On 6th February, the Additional District and Sessions Court, Agra, convicted Faeem Qureshi and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous punishment for torturing and harassing his wife, Varsha Raghuvanshi, leading to her suicide in 2021. Faeem has been found guilty under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dowry death and cruelty. OpIndia accessed a copy of the judgment in the case.
On the other hand, other accused in the case, including Faeem’s father, Qayoom Qureshi, mother, Firdaus Qureshi, brother, Naeem Qureshi, and sister, Tabassum Qureshi, were acquitted, citing a lack of sufficient evidence linking them directly to the crime. The prosecution argued that Varsha was not only harassed for dowry but also subjected to religious persecution. However, the court noted that the allegations of preventing her from practising her Hindu faith and forcing her to convert to Islam were not backed by substantial evidence.
What is the case?
The case dates back to 12th November 2021. Varsha was found dead in her marital house. Her family alleged that she endured months of severe abuse, both physical and psychological, over repeated demands for dowry. An FIR was lodged by Varsha’s brother, Dushyant Raghuvanshi, against her husband and in-laws. In the FIR, her brother alleged that they demanded ₹5 lakh and a car as a dowry. When the demands were not met, Varsha was subjected to physical and mental torture. He added that her in-laws told her that if she failed to bring a dowry and a car, she would be treated as a servant and would never get the status of a wife.
The complaint further stated that the victim was isolated. She was not provided with any financial support from her husband, and her in-laws forced her to renounce her Hindu faith and embrace Islam. The complainant also alleged that his sister was forced to cook and eat meat.
The complainant also alleged that four months before the incident, Faeem forcefully made Varsha sign blank stamp papers and told her that if she did not fulfil the demands, he would divorce her and kill her.
During the hearing, witnesses recounted that she was mocked for performing pooja and insulted for following Hindu traditions. She was allegedly warned that if she continued to refuse to embrace Islam, it would cost her life.
On the evening of 12th November, at around 6:30 PM, the victim’s family received a phone call informing them about her death. The in-laws claimed that Varsha died by suicide. Hearing about the incident, they rushed to Varsha’s marital house, where they found her lifeless body on the floor. Her husband and in-laws were nowhere to be found in the house. He added that neither he nor the police saw Varsha hanging.
Suspicion arose over the unnatural circumstances of her death, and a police case was registered, invoking stringent sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the complaint, her family contested the claims of the in-laws. They insisted that Varsha was murdered and then hanged to make it appear like a suicide.
Witness testimonies and medical findings
During the trial, multiple witnesses gave statements that painted a grim picture of the victim’s final months. Her brother, Dushyant, recounted that he had talked to the victim over the phone numerous times, in which she confided about the daily torture she faced. He testified that she had specifically mentioned that she was beaten up for not bringing dowry and for refusing to convert to Islam. He accused Faeem of Love Jihad and coercing his sister into an affair before running away to get married. He also informed the court that her in-laws used to call her “Kafir ki aulaad” (daughter of a Kafir).
Her mother, Manorama, and sister, Khushboo, informed the court that the victim’s in-laws humiliated her for following Hindu customs. She stated that Varsha was repeatedly insulted for performing pooja and was told that idol worshipping was forbidden. She further said in her statement that Varsha once told her over the phone that if she did not convert, she would not survive in the house.
The investigating officer supported the prosecution’s case. The police stated that the crime scene appeared manipulated. He noted that while the victim was found hanging, there were struggle marks on her body.
The forensic experts, however, presented a more complex analysis. The post-mortem confirmed that Varsha died due to asphyxia from hanging. The post-mortem report explicitly noted that no external injury marks were found on her body, apart from ligature marks around her neck.
The forensic expert testified that there were no visible signs of struggle or external trauma that could indicate homicide. The defence used this as a key argument, stating that the absence of bruises or wounds ruled out physical assault before death. The court considered this aspect but also acknowledged that psychological and emotional harassment could not be ruled out, especially in cases of dowry-related deaths.
The defence claimed Varsha’s family harassed them
During the argument, Faeem claimed that Varsha’s family used to harass them. They would call Varsha (who was named Zoya after conversion) and harass her for interfaith marriage. They would claim that as she had married a Muslim, it had become difficult for her younger sister to get married. Faeem claimed that Varsha knew he was a Muslim and argued that he had never harassed or assaulted her.
The judgment
The court ruled that the prosecution successfully established that Varsha was subjected to continuous dowry harassment and cruelty. The court directly held Faeem Qureshi responsible for her death. The court acknowledged that his actions, either through direct physical harm or relentless psychological abuse, were instrumental in causing Varsha’s death.
The court noted that Varsha repeatedly informed her family about the cruelty she faced. Thus, the court found that her death was not accidental but the result of sustained abuse. The verdict noted that the elements necessary for conviction under Section 304B of the IPC were met, as Varsha had suffered harassment related to dowry “soon before her death,” fulfilling the legal requirement for a dowry death case.
However, when it came to the other accused, the court found the evidence insufficient. The court noted that though the victim’s family insisted that her in-laws were equally responsible, mere familial relations do not automatically implicate someone in a crime. The court said that the prosecution failed to provide any direct evidence of the in-laws participating in or instigating the violence.
Referring to legal precedents, the court stated that in cases of dowry deaths, the burden of proof against in-laws must be beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, while suspicions were strong, material evidence was lacking, leading to their acquittal.
Furthermore, the aspect of religious coercion was also discussed in detail during the trial. The court acknowledged that witness testimonies pointed to instances where Varsha was discouraged from performing pooja and was pressured to change her faith. However, it stated that no independent witness, audio recording, video proof, or written communication substantiated these claims.
The court thus refrained from convicting the accused under Sections 295 and 298 of the IPC, which deal with religious persecution and insult to religious beliefs. The court, in its observations, noted that there was no physical evidence of Hindu religious idols or pooja-related materials found at Varsha’s marital home, contradicting claims that she actively practised Hindu rituals there.
It further remarked that Varsha had already converted to Islam before marriage, and therefore, the allegations that she was coerced into conversion after the wedding lacked substantiating evidence. While witness testimonies suggested she faced religious humiliation and pressure, the court held that in the absence of independent verification, digital proof, or written complaints from the victim, these claims could not be legally upheld beyond reasonable doubt.
Punishment for the convicted accused
The court sentenced Faeem Qureshi to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC for the dowry death of his wife, Varsha Raghuvanshi. Additionally, he was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC for cruelty, along with a fine of ₹20,000. In case of non-payment, he would have to serve three more months in prison.
Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he was again sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, with another ₹20,000 fine, and a similar provision of three months of additional imprisonment for non-payment.
The court ordered that all sentences run concurrently, ensuring that the convict served the longest of them—ten years of imprisonment. The time Faeem had already spent in jail during the trial was set to be adjusted against his sentence.
