State vs Ram Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7235 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 288/2001

State

----Appellant Versus Ram Singh And Ors

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manisha Purohit for Mr. M.S. Purohit

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

16/05/2022

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

State against the judgment dated 09.07.1999 passed by the

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) &

Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Special Sessions Case

No.62/98, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the

offences under Sections 304-B & 498-A IPC, while extending them

the benefit of doubt.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, at the

outset, submits that vide order dated 30.04.2001 passed in the

criminal leave to appeal, this Hon'ble Court granted leave to file

the appeal only to the extent of accused-respondent No.1-Ram

Singh, accused-respondent No.2-Dhur Singh and accused-

respondent No.5 Smt. Shanti Devi, and thus, criminal leave to

appeal qua remaining of the accused-respondents was not

(2 of 6) [CRLA-288/2001]

granted; accordingly, the present criminal appeal survived only

qua accused-respondents No.1,2 & 5.

2.1 Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that upon being

informed about the demise of accused-respondent No.2-Dhur

Singh and accused-respondent No.1-Ram Singh, the present

appeal was dismissed, as having abated, qua respondents No.1

and 2. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the present

criminal appeal now survives only qua respondent No.5-Smt.

Shanti Devi. However, despite the order passed by this Hon'ble

Court on 06.08.2021, the appellant-State has not filed the

amended cause title, as yet.

2.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of

acquittal, as it suffers from a misreading of evidence of the

testimonies of witnesses.

2.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony

of P.W. 1 Shri Gordhan Singh, that his daughter Meera (deceased/

victim) was married to the deceased-accused/respondent Ram

Singh on 11.04.1992 and that a sufficient dowry was given at the

time of marriage, yet after marriage, his daughter was subjected

to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of more

dowry.

2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased-

victim, Meera, died under suspicious circumstances, and that

when her father, the complainant P.W.1 visited her in the hospital,

she was in a serious condition and that she pointed her fingers

towards the accused-respondents. And that, the same is

corroborated by the statements of P.W. 3 Ashu Singh.

(3 of 6) [CRLA-288/2001]

2.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the PW-6

Punam Chand Bothra, stated on 29.05.1998, it was seen by him

that fire was coming out of the house of the accused-respondent

Dhur singh (deceased), who was father-in-law of the victim; he

found that the door of the house was closed from inside and a

woman (deceased-victim) was burning due to such fire; thereafter,

the fire was extinguished and the deceased-victim was taken to

the hospital.

2.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the deceased

victim was put to fire by her husband and in-laws who demanded

an additional dowry from her, and from a perusal of the evidence

on record, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased-victim

occurred due to a mishap / accident caused, while she was ironing

the clothes.

2.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

trial court has also not taken into consideration the testimony of

PW-8 Dr. Ashok Parmar who stated that such a death could not

have occurred by electric shock of the iron (istri).

2.8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that a sufficient

explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the delay

in filing of the F.I.R. but the same has not been considered by the

learned trial court.

2.9. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the death

occurred within 7 years of marriage, and therefore the offence

squarely falls within the purview of Section 304-B I.P.C.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-

respondent submits that the incident in question occurred on

29.05.1998, whereas the complaint was lodged only on

(4 of 6) [CRLA-288/2001]

06.06.1998 and that there was a gross delay in filing the F.I.R.

without any explanation therefor.

3.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that

D.W. 1 Sampat Lal in his testimony stated that when the fire

occurred due to an electrical issue with the wiring of the house,

the deceased-victim was living separately from her in-laws;

however, there was no dispute between her and her in-laws.

3.2. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that D.W. 2

Mohan Rajvanshi, in his testimony stated that the accused

persons, Kishore Singh and Ram Singh on the day of the incident

in question were in fact in Ganga Shahar, and when they left their

work from Ganga Shahar, they left stating that an incident had

occurred at their home and that they needed to return.

Furthermore, they were employees of the State Water

Department, and their attendance at their office, on the day in

question was marked at their workplace.

3.3 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

accused persons took the deceased victim to the hospital before

she succumbed to her injuries, and that if their intention was to

end her life, then they would not have taken her to the hospital.

4. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

5. This Court finds that the contentions raised by the learned

Public Prosecutor have already been dealt with by the learned trial

court vide the impugned judgment.

6. This Court observes that the learned trial court has recorded

the following findings to that effect:-

(5 of 6) [CRLA-288/2001]

6.1 That the father of the deceased-victim, Gordhan Singh, did

not state anything, before the police authorities in the hospital,

with respect to dowry demands being made by the deceased-

victim's in-laws, or that it being the cause of death. Furthermore,

his testimony reveals that he admitted that no demand for dowry

was made prior to or after the marriage of the deceased-victim.

6.2 That there was no complaint or evidence on record to prove

that any such demand for dowry was made by the respondents to

the deceased-victim or her family. Similarly, there is no witness

testimony to that effect either.

6.3 That the demand for amount of Rs. 15,000, which was being

termed as a dowry demand, cannot be ascertained from the

record in fact, to be a dowry demand.

6.4 That a demand for dowry, after 6 years of marriage, seems

highly unlikely.

6.5 That for an offence to be made out under Section 304-B I.P.C.,

it has to be proved that a demand for dowry was made to the

deceased-victim from the accused person(s).

6.6 That the gesture, so made by the deceased-victim, while in

hospital, cannot be taken to infer anything against the accused,

and cannot be taken to be a dying declaration, as she had

sustained severe injuries and was not in a condition to

communicate anything, and that merely waving her finger across

the room would be too weak a ground to proceed against the

accused.

6.7 That the mother-in-law or any of the other accused, of the

deceased victim was not at the house, when the incident in

question had occurred.

(6 of 6) [CRLA-288/2001]

7. This Court further observes that the learned trial court has

delved deep into the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after a thorough

perusal of the evidences placed on record before it.

8. This Court, in light of the aforesaid observations, finds that

the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial

court is a well reasoned speaking order, and finds that no case

warranting interference by this Court is made out.

9. This Court, therefore, dismisses the present appeal. All

pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

63-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)