Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh : The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of three members of the Devangan family in a dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment “for, or in connection with, the demand for dowry” as required under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 922
Background of the case
The criminal appeal (CRA No. 59 of 2015) arose from a 2015 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, which had convicted Uttam Kumar Devangan (husband), his mother Savitri Devangan, and his father Shiv Kumar Devangan under Section 304B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The deceased, Tajeshwari (also spelled Tejeshwari) Devangan, married appellant Uttam Kumar on 27 June 2012. After marriage, she began living with her husband and in-laws at Yamuna Vihar, Jamnipali, in Korba district. The prosecution alleged that soon after the wedding, the husband, parents-in-law, and other family members started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment on the ground that the dowry brought was insufficient. Tajeshwari is said to have informed her father over phone calls that she was being beaten and threatened for more money, and that her in-laws had allegedly demanded ₹5 lakh, warning that they would kill her if the demand was not met.
It was also alleged that her father, Laxmi Prasad Dewangan, had made several payments to support the matrimonial home: ₹25,000 in cash, a further ₹10,000 deposited into Uttam Kumar’s bank account, and ₹12,000 in cash on another occasion. According to the prosecution, these payments were made in response to continuing demands and harassment. On 13 July 2013, within little more than a year of the marriage, Tajeshwari was found hanging in her matrimonial home. Her father-in-law lodged a merg intimation at Police Station Darri, and the body was sent for post-mortem. 922
The autopsy report concluded that she died of asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and that the death was suicidal in nature. The trial court acquitted the appellants of offences under Sections 302/34 (murder) and 306/34 (abetment of suicide) IPC, but convicted them under Section 304B (dowry death), relying largely on the testimonies of the deceased’s relatives.
Defence arguments in appeal
In the High Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the core ingredients of Section 304B IPC were not proved. They stressed that while the death was admittedly unnatural and within seven years of marriage, the prosecution failed to show that Tajeshwari had been subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” and that such cruelty was in connection with any demand for dowry.
It was pointed out that there were no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood to corroborate allegations of dowry-related harassment, no prior complaints, letters, or medical records, and no contemporaneous report to any authority despite the alleged continuous cruelty. The payments made by the deceased’s father, they contended, were financial help extended to an unemployed son-in-law facing economic distress, not “dowry” as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The defence also highlighted that the father-in-law himself had promptly informed the police about the death, cooperated in the inquest and post-mortem, and that there was no attempt to destroy evidence or abscond. These, they said, were inconsistent with conduct one would expect from persons guilty of dowry death.
Court’s analysis: financial help is not dowry
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad reserved judgment on 9 September 2025 and delivered it on 5 December 2025. The Bench agreed that the first two ingredients of Section 304B were satisfied: the death was clearly “otherwise than under normal circumstances” and occurred within seven years of marriage. The key question was whether there was cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” and whether it was “for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.” 922
After closely examining the testimonies of the deceased’s father (PW-4), sister (PW-5), aunt (PW-7), and uncle (PW-8), the Court held that the prosecution had not proved a legally recognisable dowry demand.
The Bench noted that the monetary transfers of ₹10,000, ₹12,000, ₹15,000, and ₹25,000, as spoken of by PW-4 and PW-8, appeared to be financial assistance because the husband was unemployed and under economic stress. They were not shown to be payments demanded “in connection with the marriage” and therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of “dowry” under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s view that demands arising from financial stringency or domestic needs cannot automatically be treated as dowry. 922
No proven dowry harassment “soon before death”
On the requirement of cruelty or harassment “soon before” the death, the Bench found significant gaps:
- The deceased’s father admitted in cross-examination that he had never lodged any complaint about dowry harassment either before or after the incident.
- The sister and aunt of the deceased primarily stated that Tajeshwari complained about her husband’s drinking, failure to work, and roaming around, which caused her distress. Their evidence did not clearly establish a pattern of dowry-related cruelty immediately preceding her death.
- The uncle (PW-8) admitted that when Tajeshwari visited his house about a week to ten days before her death, she did not allege dowry harassment at all.
The Court found that much of the prosecution’s narrative was either hearsay or weakened by contradictions in cross-examination. This, it held, was insufficient to satisfy the “proximity test” embedded in Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which requires proof of harassment for dowry “soon before” the death to trigger the presumption of dowry death. 922
The Bench referred to recent Supreme Court decisions, including Chabi Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, and the Chhattisgarh High Court’s own earlier decision in Krishna Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, to underline that general, omnibus allegations or purely financial assistance cannot be stretched into a dowry demand without clear, specific evidence.
Conviction set aside, appellants acquitted
Concluding that the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC were not established beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the trial court’s conviction of the appellants was not based on proper appreciation of the evidence and could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 304B were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of the charge of dowry death, with the benefit of doubt extended in their favour.
Case Details : CRA No. 59 of 2015, Uttam Kumar Devangan and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh
