Rajasthan High Court
Matadeen Singh And Ors vs State Of Raj. (2024:Rj-Jp:12853) on 14 March, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:11949]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 45/1994
1. Matadeen Singh s/o Mool Singh
2. Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh
3. Sumer Singh s/o Mool Singh
4. Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh
All residents of Village Chanvara, Police Station Gudha, District
Jhunjhunu
(at present accused in District Jail Jhunjhunu)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Savita Nathawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mahla, learned PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment
Reserved on ::: February 05, 2024
Pronounced on ::: March 14, 2024
1. Vide order dated 14.03.2023, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to
call for the whereabouts and present status of the accused
appellants from the concerned Police Station.
2. In compliance of the order dated 14.03.2023, the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted the death certificates of
accused appellant No.2- Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the
accused appellant No.4- Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh.
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:42:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (2 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
3. Accordingly, the criminal appeal qua accused
appellant No.2 Mool Singh s/o Bachan Singh and the accused
appellant No.4- Smt. Inder Kanwar w/o Mool Singh stands
abated.
4. So far as the criminal appeal filed by rest of
accused appellants i.e. accused appellants No.1 and 3
namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh, is concerned,
same is being heard and finally decided by this Judgment.
5. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by
the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 27.01.1994 passed by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the learned
trial Court') in Sessions Case No.94/1990, whereby, both the
above-named accused appellants have been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
U/s. 498A IPC:
Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused
appellants has to further undergo one month Rigorous
Imprisonment.
U/s. 304B IPC:
Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant
Smt. Jugal Kanwar (PW12) submitted a written report (Ex.P1)
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:42:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (3 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
at Police Station Gudha to this effect that she resident of
Village Chanvara. The complainant alleged that that Smt.
Sushil Kanwar who was her younger sister had been married
a year back with Sohan Singh s/o Mool Singh. It was alleged
by the complainant that her father-in-law Mool Singh, her
'Jeth' Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-
law for or in in connection with giving less demand in dowry
used to give beating to her and daily they used to give
threatening to kill her. She further alleged that in the last
month they also quarreled. Upon this the father of Sushil
Kanwar came to village. Today i.e. on 07.07.1990 at around
3:30 PM she heard that Sushil Kanwar has been killed after
burning her by her father-in-law Mool Singh and her Jeth-
Mataeen and Sumer Singh and her mother-in-law and they
were preparing for funeral. The complainant further
mentioned in the written report that their 'dhani' is situated
at the distance away in fields.
On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), an
FIR No.92/1990 (Ex.P14) was registered for the offences
under sections 498A and 304B IPC.
7. The police after investigation submitted charge-
sheet against the accused appellants for the offences under
sections 201, 302, 304B and 498A IPC in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh.
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:42:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (4 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
8. The case was committed to the Court of Session for
trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the
accused appellants for the offences under sections 498A and
304B IPC and in the alternative under sections 302 and 201
IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial.
9. From the prosecution side, the statements of
twelve witnesses were recorded and certain documents were
exhibited.
10. The statements of the accused appellants were
recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellants in
their statements have denied about the allegations levelled
against them and deposed that they have been falsely
implicated in the instant case.
11. The learned trial court vide its judgment
27.01.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants
for the offences as mentioned above.
12. Ms. Savita Nathawat, learned counsel appearing for
the accused appellants submitted that the allegations against
each of the accused appellants have to be individually
established. There is no charge against the accused
appellants either for the offence under section 120B IPC or
section 34 IPC. Counsel for the accused appellants submitted
that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations
against the accused appellants for the offences under
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:42:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (5 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
sections 302 and 201 IPC consequent thereto the learned trial
court acquitted the accused appellants for the aforesaid
offences. Counsel for the accused appellants further
submitted that there is no specific allegations against the
accused appellants either for or in connection with demand of
dowry or cruelty and whatever the allegations were levelled,
same have been levelled against accused appellant No.4 Smt.
Inder Kanwar, who has since been died. Counsel for the
accused appellants also submitted that the police recorded
the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC after
a great delay which is fatal to the prosecution story. Counsel
for the accused appellants also submitted that the material
witnesses namely; Sanwat Singh and Gopal Narayan have not
been produced by the prosecution and the same have been
withheld. Counsel for the accused appellants further
submitted that the independent witnesses who are
neighbourers were also not examined before the learned trial
court, though their statements under section 161 CrPC were
recorded and they were also listed in the list of witnesses.
Counsel for the accused appellants further submitted that
there is no definite cause of death. Whatever allegations in
regard to cruelty have been leveled, same have been levelled
against Vinod Kanwar but no charges were framed against
Vinod Kanwr for the offence under section 498A IPC. Counsel
for the accused appellants further submitted that the cruelty
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:42:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (6 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
against 'X' cannot be taken as cruelty against 'Y'. Counsel for
the accused appellants also submitted that there are
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses produced by
the prosecution. Thus, the accused appellants may be
acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal
and has submitted that there is no material irregularity or
illegality committed by the learned trial court and keeping in
view the evidence on record, the accused appellants have
been rightly convicted.
14. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor
and examined the material made available to the Court.
15. The basic issue which has been raised by the
counsel appearing for the accused appellants is that there is
no evidence so as to constitute the basic required ingredients
for conviction of the accused appellants for the offence under
section 304B IPC. Section 304B IPC reads as under:-
"Section 304B IPC- Dowry death.--(1) Where
the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (7 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called
"dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-
section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning
as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits
dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life."
16. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for
short 'the Act of 1872') provides for presumption as to dowry
death, which reads as under:-
"Section 113B. Presumption as to dowry
death. -When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the
court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death. Explanation. -- For
the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section
304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
On conjoint reading of both the provisions i.e.
provisions of section 304B IPC and 113B of the Act of 1872,
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (8 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
the basic thing which needs to be looked into so as to convict
a person for the offence under section 304B IPC is that
'Whether the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband
for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry?'.
17. In the case of Asha & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 174, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"16. On considering the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses as deposed by them
which is on record, we are of the view that the
charges of cruelty or harassment against the
accused are not supported by legal evidence
on record. The courts below have erroneously
placed reliance on the letter (Ex. Ka. 3) written
by P.W. 3 to his parents which is on record to
establish the charge Under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code, wherein he has stated in
his letter that P.W. 7 had gone to the
matrimonial house of the deceased and was
met with demand for ` 30,000/-. There is no
evidence of demand for dowry by the accused
persons prior to the alleged demand of `
30,000/-. To satisfy the ingredients of the
provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code, the death of a woman must be caused
due to burns or bodily injuries, and must be
within 7 years of her marriage. Further, it
must be proved that soon before her death,
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (9 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
her husband or her relatives "in connection
with the demand for dowry"
17. The said charge has not been proved by
the prosecution by adducing evidence to
attract the ingredients of the offence under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The
trial court and the appellate court have not
taken great care in analysing and appreciating
the evidence on record, keeping in view the
gravity of the offence of dowry death and the
punishment prescribed for it Under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were
required to scrutinise the evidence very
cautiously and carefully in order to arrive at
the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients
of the offence with reference to the conditions
enumerated Under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code to convict the accused have been
satisfied by the prosecution.
18. On perusal of the evidence on record, we
are of the view that the charge is not proved
by the prosecution, particularly as the courts
below have failed to notice that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the dowry
demand was made by the accused either at the
time of marriage or subsequently as it has not
produced convincing and cogent evidence in
this regard. In this case, the evidence on
record is not clear as to whether the demand
for ` 30,000/- as alleged to have been made
by the accused is a demand for dowry with the
deceased that can constitute cruelty or
harassment by the accused. The High Court,
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (10 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
after careful examination of the letter dated
28.06.1993, has found that it has been
interpolated and that some changes have been
made in the letter and some words were added
to it. The courts below have erred in law in
convicting the Appellants herein by erroneously
placing reliance upon the above so called letter,
wherein certain words were added with a view
to make out a fabricated charge against them
to secure the conviction of the accused
persons."
18. In the case of Surinder Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 109, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. We have noticed neither PW-6 nor PW-7 or for
that matter the complaint does give the particulars
of the time and date when the alleged harassment
was meted out by the appellants. As noticed by us
hereinabove, these statements are omnibus in
nature. The specific allegations of harassment
made only involves A-1 and his father with whose
case we are not concerned now. The appellants are
neither parties to the demand for a buffalo or Rs.
25,000 which seems to be the proximate cause of
Baljit Kaur committing suicide. The courts below in
appreciating the evidence have failed to appreciate
the material on record properly nor have they
applied the required standard of proof necessary to
base a conviction on the appellants. We have
already noticed that if at all the prosecution case
against these appellants is to be accepted it would
only show that soon after the marriage i.e. about
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (11 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
21/2 years prior to the death of the deceased,
there was some alleged harassment for lack of
dowry which, in our opinion, is not a sufficient
ground to hold the appellants guilty for the offence
charged, since these allegations are not proximate
to the death of the deceased."
19. In the case of Phulel Singh vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 268, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"28. Insofar as the evidence regarding
harassment on account of non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry is concerned, the
prosecution relies on the evidence of Pavitar
Singh (PW-3), brother of the deceased,
Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased
and Major Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch of the
village. Insofar as PWs 3 and 4 are concerned,
they are relatives of the deceased and their
evidence will have to be scrutinized with
greater care, caution and circumspection.
Insofar as harassment with regard to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned,
except the vague allegation, there is nothing in
their evidence to support the prosecution case.
29.Insofar as Major Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch of
the village is concerned, he stated that he was
informed by Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of
the deceased that in-laws of the deceased
were harassing her and therefore they should
go to village Chatha. However, he also does
not state that he was informed by Randhir
Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased that the
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (12 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
deceased was meted out to any harassment on
account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
30.We are therefore of the considered view
that there is no evidence to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased was
harassed on account of non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry. We therefore find that the
case Under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code
is not made out by the prosecution."
20. In the case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh
Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 Live
Law SC 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
"13. A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act with
reference to the presumption raised was discussed
in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment, which is
extracted below:-
"32. This Court while often dwelling on
the scope and purport of Section 304-B of
the Code and Section 113-B of the Act
have propounded that the presumption is
contingent on the fact that the
prosecution first spell out the ingredients
of the offence of Section 304-B as in
Shindo v. State of Punjab [Shindo v.
State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 517 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394] and echoed in
Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana
[Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2013) 16 SCC 640 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri)
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (13 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
346] . In the latter pronouncement, this
Court propounded that one of the
essential ingredients of dowry death
under Section 304-B of the Code is that
the accused must have subjected the
woman to cruelty in connection with
demand for dowry soon before her death
and that this ingredient has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt and only then the Court will
presume that the accused has committed
the offence of dowry death under Section
113-B of the Act. It referred to with
approval, the earlier decision of this Court
in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao
[K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao,
(2003) 1 SCC 217 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 271]
to the effect that to attract the provision
of Section 304-B of the Code, one of the
main ingredients of the offence which is
required to be established is that "soon
before her death" she was subjected to
cruelty and harassment "in connection
with the demand for dowry"
21. In the case of K. Prema S. Rao & Ors. vs. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao & Ors., reported in 2002 Supp (3) SCR
339, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed as under:-
"The evidence which has been found
acceptable by the courts below against
accused No. 1 is that the cruel treatment and
harassment of the deceased by him led her to
commit suicide which was a death "otherwise
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (14 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
than under normal circumstances". To attract
the provisions of Section 304B IPC, one of the
main ingredients of the offence which is
required to be established is that "soon before
her death" she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment 'in connection with the demand
for dowry'. There is no evidence on record to
show that the land was demanded as dowry.
It was given by the father to the deceased in
marriage ritual as pasupukumuma. The
harassment or cruelty meted out to the
deceased by the husband after the marriage
to force her to transfer the land in his name
was 'not in connection with any demand for
dowry.' One of the main ingredients of the
offence of "demand of dowry" being absent in
this case, the High Court cannot be said to
have committed any error in acquitting
accused No. 1 for offence under Section 304B,
IPC "
22. In the case of Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Haryana (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010)
decided on 28.05.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:-
"Section 304B (1) defines 'dowry death' of a
woman. It provides that 'dowry death' is where
death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily
injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and
it is shown that soon before her death, she was
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (15 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband, in connection with
demand for dowry. Subclause (2) provides for
punishment for those who cause dowry death.
Accordingly, in Major Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2015) 5 SCC 201, a threeJudge Bench of this
Court held as follows:
"10. To sustain the conviction under
Section 304B IPC, the following essential
ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be
caused by burns or bodily injury or
otherwise than under a 'normal
circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred
within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be
for or in connection with demand of
dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown
to have been meted out to the woman
soon before her death."
9. The first contentious part that exists in the
interpretation of Section 304B, IPC relates to the
phrase "soon before" used in the Section. Being a
criminal statute, generally it is to be interpreted
strictly. However, where strict interpretation leads
to absurdity or goes against the spirit of legislation,
the courts may in appropriate cases place reliance
upon the genuine import of the words, taken in
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (16 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
their usual sense to resolve such ambiguities.
[refer Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai
v. Dilip Kumar & Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1, State
of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, 2020
SCC OnLine SC 412]. At this juncture, it is
therefore necessary to undertake a study of the
legislative history of this Section, in order to
determine the intention of the legislature behind
the inclusion of Section 304B, IPC.
10. Section 304B, IPC is one among many
legislative initiatives undertaken by Parliament to
remedy a longstanding social evil. The pestiferous
nature of dowry harassment, wherein married
women are being subjected to cruelty because of
covetous demands by husband and his relatives
has not gone unnoticed. The Parliament enacted
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as a first step to
eradicate this social evil. Further, as the measures
were found to be insufficient, the Criminal Law
(Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983)
was passed wherein Chapter XXA was introduced in
the IPC, containing Section 498A."
23. On making critical scrutiny of the evidence on
record, PW1 Bhanwar Kanwar, in her cross-examination has
specifically stated as under:-
ßesjs dks eqyfteku esa ls lq"khy daoj dh lkl us esjs ls ngst ds ckjs esa
dgk Fkk ckfd eqyfteku us ngst ds ckjs esa dHkh ugha dgkAÞ
PW2 Amar Singh in his cross-examination has
specifically stated as under:-
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (17 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
ßnksuksa yM+fd;ksa dh "kknh lkjh dh lkjh esjs lkeus gh gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS
fd nksuksa yM+fd;ksa dh "kknh ij ngst ds ysu&nsu ds ckjs esa dksbZ dgk lquh
ugha gqbZA ;g t:j ns[kk Fkk fd nksuksa yM+ds "kknh ds ckn thi esa cSBd
xkao ls ckgj pys x;s FksA ;g irk ugha oks ukjkt gksdj x;s Fks ;k oSls ghA
os vius vki gh okil vk x;s FksA ge ls dksbZ cqykus ugha x;k FkkA
yM+fd;ksa ds firk o yM+dksa ds firk esa dksbZ fookn ugh gqvk ;g esjs dks
irk ugh fd nksuksa yM+ds fdl fy;s xkao ls ckgj x;s FksA ckjkr esa paojk
xkao ls djhc 60&65 vkneh dksVMk x;s FksAÞ
PW5 Vinod w/o Matadeen in her statement
recorded by the trial court has stated that her mother-in-law,
father-in-law, Matadeen Singh and her whole family was
creating pressure for the dowry. She further stated that her
mother-in-law used to say that if she does not bring the
television and Rs.10,000/-, she will remarry her son. She has
also stated in the examination-in-chief that the members of
the in-laws family were making demand of Rs.10,000/- and
television. There are no allegations against the appellants
namely; Matadeen Singh and Sumer Singh about demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment.
This witness in her cross-examination has not stated
even a single word that which of the accused appellants
subjected the deceased to cruelty for, or in connection with,
any demand of dowry, soon before the death.
PW7-Khushal Singh- the father of the deceased in
his statement has made allegations of cruelty for, or in
connection with, demand of dowry as regards Vinod Kanwar
and not with regard to deceased Sushil Kanwar.
One of the material witness namely; Pooran Singh
(PW8), who is the brother of the deceased did not support
the prosecution story and was turned hostile.
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (18 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
24. There is no mention about the demand of dowry
i.e. demand in regard to the television and Rs.10,000/- in the
FIR lodged by the informant- Jugal Kanwar (PW12). PW12
Jugal Kanwar in her statement recorded before the trial court
has stated that she made information in regard to the facts
of demand of the television and Rs.10,000/- but why it has
not been mentioned, she does not know.
25. On scrutiny of the aforementioned evidence, this
Court finds that there is no specific evidence of cruelty or
harassment by the accused appellants namely; Matadeen
Singh and Sumer Singh towards the deceased for demand of
dowry soon before death. Since the law, as referred in the
foregoing paras, clearly speaks that for attracting the
provisions of section 304B IPC, the basic ingredients which is
required is that the deceased is subjected to cruelty or
harassment by accused for, or in connection with, any
demand of dowry. As per the settled law, the allegations of
cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry must be towards
the deceased. In the present case, there are certain
allegations for demand of dowry against the accused
appellants towards the sister of the deceased namely; Vinod
Kanwar but there is no charge framed by the trial court for
the offence under section 498A IPC in regard to cruelty and
harassment for demand of dowry to Vinod Kanwar. The
prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (19 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
as regards the allegations of cruelty and harassment for
demand of dowry towards the deceased by the appellants.
There is no cogent evidence available on the record so as to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
appellants for cruelty or harassment to deceased Sushil
Kanwar for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.
Against the accused appellants Matadeen Singh and Sumer
Singh, whose appeal is being heard on merits, there is no
material evidence against them for cruelty and harassment to
deceased Sushil Kanwar for demand of dowry.
26. So as to convict a person for the offence under
section 304B IPC, the allegations of cruelty and harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, are required
to be established against each of the accused appellants
individually because the present accused appellants have not
been charged for the offence under section 120B or section
34 IPC.
27. While passing this Judgment, the Court is also
conscious of the fact that when the charges for the offences
under sections 498A and 304B IPC were framed against the
accused appellants, alternatively charges for the offences
under sections 302 and 201 IPC were also framed, however,
the accused appellants have been acquitted from the
aforesaid charges for want of material evidence and the
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (20 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
prosecution failed to prove the said charges against the
accused appellants.
28. During scrutiny of evidence and investigation
papers it is revealed that the statements of the witnesses
under section 161 CrPC were recorded by the Police after a
delay of about 14 days and there is no satisfactory
explanation for such a delay. There are certain other
irregularities in the trial such as the material witnesses
namely; Sanwat Singh and Gopal Narayan were not produced
before the trial court and also no definite opinion of the cause
of death has been given out.
29. The trial court has convicted the accused appellants
for the offences under sections 498A and 304B IPC in
connection with the death of deceased Sushil Kanwar on the
basis of the allegations of giving beating to Vinod Kanwar for
demand of dowry and so also the fact that there was some
dispute at the time of the marriage between the parties in
regard to demand of television and Rs.10,000/-. The death
has caused after a year of the marriage.
30. On critical examination of the prosecution evidence,
this Court finds no substantial evidence in regard to cruelty
and harassment by the accused appellants No.1 and 3
towards Sushil Kanwar for, or in connection with, any demand
of dowry soon before her death.
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (21 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
31. The trial court has also taken into consideration the
fact of an unnatural death of deceased Sushil Kanwar for
convicting the accused appellants for the offences under
sections 498A and 304B IPC.
32. In view of the specific language of provision of
section 304B IPC so also the provision of section 113B of the
Act of 1872, there must be an evidence on record to prove
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before
her death. Merely the fact of an unnatural death of a woman
cannot be the sole basis to convict a person for the offences
under sections 498A and 304B IPC.
33. This Court has already concluded that there is no
such evidence on record for subjecting the deceased of
cruelty and harassment by the accused appellants for, or in
connection with, any demand of dowry, soon before her
death. The material witnesses namely; Sanwant Singh- Head
Constable and Gopal Narayan were not produced in evidence.
The above-named two witnesses were the material witnesses
in regard to the investigation part. Not producing the
material witnesses so as to prove the prosecution story is
fatal to the prosecution. The trial court has come to a
perverse finding that non-production of such witnesses does
not adversely affect the prosecution case.
[2024:RJ-JP:11949] (22 of 22) [CRLA-45/1994]
34. In view of the discussion made above, the criminal
appeal of the accused appellants namely; Matadeen Singh
and Sumer Singh is allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 27.01.1994 passed by the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case
No.94/1990 qua both the accused appellants are set aside
and both the accused appellants are acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.
35. The accused appellants are on bail, they need not
to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are
accordingly discharged.
36. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section
437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, each of the
the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and a surety
bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of
six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special
Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the
said appellants, on receipt of notice therefore, shall appear
before the Supreme Court. The record be sent back to the
trial court forthwith.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Sharma Nk/Dy. Registrar
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
