# Smt. Ramwati v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 835
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33635 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ramwati-v-state-of-u-p-52724
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Whether the applicant, mother-in-law of the
deceased, accused of offences under Sections
80(2), 85 and 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, was entitled to be enlarged on
bail, in view of the nature of allegations, the
ocular testimony of an eye-witness child,
medical
evidence,
statutory
presumption
relating to dowry death, and the stage of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.80(2),
85, 92 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 - s.118 - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - ss.3, 4 - Bail - Dowry death -
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Presumption - Cruelty soon before death
- Ocular testimony of child witness -
Medical corroboration - Heinous offence
- Trial commenced - Bail rejected.

Held:
The marriage of the deceased with the son of
the applicant was solemnised on 21.06.2024,
and the deceased died an unnatural death in
her matrimonial home on 15.11.2024, within a
short
span
of
marriage.
The
allegations
disclosed persistent cruelty and harassment in
connection with demand of dowry soon before
her death. [Paras 3, 6-7]

The statement of Shubhanya, niece of the
deceased and an eye-witness, recorded during
investigation and subsequently as PW-2 before
the Trial Court, specifically attributed acts of
assault not only to the husband but also to the
applicant. The testimony of the child witness
was
found
to
be
consistent
and
was
corroborated by multiple ante-mortem injuries
noted in the post-mortem report. [Paras 5-7]

The medical evidence disclosed several injuries
on the body of the deceased, including ligature
mark and multiple abrasions and contusions, for
which no explanation was forthcoming from the
in-laws. The injuries were found to be consistent
with the ocular version of the eye-witness. [Para
6]

In the facts of the case, the Court held that the
presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 stood attracted, the
case being one of dowry death as defined under
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

## Text

10 All. Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P.
835
and the victim was without protest and
there was no insistence by victim for marriage
as she was in relationship with the applicant for
the last four years as has been averred in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of
B.N.S.S., which indicates the consensual
relationship between the two rather than a
relationship based on false promise of marriage
by
the
applicant.
The
consent
of
the
informant/victim is also evident from the fact
that she met the applicant in a public place i.e.
hotel. Had she been forced to establish physical
relation by the applicant, she would have ample
opportunity to raise alarm. That is not the case
here. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that ingredients of
Section 69 of B.N.S.S., is not attracted in the
present case.

8. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence
and
all
attending
facts
and
circumstances of the case, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is
of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. Hence the bail application is
allowed.

9. Let applicant Neeraj Kumar
involved in Case Crime No.195 of 2025 under
Sections 69, 352 B.N.S., Police Station
Haldharpur, District Mau be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy
sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
following conditions:-

 i) The applicant shall not tamper
with the prosecution evidence.
 ii) The applicant shall not threaten or
harass the prosecution witnesses.

 iii) The applicant shall appear on the
date fixed by the trial court.

 iv) The applicant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which the
applicant is accused, or suspected of the
commission.
 v) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. In case of breach of any of the
above condition, the trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 835
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33635 of
2025

Smt. Ramwati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gaurav Singh Tomar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Rahul Mishra, Sanjay Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the applicant, mother-in-law of the
deceased, accused of offences under Sections
80(2), 85 and 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, was entitled to be enlarged on
bail, in view of the nature of allegations, the
ocular testimony of an eye-witness child,
medical
evidence,
statutory
presumption
relating to dowry death, and the stage of trial.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.80(2),
85, 92 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 - s.118 - Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - ss.3, 4 - Bail - Dowry death -
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Presumption - Cruelty soon before death
- Ocular testimony of child witness -
Medical corroboration - Heinous offence
- Trial commenced - Bail rejected.

Held:
The marriage of the deceased with the son of
the applicant was solemnised on 21.06.2024,
and the deceased died an unnatural death in
her matrimonial home on 15.11.2024, within a
short
span
of
marriage.
The
allegations
disclosed persistent cruelty and harassment in
connection with demand of dowry soon before
her death. [Paras 3, 6-7]

The statement of Shubhanya, niece of the
deceased and an eye-witness, recorded during
investigation and subsequently as PW-2 before
the Trial Court, specifically attributed acts of
assault not only to the husband but also to the
applicant. The testimony of the child witness
was
found
to
be
consistent
and
was
corroborated by multiple ante-mortem injuries
noted in the post-mortem report. [Paras 5-7]

The medical evidence disclosed several injuries
on the body of the deceased, including ligature
mark and multiple abrasions and contusions, for
which no explanation was forthcoming from the
in-laws. The injuries were found to be consistent
with the ocular version of the eye-witness. [Para
6]

In the facts of the case, the Court held that the
presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 stood attracted, the
case being one of dowry death as defined under
Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. The expression "soon before her death"
could not be confined to a fixed time frame and
had to be assessed on the facts of each case.
[Para 7]

The Court took note of the fact that the trial had
already commenced, two prosecution witnesses
including the complainant and the eye-witness
had been examined, and they had supported
the prosecution case. In cases involving heinous
offences, once the trial has begun, bail ought
not to be granted. [Paras 7-8]

No good ground was found to enlarge the
applicant on bail. The bail application was
accordingly rejected, with a clarification that
observations were confined to the bail stage.
[Paras 8-10]

Bail application dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
X v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3539 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023;
Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.

List of Keywords
Bail; Dowry death; Cruelty soon before death;
Presumption under Section 118 BSA; Mother-inlaw; Child eye-witness; Medical corroboration;
Heinous offence; Trial commenced.

Case Arising From
Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2025, arising out of
Case Crime No. 180 of 2024, under Sections
80(2), 85 and 92 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Sirsakalar, District
Jalaun.

Appearance for Parties
For the Applicant: Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar
For the State: Learned Additional Government
Advocate
For the Informant: Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Sanjay
Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.)

1-The instant bail application under
Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed on
behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release
her on bail in S.T. No. 68 of 2025 arising out of
Case Crime No. 180 of 2024, under Sections
85, 80(2), 92 BNS,2023 and Sections 3/4
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
Police
StationSirsakalar, District-Jalaun during the pendency
of her trial.

2-Heard learned counsel for the
applicant,
learned
Additional
Government
10 All. Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P.
837
Advocate representing the State and learned
counsel for the complainant.
3-Brief facts of the case, which are
required to be stated are that the complainant,
who is father of the deceased-Ragini got an
F.I.R. lodged on 16.11.2024 against Sher Singh,
Shailendra, Balkhandi, Santosh, Phool Singh,
Sangeeta, Somwati and Ramwati, who are
husband, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively,
stating inter-alia that marriage of his daughter
Ragini was solemnized with Sher Singh on
21.06.2024 and in the said marriage, Rs. 2 lacs
and household articles were given but the
accused persons were not satisfied with the
dowry and there was additional demand of
Apache motorcycle and Rs. 1 lac in dowry from
their side. On non-fulfillment of their demand
of dowry, his daughter was being harassed and
tortured in her matrimonial home. Her brotherin-law Santosh and Phool Singh, who lived
outside used to say her husband to kill her, they
will deal with it. When his daughter told about
her torture and harassment while coming to her
paternal home, then he mortgaged his wife?s
jewellery and gave Rs. 30,000/- to Sher Singh
about 20 days ago but there was no change in
their behaviour and they were not satisfied,
therefore, his daughter went to her matrimonial
home taking her niece Shubhanya with her. His
daughter told him over phone that even now her
husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and
sister-in-law beaten her due to non-fulfillment
of their additional demand of dowry. On
15.11.2024 at about 10:00 AM, his sister Usha
informed that his daughter was beaten and
hanged to death by her husband and in-laws at
around 09:00 AM in her matrimonial home. On
the said information, when he along with
several people of neighborhood reached there,
he found that his daughter was lying dead and
Shubhanya told him that Ragini?s husband-Sher
Singh, brother-in-law and sister-in-law beaten
her with sticks after killing, forcibly hanged her
to death.

4-It is argued by learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law
of the deceased, who is aged about 70 years.
She has been falsely implicated whereas cause
of death of the deceased is shock and asphyxia
due to ante-mortem hanging. Referring the
statement of Shubhanya, he further submits that
she was eye-witness of the incident and
according to her statement, the deceased-Ragini
was mainly beaten by her husband and the
applicant,
who
is
mother-in-law
of
the
deceased, had simply slapped her, hence case of
the applicant is distinguishable from the case of
co-accused Sher Singh (son of the applicant),
therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in
jail since 18.11.2024 may be enlarged on bail.

5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State and learned counsel for the complainant
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant
reiterating
the
prosecution
as
mentioned in the F.I.R. by contending that on
account of non-fulfillment of additional demand
of dowry as mentioned above, the deceased was
harassed and tortured. Later on, she was killed
in her matrimonial home and after that she was
hanged. Relying upon the statement of
Shubhanya, they also argued that not only the
husband of the deceased but the applicant, who
is mother-in-law of the deceased, had also
assaulted the deceased, who at the time of
incident was having pregnancy of about two
months. It is also pointed out that complainant
Patre Singh and Shubhanya have been testified
as PWs-1 and 2 before the trial Court on
13.06.2025 and 21.07.2025 respectively and
they have fully supported the prosecution.
 5.1-The statement of Shubhanya
recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.,2023
during investigation is reproduced herein
below: "वय न चश्मिीि स क्षी......... सुभन्य पुत्री पुष्ट्पेन्द्र दन०ग्र म
दखतोली थ न गोहन जनपि ज लौन उम्र करीब 09 वषगनेपूछनेपर बत य
दक मैंअपनी मकलू बुआ केस थ गयी थी उनक न म र गनी भी ह।ाै ह।ाै
अम्म नेम र थ ग ली भी िी थी फूफ शेर दसंह नेबुआ र गनी को कुकह डी
येबेटों सेम र थ और ग दलय ं िी थी। सुबह सुबह 9... 10 बजेकी ब त
ह।ाै बुआ को ह थ खचोड कर लेगयेथे दटटुआ पर बैठ गयेथेमैनेिेख थ ।
पीठ मेंल तेिी थी पीठ पर बैठ गयेथेफूफ नेकह थ दक तुम मर ज ओ और
तुम्ह रेपेट मेंिो तीन महीनेक मोड हैजो मर ज ये। गल मसक दिय बुआ
खत्म हो गयी तो फ ंसी केफन्ि पर ट ंग दिय और ब हर केदकव ड त ल
लग कर भग गये। मैंघर पर ही थी फूफ सेकह थ दक तुम िोनो पदत पत्नी
हो लड ई झगड क हेकरतेहो तो फूफ नेमुझेग ली िी ल ते िी पेट िी पेट
मेंमुक्क म रेऔर मुझसेकह दक ज्य ि मुह चल ओगी तो तुम्ह र भी मुह
कुचल िेगे।"
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 5.2-The statement of Shubhanya
recorded as PW-2 before the trial Court is
reproduced herein below: "मेरी बुआ क न म र दगनी थ
उन्हें मकलूबुआ भी कहतेथे। मेरी मकलूअब नहीं हैउनको म र दिय ह।ाै
शेरदसंह, शैलेन्द्र, बलखण्डी, फूलदसंह और उनके भ ई संतोष और मेरी
बुआ की िो जेठ नी और डुको (शेरदसंह की अम्म ) ह।ाै इन सभी लोगों
नेदमलकर मेरी बुआ को म र दिय ह।ाै आज सेलगभग 8 म ह हो
गयेह।ाै त रीख 15 थी और सुबह के 9-10 बजेक समय थ । शेरदसंह
और इनके भ ईयों नेडुको और जेठ नी नेबुआ र दगनी को कुकह ड़ी की मूंिों
सेऔर ल तह थों सेम र थ । मेरी बुआ के पेट मेंइन लोगों नेघूस म रेथेऔर
इन लोगों ने ह थ पकड़ केखींच केभीतर लेज कर बुआ को फ ंसी पर ट ंग
दिय थ । मैंमौके पर मौजूि थी। मैंअपनी बुआ को बच नेकेदलए गयी थी
और मैनेरोक थ दक मेरी बुआ को मत म रो। तो संगीत बुआ नेमुझको भी
म र कर अलग कर दिय थ । शेरदसंह मेरेफूफ ह।ाै यह घटन हम रेफूफ
केघर पर ही हुई थी। इस घटन के पहलेछोटी िीप वली व लेदिन मैंअपनी
बुआ के यह ं फूफ के घर पर गयी BAIL No. 33635 of 2025
3 थी। मुझसेपुदलस अंकल नेपूछत छ की थी मैंनेउन्हें ही यह ब त बत िी
थी। स क्षी नेह दजर अि लत अदभयुि शेरदसंह और (र मवती को िेखकर
कह दक यह फूफ शेरदसंह की अम्म ह।ाै) को िेखकर कह दक इन्हीं
लोगों नेअन्य लोगों के स थ दमलकर मेरी बुआ र दगनी की म रपीट कर
घटन क ररत की। ***** दजरह द्व र अदभयुि दजस दिन की यह घटन
हैउस दिन मैंअपनेफूफ केघर पर थी। मकलूमेरी बुआ ह।ाै मकलूबुआ को
र दगनी भी कहतेह।ाै यह 9-10 बजेकी ब त ह।ाै मेरी बुआ क ह थ
पकड़ कर शेरदसंह नेखचोड़ थ । मैंउस समय शेरदसंह केघर पर ही थी। मैं 8
बजेस्कूल ज ती ह ाँ।ह ाँ मेर स्कूल मेरेग ंव दखतौली मेंह।ाै 8 बजेमैंस्कूल के
अंिर हो ज ती ह ाँ दफर मेरी 2 बजेछुट्टी होती ह।ाै मैंरोज न स्कूल ज ती
ह ाँ।ह ाँ मेर ब्य न िरोग स हब नेदलय थ । शेरदसंह के घर पर मुझसेिरोग
स हब नेपूछ थ । यह कहन गलत हैदक दजस दिन की घटन हैउस दिन
मैंस्कूल मेरही ह ाँ।ह ाँ यह भी कहन गलत हैदक मैंघटन व लेदिन शेरदसंह
केघर पर मौजूि न हो। यह भी कहन गलत हैदक मैंनेऐसी कोई घटन न
िेखी हो। मैंकक्ष 4 मेंपढ़ती ह ाँ।ह ाँ मैं दिन, महीन , सन्नही ज नती ह ाँ।ह ाँ मैंएक
स ल मेंदकतनेमहीनेहोतेहैयह नहीं ज नती। नयी स ल मैंज नती ह ाँ ठण्ड
मेंहोती ह।ाै मैंि दमनी छोटी िीप वली को आयी थी। छोटी िीप वली
सेजब बुआ खत्म हो गयी थी तब मैंअपनेग ंव दखतौली व पस आयी थी।"
 5.3- Lastly, it is submitted that in the
light of the statement of Shubhanya, the bail
application of the applicant is liable to be
rejected.

6-Having heard the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, I find that it is not in dispute that
marriage of Sher Singh with Ragini (now
deceased) was solemnized on 21.06.2024 but
she died her unnatural death in her matrimonial
home within short span of time on 15.11.2024.
From
the
aforementioned
statements
of
Shubhanya, it is also clear that not only the
husband of the deceased but the applicant had
also assaulted the deceased. Shubhanya has also
stated inter alia that accused persons after
killing the deceased, hanged her. Nothing is on
record to indicate that even any information was
given by in-laws of the deceased to her parents
and to the police. On perusal of the post mortem
report, I find that following seven injuries were
found on the body of the deceased, which are
corroborated from the statement of Shubhanya :

 (i) An oblique ligature mark present
below the chin above the thyroid cartilage, of
size (27.0 x 3.0) cm with the gap of 4.0 cm right
side of the neck. It is 4.0 cm below the right ear,
7.0 cm below the chin and 6.0 cm below the left
ear. Total circumference of neck 31.0 cm.
Hyoid bone intact. On dissection of ligature
mark white and glistening present.

 (ii) Abrasion of size 2.0 x 1.0 cm
present over left side angle of mouth.

 (iii) Multiple abrasion present at
right side of face. (Max 1.5 x 0.5 cm) (Min 0.5
x 0.5 cm).

 (iv) Abrasion of size 3.0 x 2.0 cm
present at left side of chest.

 (v) Abrasion of size 2.0 x 1.0 cm
present at left knee.

 (vi) Abrasion of size 2.0 x 2.0 cm
present at right knee.

 (vii) Contusion of size 2.0 x 2.0 cm
present over left mid of thigh anterior aspect,
bluish in colour.

7-It is also relevant to mention that
there is no explanation of injuries found on the
body of the deceased as noted above. The
overall facts and materials on record prima facie
indicate that deceased-Ragini was subjected to
cruelty and harassment relating to demand of
dowry
soon
before
her
death.
Hence,
presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is attracted in
10 All. Maiyya Deen Vs. State of U.P.
839
this case, being the case of dowry
death as defined under Section 80 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Here it
would also apposite to mention that in the
context of nature of the offence like present
case, this Court is of the view that cruelty
means willful conduct of a nature likely to lead
the woman concerned to commit suicide or
danger to her life or health. The word ?soon
before her death? in Section 118 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
cannot be limited by fixing time limit. It is up to
the Court to determine the same, depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The offence is heinous in nature and the trial of
the applicant is proceeding, in which two
prosecution witnesses, namely, complainant
(father of the deceased) and Shubhanya (niece
of deceased/eye witness) have been testified
and they have supported the prosecution case.
The statement of Shubhanya, who is eyewitness and star witness of the prosecution,
cannot be disbelieved at this stage. Regarding
consideration of bail prayer in the cases,
wherein the offences are heinous in nature, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X vs. State
of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3539, has held that if the trial of the
accused has started, his bail should not be
granted in heinous offences like murder, rape
and dacoity, etc.

8-In view of the above, I find no good
ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

9-Accordingly,
the
instant
bail
application is rejected.

10-It
is
made
clear
that
any
observation made in this order is for the
purpose of disposal of bail application and shall
not affect the merit of the trial.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 839
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2206 of 2015

Maiyya Deen ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ahmed Saeed, M. Asif, M. Islam

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether in absence of any appeal by the
complainant or State for enhancement, the
Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence as
awarded by the trial court in an appeal filed by
an accused convict challenging his conviction
and sentence.
Head Notes
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954- Sections 7/16 & 13(2) ; The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section
397/401 & 386- No finding by the trial
court regarding receipt of the notice under
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act - In the absence of their
being any proof of delivery of the said
report to the accused the valuable right
available to the accused to seek further
test of the sample by the Central Food
Laboratory stands defeated- Judgments
and orders impugned are set aside-
Revision Allowed. (E-15)

Held- In an appeal against conviction by an
accused Appellate Court cannot enhance the
sentence without there being an appeal filed by
the
State
or
the
complainant
for
its
enhancement.
(Para 15 & 16)

Case Law Cited
Sachin Vs. State of Maharashtra : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 834;Nagarajan v. State of T.N. :
(2025) 8 SCC 331;Vijendra Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh) : 2020 (15) SCC 763;Narayana Prasad
Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2022 (1)
SCC 87