, and that allegations relating to an accused’s conduct in a previous marriage cannot be relied upon to establish offences under Sections 498A or 304B of the Indian Penal Code in a subsequent matrimonial relationship.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain while dismissing a State appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging a trial court judgment acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC.

The case arose after the deceased was taken to a hospital by her husband in an unconscious condition, where she was declared dead. Her mother later alleged that the woman had been subjected to dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws and expressed suspicion regarding their involvement in her death.

However, the trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, returned a finding of acquittal, holding that there was no reliable material to prove dowry-related cruelty and that the medical evidence did not support the charge of murder.

At the outset, the High Court reiterated the settled principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and that an appellate court would interfere only where the findings of the trial court are perverse, illegal or wholly unreasonable.

If the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one based on the evidence on record, it cannot be substituted merely because another view is possible.

On the charge under Section 302 IPC, the Court examined the medical and forensic evidence and noted that the post-mortem report unequivocally recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

The presence of the typical ligature mark and other features consistent with hanging led the medical experts to maintain their final opinion that the death was suicidal in nature. In the absence of any medical evidence supporting homicidal strangulation, the High Court held that the trial court had rightly rejected the murder charge.

With respect to the allegations of dowry harassment, the Bench found that the statements of the deceased’s family members were general and lacked particulars such as specific instances, dates or circumstances of any alleged demand.

The Court also noted that no complaint had been made by the deceased during her lifetime regarding cruelty or dowry demands.

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be inconsistent. While one witness spoke of a demand at the time of marriage, other family members did not support this version and stated that the marriage ceremony had taken place peacefully. Independent witnesses who attended the wedding also did not depose about any dispute or demand for dowry.

An allegation that the accused had demanded a car was held to be doubtful in view of the evidence showing that he already owned a vehicle.

The Court observed that none of the witnesses could provide details such as the model of the car allegedly demanded or the time when such a demand was made.

The prosecution had also sought to rely on allegations regarding the accused’s conduct in a previous marriage. Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that even if there had been discord in an earlier matrimonial relationship, the same could not substitute for proof that the present deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty.

The law, the Court emphasised, requires a direct and proximate nexus between the cruelty for dowry and the death in question.

In the absence of cogent evidence establishing such cruelty soon before the death, the Court held that the essential ingredients of Sections 498A and 304B IPC were not made out and the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act could not be invoked.

Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the State’s appeal, thereby affirming the acquittal of the accused.

Case Title: State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Aftab & Anr.

Bench: Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgement: 17.02.2026