Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dala Ram vs State And Ors on 9 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:17338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 191/2007
Dala Ram S/op Sriram B/C Brahmin aged 57 years R/o Ward
No.5, Malani Baas, Nokha, District-Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Manoj S/o Nanuram B/c Brahmin R/o Dheerera, P.S.
Lunkaransar, District-Biknaer (Accused)
3. Smt. Sumitra W/o Vimal Kumar B/c Brahmin R/o out side of
Dharam Nagar Gate, Nathusar Gate, Bikaner. (Accused)
4. Smt. Radha W/o Naanuram B/c Brahmin R/o Dheerera, P.S.
Lunkaransar, District-Bikaner. (Accused)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.M. Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Order pronounced on : 09.04.2025
Order Reserved on : 29.01.2025
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the private respondent.
2. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, the
complainant/victim has made challenge to the judgment dated
16.11.2006 passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the
accused-respondents from the charges under Sections 498-A and
304-B of the IPC.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the written report
Ex.-P/2 was submitted by P.W.-2 (Dala Ram) averring therein the
fact of wedding of his daughter Mena with the accused respondent
- Manoj six-seven years ago as per Hindu rituals and providing
[2025:RJ-JD:17338] (2 of 5) [CRLR-191/2007]
dowry articles also. There are allegations of causing cruelty to his
daughter on the ground of bringing less dowry. She had begotten
a boy around one and half years ago before her death. For around
four months, she remained along with her parents and whereafter
she was taken to her in-laws' house. On 16.01.2006, he was
informed about an incident of burnt injuries and admission of his
daughter in PBM Hospital. He rushed to the hospital and saw her
in an unconscious state. She died on 21.01.2006. He alleged that
because sufficient dowry was not provided, his daughter was set
ablaze by pouring kerosene.
3.1 The accused-respondents were arrested then charge-sheeted
and then the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence
and then framed charges under Sections 394-B and 498-A of the
IPC and commenced the trial. Nine witnesses and ten documents
were produced to substantiate the charge.
3.4 The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
wherein they claimed innocence. The learned Judge heard the
parties and whereafter acquitted the accused-respondents from
the charges. Hence, this present petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Dy.G.A. as well as minutely gone through the impugned judgment
and the record of the case.
5. The finding of the learned trial Court is based upon critical
appreciation of the evidence brought on record and a thread bare
discussion has also been made in the impugned judgment. First of
all, there is no reasonable explanation regarding the inordinate
delay in lodging of the FIR. The fact that considerable period of
matrimony had spent and the incident took place in the seventh
[2025:RJ-JD:17338] (3 of 5) [CRLR-191/2007]
year from her marriage, the evidence of star witness P.W.-2 (Dala
Ram) cannot be ignored since the first informant and father of the
deceased has failed to mention the date of birth of children in the
complaint or in his statement Ex.-D/4 recorded during
investigation. The discrepancy has also been noticed by the
learned trial Court most importantly Ex.-D/1 is the statement of
the deceased Mena before her death, in which, she claims to have
married with the petitioner 9-10 years ago having a daughter of
four years and the youngest son of 2 years. Ex.-D/1 is proved by
D.W.-1 Liyakal Ali. It also bears signature of P.W.-2 (Dala Ram)
and marked in the trial as A to B and mother's signature as C to
D. He admitted his signature during trial on Ex.-D/1. DW-1
(Liyakat Ali) is an independence witness and there are no
aspersions on his integrity. After churning the evidence thread
bare, the learned trial Court concluded that prosecution failed to
prove the fact of marriage of the deceased with the accused
husband within seven years of her death and this Court finds no
error in it.
5.1 To invoke or attract penal provisions Section 304B of the IPC
also to draw an interference under Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish the
fact of death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage
and in this case the prosecution has failed to prove the above fact
and, therefore, acquittal of the accused under Section 304-B of
IPC is affirmed.
5.2 The question regarding subjecting the deceased to cruelty in
connection of demand of dowry has also prudently been discussed
by the learned trial Court. Serious contradiction can be observed
[2025:RJ-JD:17338] (4 of 5) [CRLR-191/2007]
in the statement of P.W.-4 (Smt. Rupa), the mother of the
deceased and P.W.-8 (Jagdish), the uncle of the deceased. There is
no certainty of the allegations when the statements of above two
witnesses are compared with the statement of P.W.-3 Bankesh.
Any prudent person can feel that no reliance can be placed on the
fact of demand of dowry. Interestingly P.W.-2 (Dala Ram), when
cross-examined, clearly admitted the fact that no particular thing
was ever demanded by the accused persons.
5.3 After going through the statement of the prosecution
witnesses, this Court feels that no error indeed has been
committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused-
respondents from the charges. This Court feels that grave the
charges greater has to be the standard of proof. A duty is cast
upon the prosecution to prove his case beyond every shadow of
reasonable doubt. An order of conviction cannot be based on
surmises and conjectures or on preponderance of probability.
6. This Court further feels that, while hearing a plea against the
judgment of acquittal, the upper Court should be slow in making
interference. A reversal of judgment of acquittal should be made
only when it appears that the judgment of acquittal is a product of
total non-consideration of the material brought on record or the
upper Court feels blatant miss-appreciation of the evidence or the
same is passed contrary to the law. No such situation is arising
here. I do not see any good reason to interfere in a well reasoned
judgment of acquittal. There is no force in the instant petition,
thus, the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:17338] (5 of 5) [CRLR-191/2007]
8. The order of the learned trial Court dated 16.11.2006 in
Sessions Case No.60/06 titled as State Vs. Manoj & Ors. in FIR
No.17/2006, Police Station Lunkaransar is affirmed.
9. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
13-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
