Case Name: BRAJESH KUMAR @ BIRJESH KUMAR SINGH VS THE STATE OF BIHAR
Petition No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3117 of 2026 
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 695
Date of Judgement: 13.07.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Justice K.Vinod Chandra
Relevant Statutes & Provisions: Section 304B, Section 498A, Section 34 IPC, Sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court has considered the validity of a conviction for dowry death and cruelty arising from the death of a woman due to burn injuries sustained in her matrimonial home. The case raises questions regarding the evidentiary value of dying declaration, the effect of defective investigation and the scope of a Magistrate’s power while taking cognizance on police reports. Emphasizing that criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on suspicion, the court set aside the appellant’s conviction, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish persistent dowry demands and cruelty. The judgment also reiterates important principles concerning further investigation, closure reports, and the primacy of judicial discretion in criminal proceedings. 

FACTS
The appellant, Brajesh Kumar was married to the deceased, who sustained burn injuries at her matrimonial home and later died  in a hospital on 02.05.2000. The deceased’s father alleged that the appellant and his family had subjected her to continuous cruelty and dowry demands of ₹50,000, leading to the registration of an FIR against seventeen family members. Two separate charge-sheets and trials followed from the same FIR, ultimately resulting in the acquittal of all relatives and the conviction of the husband alone. The defence, however, relied on medical records, treatment documents, and a dying declaration in which the deceased described the incident as accidental and exonerated her husband and in-laws. Aggrieved by the conviction and the High Court’s remand order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES
1. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of dowry death and cruelty against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the dying declaration and defence evidence created a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt?
3. Whether the procedural irregularities in the investigation and trial warranted interference with the conviction?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellant contended that the prosecution case was based solely on vague allegations of dowry demand made by the deceased’s relatives. He relied on the dying declaration, medical records, treatment documents, and evidence showing a cordial marital relationship to argue that the burn injuries were accidental and he had made every effort to save his wife. The prosecution argued that the deceased had been subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment for dowry by her husband and his family members resulting in her death. Relying on testimonies of the deceased’s father and brothers, the prosecution maintained that the ingredients of offences under Section 498A and Section 304B IPC were established and conviction by trial court was justified. 

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS

Regarding the first issue, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients of offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the deceased’s relatives merely repeated a general allegation that a demand of Rs. 50,000 had been made throughout the marriage, without providing specific instances. The Court found these statements insufficient to prove persistent dowry harassment, especially when the investigating officer admitted that no neighbour or witness had supported the allegations. It was further noted that the prosecution had failed to conduct a proper investigation, secure a postmortem examination or any other crucial medical evidence. The Court relied on Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1957) 1 SCR 953, wherein it was held that in travelling from ‘may be true’ to ‘must be true’ the whole of the distance should be paved with ‘legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence’. 

Regarding the second issue, the Court answered the same in the affirmative. The defence successfully proved through independent witnesses, medical records, treatment documents that the marriage appeared cordial and that the appellant had taken prompt steps to save his wife. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate stated that the burns were caused accidentally when a gas pipe disconnected while the deceased was boiling milk and expressly cleared the husband. Although the Court initially treated the dying declaration with caution because the deceased was under the care of her in-laws when it was recorded, it ultimately held that declaration strengthened the defence case. The Court relied on the principle in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, that where the evidence permits a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court further emphasized that defence evidence cannot be viewed with suspicion merely because it originates from the accused and must receive the same judicial scrutiny as prosecution evidence. 

Regarding the third issue, the court examined the legality of the investigation, the filing of multiple final reports and conduct of separate trials arising from the same FIR. Referring to H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, (1955) 1 SCR 1150, the Court reiterated that defects or irregularities in investigation do not automatically vitiate cognizance or trial unless they occasion a miscarriage of justice. Relying on Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 the Court emphasized that while the opinion of the investigating officer is relevant, the power to take cognizance ultimately rests with the Magistrate, who may accept a closure report, take cognizance of the materials available, or direct further investigation. While holding that the procedural irregularities did not by themselves render the proceedings illegal, the Court criticised the investigating agency’s casual approach and found that these deficiencies together with the weak evidence will lead to the conclusion that the conviction could not be sustained. 

CONCLUSION
The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges of cruelty and dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. Reaffirming the principles of presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court emphasized that evidence by the respondent’s party must be accorded with equal consideration and that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. Accordingly, the conviction and the High Court’s remand order were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Source