We need to definitely pay our singular rapt attention to what the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Meenki Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Connected Appeals in Cr. Appeal Nos. 526 & 528 of 2012 and cited in Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:6 that was reserved on 09.12.2025 and then finally pronounced on 01.01.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that general, non-specific accusations, without clear particulars or role attribution are insufficient to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide. It also said most unequivocally that matrimonial prosecutions must rest on specific acts and proof of mens rea and that sustaining a conviction without such material would amount to abuse of process.
We thus see that the Shimla High Court has allowed appeals by a husband, his mother and his brother, set aside their conviction under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted them. It must be borne in mind that this leading case arose from allegations of dowry harassment and the wife’s death by poisoning.
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent 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 ₹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 briefly on the facts of the case stating 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 Dharamshala (learned Trial Court) for trial.
It cannot be just glossed over that the Bench observes 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.
Do note, the Bench 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.
Most significantly, the Bench points out in para 27 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-in-law of Sapna’s sister and cannot be called an independent person.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 36 that:
Girdhari Lal (PW13) admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had taken the deceased to the hospital. This statement shows that the accused never intended that the deceased should commit suicide; otherwise, they would not have accompanied him to the hospital. The conduct of the accused is inconsistent with their guilt. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Raj, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 410: 1995 SCC (Cri) 934 that where the accused took the deceased to the hospital, it is quite consistent with their innocence. It was observed at page 412:
5. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel, that the manner of appreciation of the evidence in respect of the dying declaration is not altogether sound. But the High Court has rightly held that the immediate conduct of the accused and his parents in rushing the deceased to the hospital immediately by arranging a jeep is quite consistent with their being innocent. However, we find that the overall reasoning of the High Court in giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused cannot be said to be wholly unsound and does not stand judicial scrutiny….
Be it also noted, the Bench then notes 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.
Most forthrightly, the Bench points out 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.
In addition, the Bench then also further 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 Rs 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, we see that the Bench then concludes by directing and holding aptly 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.
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
