Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 208/2025
State Vs. Ayush Bhadora
FIR No. 212/2025
PS Vasant Kunj South
U/s 80(2)/85 BNS
09.12.2025
Present: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Ayush is produced from JC.
Sh. Rajnish Kumar and Ms. Divaya Prakash, Ld. Counsels
for accused.
Sh. Utkarsh Vats and Sh. Pranav Sarthi, ld. Counsels for
complainant.
Arguments on charge have already been heard. Record
perused.
It is argued on behalf of accused persons that there is no
prima facie evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of the
prosecution against the accused and accused is entitled to be discharged. It
is further argued that case of prosecution is based on bald averment of
dowry payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, old and unauthenticated audio clips supplied
by the complainant and an assertion (not supported by postmortem report)
that deceased suffered beating soon before her death. It is further argued
that most important evidence i.e., the mobile phone of father of deceased
whose mobile is said to have automatic recording has not been seized or
forensically examined to substantiate the last incoming call i.e., 11:00 AM
on 28.04.2025. It is further stated that as per postmortem report, cause of
death was hanging and records only ligature change and there is no medical
-- 1 of 7 --
-2-
evidence of homicidal assault. It is further submitted that in absence of any
concrete proof of dowry demand and absence of cruelty linked to dowry
“soon before death”, ingredients of section 304B IPC are not satisfied and
therefore, accused is liable to be discharged from offences under section
304B IPC and consequently under section 498A IPC.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (May 13, 2025), Chabi Karmakar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
2024 INSC 665), Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477,
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr. (2022) 5 SCC 401 to fortify
his arguments.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.04.2025 a PCR
call vide DD No. 151 A was received at PS Vasant Kunj (South) regarding
hanging committed by Parnika Jain. On receipt of same, IO visited the spot
i.e., D1/73, Sector E-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and came to know that
Parnika Jain committed suicide by handing with ceiling fan and husband of
deceased cut the ligature material. The spot was inspected by crime team
and clicked the photographs. Exhibit i.e., ligature material was lifted from
the spot and dead body was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where deceased
was declared brought dead.
During investigation, it was revealed that marriage of
deceased was solemnized around 1 year back and on 29.04.2025, statement
of parents of deceased was recorded wherein they levelled the allegations
against accused. They alleged that marriage of deceased was solemnized on
06.02.2024 with Ayush Bhadora. They further alleged that in the marriage,
-- 2 of 7 --
-3-
on the demand of bridegroom side, sufficient jewellery was given. Even
after the marriage, as per demand of her husband i.e., accused cash of Rs. 5
lakhs was also given to him. It is further alleged that after 15- 20 days of the
marriage, deceased, who was working as Oncologist at S & P Global,
Gurugram alongwith her husband, who was posted at Indira Gandhi
Hospital, Dwarka as M. D, shifted to Delhi. It is further alleged that after
shifting to Delhi, deceased informed her parents that Ayush used to check
her mobile phone and made suspicion over her and used to quarrel with her,
also beat her and also objected for her job. It is further alleged that on
28.04.2025 at around 10:30 AM, after receiving missed call from deceased,
call was made to her and on conversation, she informed that accused Ayush
had beaten her and she requested to took her from matrimonial home
otherwise she would be killed by them.
It is further alleged that on 28.04.2025 at about 06:00 PM,
call was received from Om Prakash, father of accused Ayush that deceased
was not opening the door and Ayush was waiting since 03:30 PM. It is
further alleged that after 10-15 minutes when call was made to Om Prakash
and enquiry was made, it was informed that deceased Parnika was taken to
Fortis hospital, however, she was not found there. During investigation,
father of deceased produced one pen drive containing three voice recording
conversation between complainant and her daughter regarding mental
harassment by her husband i.e., accused Ayush and one voice recording of
conversation between complainant and father in law of deceased.
Law is settled that the court has to see a prima facie case at
the time of framing of charge and minute scrutiny of the evidence is not
-- 3 of 7 --
-4-
required to be done by the court and no mini trial can be conducted at the
time of framing of charge in view of settled law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in many cases. Accused is seeking discharge as
there is no proof of dowry demand and cruelty linked to dowry soon before
death but there are categorical statements of the parents of deceased that
accused had received Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash on the pretext as dowry from
them. Accused would have his chance to cross examine these witnesses to
discredit the testimony of these witnesses during prosecution evidence.
Hence, on the basis of material available on record and statements recorded
under section 180 BNSS, prima facie case for framing of charge under
sections 80(2)/85 BNS is made out against accused. An additional charge
under section 103(1) BNS is also framed against the accused as per law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Charge is framed against accused to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Issue summons to complainant Arti Jain, duty officer HC Anil,
MHC(M) and IO for next date.
Put up for prosecution evidence on 27.01.2026. Rehnumai on
23.12.2025, 06.01.2026 and 20.01.2026 through VC.
(Dhirendra Rana)
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
09.12.2025
-- 4 of 7 --
SC No. 208/2025
State Vs. Ayush Bhadora
FIR No. 212/2025
PS Vasant Kunj South
U/s 80(2)/85 BNS
09.12.2025 at 04:00 PM
File taken up again at the instance of Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Present: Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused is not produced from JC.
Sh. Rajnish Kumar, ld. Counsel for accused through VC.
It is pointed out by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that an
alternative charge has been framed under section 103(1) BNS in terms of
directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rajbir @ Raju and
another Vs. State of Haryana AIR (2011) SC 568 but the ratio laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case stands differentiated in its decision
titled as Jasvinder Saini Vs. State of Government of NCT of Delhi (2013) 7
SCC 256. It is submitted that in view of Jasvinder Saini’s ratio, State is not
pressing for charge under section 103(1) BNS against the accused.
Ld. Defence counsel has no objection, if charge is altered
under section 239 BNSS in view of submission of ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
In Jasvinder Saini’s case it has been held as under:
“13. Be that as it may the common thread running through both the
orders is that this Court had in Rajbir’s case (supra) directed the addition
of a charge under section 302 IPC to every case in which the accused are
charged with Section 304-B. That was not, in our opinion, the true
purport of the order passed by this Court. The direction was not meant to
be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of the
-- 5 of 7 --
-2-
evidence available in the case. All that this Court meant to say was that
in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under
Section 302 can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No
other meaning could be deduced from the order of this Court. It is
common ground that a charge under section 304B IPC is not a substitute
for a charge of murder punishable under Section 302. As in the case of
murder in every case under Section 304B also there is a death involved.
The question whether it is murder punishable under section 302 IPC or a
dowry death punishable under section 304 IPC depends upon the fact
situation and the evidence in the case. If there is evidence whether direct
or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under section 302 IPC
the trial Court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder
punishable under section 302 IPC, which would then be the main charge
and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some
quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused
at the trial, the Court can look into the evidence to determine whether the
alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304B is
established. The ingredients constituting the two offences are different,
thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective
relevant to such ingredients. The trial Court in that view of the matter
acted mechanically for it framed an additional charge under section IPC
without adverting to the evidence adduced in the case and simply on the
basis of the direction issued in Rajbir’s case (supra). The High Court no
doubt made a half hearted attempt to justify the framing of the charge
independent of the directions in Rajbir’s case (supra), but it would have
been more appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh
orders rather than lending support to it in the manner done by the High
Court”.
I have gone through the judgment of Jasvinder Saini’s case
wherein it has been categorically held that it is not mandatory for the court
to frame charge for the offence of murder in case of allegation of unnatural
death of a woman died within seven years of her marriage. If there is any
evidence on record that there might be possibility that deceased has been
murdered then court can frame charge under section 302 IPC/103 BNS. In
the present case, there is no allegation in the charge sheet that deceased was
murdered and the prosecution itself relies upon the fact that deceased had
-- 6 of 7 --
-3-
committed suicide. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to alter the charge and
drop allegation under section 103(1) BNS against the accused. Amended
charge shall be framed upon the accused on date already fixed i.e.,
27.01.2026.
(Dhirendra Rana)
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
09.12.2025
-- 7 of 7 --