Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2025 Latest Caselaw 6428 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

       [2025:RJ-JD:4969]                  (1 of 17)                    [CRLAS-1044/2024]

       [2025:RJ-JD:4969]
             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                    JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1044/2024

       1.       Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About
                38 Years, R/o Ban, Police Station Sri Dungargarh, Dist.
                Bikaner (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
       2.       Smt. Chanda Devi @ Rami Devi W/o Ramu Ram, Aged
                About 80 Years, R/o Ban, Police Station Sri Dungargarh,
                Dist. Bikaner (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
                                                                        ----Appellants
                                          Versus
       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                       ----Respondent



        For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Deepak Menaria
        For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
                                       Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
                                       Mr. S.K. Verma, for complainant.



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

Order Reserved on : 24/01/2025 Date of pronouncement: 04/02/2025 REPORTABLE

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

(now Section 415 (2) of BNSS) has been filed by the appellants

against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case

No.10/2009, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and

sentenced the appellants as under:-

       Offence             Sentence

       Sec. 498-A IPC      Two years imprisonment
                           Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
                           one month's additional imprisonment
       Sec. 304-B IPC      Seven years Imprisonment




 [2025:RJ-JD:4969]                        (2 of 17)                    [CRLAS-1044/2024]

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2009, the

complainant Luna Ram (PW/3) lodged a report (ExP/7) before the

Police Station Sridungargarh, Bikaner to the effect that in the

morning of 04.04.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., he received an

information that his younger daughter has committed suicide. On

this information, he alongwith 5-7 other persons went to the

village Bana, where the police personnel were already available. It

was further stated in the report that the complainant has three

daughters, who were married around eleven years ago at village

Bana. Her younger daughter Saroj was married with one Vishnu

Dutt @ Bishna Ram (appellant No.1) and their 'Muklava'

happened on 13.03.2008 and since then she was being subjected

to cruelty for demand of dowry. It was further stated in the written

report that the appellants used to beat her daughter Saroj. On

03.04.2009 complainant went to village Bana, where appellants

even abused him and his daughters viz. Saroj and Vimla asked the

complainant to take Saroj with him, otherwise she will be

murdered but he did not take Saroj with him. On the next day

itself, he received an information that his daughter Saroj died. On

this report, the police lodged a case for offence under Sections

498-A and 306 of IPC and started investigation. After

investigation, challan was filed for offence under Sections 498-A

and 304-B IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed

against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22

witnesses and 26 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (3 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

statement of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded

and five documents were exhibited in defence.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 06.07.2024 convicted and sentenced

the appellants for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC

as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits in the first

instance that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the eldest sister of the

deceased Vimla has been examined as PW/1 before the trial

Court, who has not supported the prosecution story and she

declared hostile. It is also argued that Luna Ram (PW/3), father of

the deceased had stated before the trial Court that he has three

daughters, who were married at village Bana and the marriage of

deceased took place at about 10-12 years ago and on 13.03.2008,

muklava happened, thereafter, both the accused appellants

started harassing his daughter Saroj for demanding the dowry,

whereas in his cross examination he categorically mentioned that

he did not know the date and time for demanding dowry by the

appellants. He has also admitted in his cross examination that the

financial condition of the appellants was good. Therefore, there

was no occasion for the appellants to harass the deceased for

demand of dowry. It is further argued that in a criminal case with

regard to another sister by the complainant, during examination,

the complainant clearly mentioned that all his three daughters

were living happily with their in-laws and there was no demand of

dowry or harassment by the accused. The said statement was

produced in defence which is on record as Ex.D/1. Besides

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (4 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

Lunaram, mother of the deceased Rukma (PW/6), sister Rameti

(PW/5) who were examined before the Court below have also

narrated the same story verbatim, as alleged by the father of the

deceased. It is further argued by the counsel that the independent

witnesses viz. Sohan Lal (PW/7), Sultanaram (PW/9), Amru

(PW/10), Babulal (PW/11), Santra Devi (PW/12) and Mamraj (PW/

13) have not supported the case of prosecution or declared

hostile. The independent witnesses also mentioned that they have

no knowledge that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws for

demand of dowry. Thus, at the most it is a case of suicide and not

dowry death. There is no evidence against the appellants that

soon before the death of deceased Saroj, she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her

husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,

therefore, no offence under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC is

made out. It is also stated that a compromise has also arrived at

between the parties and the complainant no longer wants to

pursue the criminal case. Therefore, the court below have erred in

convicting the appellants for offence under Section 498A and 304B

IPC and same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by

learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that there is no

reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial

Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants.

He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the

Court below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (5 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

accused-appellants by the Court below be maintained by this

Court.

Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. S.K. Verma concurs

the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits

that the complainant does not want to pursue the appeal.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public

Prosecutor, and meticulously examined the impugned judgment

alongwith material available on record.

In order to ascertain legality and propriety of the findings

and conclusion of the learned trial Court, it is necessary to re-

appreciate the crucial evidence adduced by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 Vimla is the sister of deceased who during her

examination, has not supported the prosecution version and

stated in the following terms :-

"Lkjkst esjh cgu Fkh ftldh "kknh fc"kukjke mQZ fo'.kqxqIr ds lkFk gqbZA ljkst us Qkalh viuh ethZ ls [kk yhA ljkst us ckuk esa gekjs [ksr esa Qkalh [kk yhA ml le; eqyfteku nwj dke dj jgs FksA ;s eqyfteku nwljs [ksr esa dke dj jgs FksA ljkst dks mlds llqjky okys ngst ds fy, rax ijs"kku ugha djrs Fks o uk gh ekjihV djrs FksA ljkst dk eqyfteku us xyk ugha nck;kA ljkst ftl fnu ejh] mlls igys fnu esjs firk yw.kkjke esjs llqjky vk, gq, FksA ljkst us firkth dks dgk fd eq>s ihgj tkuk gSA bl ij firkth us dgk fd ;gha jgks] eSa ugha ys tkrkA bl ckr ij ljkst dks xqLlk vk x;k vkSj lkjh jkr og fpUrk esa jgh vkSj fQj Qkalh [kk yhA tc ljkst us Qkalh [kkbZ rc <k.kh esa esjs vykok vkSj dksbZ ugha FkkA mlh fnu eq>s o esjh cgu jferh dks ihgj ys x,A ihgj tkdj eSaus ogh crk;k fd ljkst dks llqjky esa vkjke ls j[kk tkrk Fkk o llqjky esa mls dksbZ d'V ugha FkkA ihgj esa esjs firkth us eq>s jksd fy;k vkSj llqjky ugha HkstkA fQj eq>s iqfyl gh ogka ls cjken djds ys xbZ o eftLVªsV us eq>ls iwNk fd vki dgka jguk pkgrh gks rks eSaus

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (6 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

dgk fd eSa vius ifr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gwa] eq>s ihgj esa tcjnLrh jksd j[kk gSA"

PW/3- Lunaram, who is father of the deceased in his court

statement has deposted as under ;-

"esjs rhu yMfd;ka gS ftudk uke foeyk] jkesrh] o ljkst gSA foeyk dh

"kknh fyNe.kjke ds lkFk] jkesrh dh vkseizdk"k o ljkst dh fo'.kqnr ds lkFk dh FkhA ljkst dh e`R;q ls 10&12 lky igys budh "kknh dh FkhA foeyk o jkesrh "kknh ds ckn ls gh llqjky vkus&tkus yx xbZA ljkst dk eqdkcyk fnukad 13 ekpZ 2008 dks fd;k FkkA mlds ckn ljkst llqjky vkus&tkus yx xbZA llqjky esa ljkst dks ekjihV djrs Fks] ekjihV djus okyksa esa fc"ukjke o mldh eka jkeh nsoh djrs FksA -------------esjh yMfd;ksa us dgk fd fo'.kqnRr mQZ fc"kukjke o lkl jkeh gesa ekj nsaxs] ;g ckr fceyk o ljkst us dgh FkhA nwljs fnu lqcg 10 cts <k.kh ls eq>s Qksu fd;k fd esjh yM+fd;ksa dks ekj fn;k vkSj xkao ys x;sA fQj ge 5&7 vkneh Mwxjx< Fkkuk igqaps rc ogka ls irk yxk fd iqfyl Mwxjx< ls ckuk xbZ gqbZ gSA fQj gesa yM+fd;ksa ds llqjky mudh <k.kh igqapsA mlds ckn ckuk xkao x;sA iqfyl Fkkuk xkao esa [kM+h FkhA ckn esa tkdj ns[kk rks ljkst rktk gh ejh iM+h FkhA fceyk o jkerh esjh iqf=;k ogka ikl esa cSBh FkhA ckn esa Mwxjx< vLirky esa iksLV ekVZe gqvk FkkA -----------foeyk o jkesrh ds lkFk ekjihV rks djrs FksA ijarq ngst ugha ekaxkA ljkst ds eqdykok ds nks&pkj ekg ckn llqjky esa mlds lkFk eqyfteku mlls ekjihV djus yx x;s] rc ge mlds llqjky le>kus x;s FksA"

PW/5- Rameti who is another sister of the deceased who has

deposed in her Court statement as under :-

";g ekax igys gels dh tkrh Fkh] ckn esa ljkst ls djus yx x;sA igys ngst de fn;k vkSj fQj ;g T;knk ekaxus yx x;s Fks] ngst ds fy;s gesa Hkh rax djrs Fks vkSj T;knkrj ljkst dks rax djrs FksA mudh ekax dh iwfrZ ugha gksus ds dkj.k og ljkst ds lkFk ekjihV djrs FksA fnukad 3-4-09 dks esjs

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (7 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

firk yw.kkjke ljkst dks ysus xkao esa dqaok ij vk;sa Fks] jkehnsoh o fo'.kqnr us esjs firk dks dgk fd buds le; rks de lkeku fn;k Fkk] vc ljkst ds fy;s T;knk nsvksa vkSj mUgksaus lksus dh pSu] eksVjlkbZfdy o :i;s dh ekax dh Fkh ugha rks ,sls gh ekjihV djsaxsA vkSj mUgksaus firkth dks [ksr ls xkyh nsdj fudky fn;kA eSaus o foeyk us firkth dks dgk fd vki ljkst dks ys tkvks ugha rks ;g bldks ekj nsaxsA firkth us dgk fd lqcg vkneh ysdj vkÅaxk rc ys tkÅaxk] ,sls dSls ys tkÅaA ml jkst "kke dks fo'.kqnr o jkeh us ljkst ds lkFk >xM+k fd;k o mlds lkFk ekjihV dh Fkh] vxys fnu lqcg fo'.kqnr jkeh us ljkst ls dgk fd esjs firk dqN nsaxs rks ugha blfy;s rq>s ekjihV djsaxsA fQj jkeh o fo'.kqnr ljkst dks ?klhV dj dksBs ds vUnj ys x;s] eSaus o foeyk us jksyk fd;k blds ckotwn mUgksaus dksBs dk njoktk ugha [kksyk] vUnj ls ljkst ds cpkvks cpkvks dh vkokts vk jgh Fkh] fQj vk/ks ?kUVs ckn lklq jkeh o fo'.kqnr us njoktk [kksykA rc mUgksaus dgk fd ljkst vius vki ej xbZ gS rc geus dgk fd og vius vki ugha ejh] cfYd rqeus mldks ekjk gSA ftjg %& odhy eqyfteku ljkst vLirky tkdj ejh FkhA esjs iqfyl c;ku gqos FksA vkt tks U;k;ky; esa c;ku fn;s gS og lkjh ckrsa iqfyl esa c;ku esa crk nh FkhA ------------"kknh ds ,d lky ckn eSaus o foeyk us tks eqdnesa fd;s Fks] mu eqdneksa dh udys iqfyl dks ns nh Fkh] U;k;ky; i=koyh esa ,sls dksbZ nLrkost miyC/k ugha gSA "kknh ds ,d lky ckn eq>s o foeyk dks llqjky okys cgqr T;knk ijs"kku djus yx x;s Fks ysfdu geus ngst ekaxus dk dksbZ eqdnek ugha djk;kA"

PW/7- Sohanlal who is paternal uncle of the deceased, has

not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by

the prosecution. He has deposed as under :-

"ljkst dh "kknh fo'.kq ds lkFk dh FkhA llqjky esa ljkst dks Bhd j[krs FksA dksbZ ekax ugha djrs FksA ljkst ds lkF llqjky esa ekewyh ekjihV gksrh FkhA ljkst ds lkFk llqjky esa fdl ckr dks ysdj ekjihV dh tkrh Fkh ;g eq>s irk ughaA eSa vius HkkbZ yw.kkjke ds lkFk ljkst ds llqjky esa iapk;rh esa ,d ckj x;k FkkA ljkst ds llqjky esa yw.kkjke ds lkFk iapk;rh esa x;k Fkk ijarq og ekeqyh lh ckr FkhA ljkst ds lkFk ngst dh ekax rakx dks ysdj rax

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (8 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

ijs"kku djus o ekjihV djus dh okjnkr djus dh iapk;r ugha FkhA -----------eSa] esjk HkkbZ yw.kkjke] yM+dk txnh"k] fc"kukjke] tljke x;s FksA ge llqjky x;s rc ljkst llqjky esa ejh iM+h FkhA eq>s irk ugha fd jkesrh us HkkbZlkgc dks ;g dgk gks fd vki ljkst dks ysdj ugha x;s vkSj ekax iqjh ugha dhA eq>s ;g ckr ugha dh] eSaus ,slk lquk ughaA"

PW/9-Sultanram has also not supported the prosecution

version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. It was stated

by the P.W.-9 as under :-

"vkt ls rhu lky ls T;knk igys dh ckr gS esjh Hkkstkb jkeh nsoh diM+s dh nqdku esa vk;hA esjs ikl cSBdj pk; ihA lqcg vkB ukS cts dk le; Fkk] fQj eSa [ksr pyk x;kA jkeknsoh xkao esa gh jgrh gSA eSaus vkSj dqN ns[kk ;k lquk ughaA"

PW/10-Amru who was also an independent witness, has not

supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the

prosecution. He has deposed as under :-

"vkt ls rhu lky igys dh ckr gS ge jkewth tkV ds [ksr esa pus dh Qly ,df=r dj jgs FksA esjs lkFk fot; iky esjk HkkbZ] dkdk dk csVk HkkbZ ewyjke o ,d fc"kukjke FksA fc"kukjke dks fc'.kqnr Hkh dgrs gSA gesa fyPNwjke vkB cts pk; fiykdj x;s FksA <ka.kh nwljs [ksr esa FkhA ukS&lk<s ukS cts lqcg fyPNwjke dh <k.kh ls jkSyk lquk;k x;k rks ge lHkh pkjksa ogka ij x;s] ogka ij fac.kh dks [kkV ij ysVk j[kk FkkA mldh ukMh ns[kh rks og xeZ Fkh] fcjek jke us ns[kh FkhA fQj xkM+h cqykus pys x;sA fo'.kqnr us xkM+h cqykbZ fQj fcan.kh dks Mwaxjx<+ ys x;sA mlds ckn eq>s irk ugha D;k gqvkA"

PW/11 Babu lal, PW/12 Santra Devi, PW/13 Mamraj have

also given similar statements during their examination that they

never heard that appellants used to harass the deceased for

demand of dowry.

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (9 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

PW/14-Rameshwarlal who was an independent witness and

has deposed in his Court statement as under :-

"eSa jkewth ds csVs fo'.kqnr dks tkurk gwaA fo'.kq [ksr esa vius V;wcosy xkao esa ckuk esa jgrk gSA vkt ls yxHkx pkj lky igys jryky Mªkboj us eq>s Qksu fd;k fd jsyos QkVd can gS fo'.kqnr dh iRuh chekj gS] eSa xkMh ysds tk ugha ldrk blfy, rw xkM+h ysds tkA fQj eSa xkMh ysdj igqapkA ftl le; Qksu vk;k eSa vius rkÅth ds V;wcosy xkao ckuk esa FkkA eSa fo'.kqnr ds ?kj igqapk rks crk;k fd fo'.kqnr dh iRuh chekj gS ;g eq>s crk;k eSus iwNk D;k gqvk rks dgk fd Qkalh [kk yhA mldks xkMh esa p<kdj xkao ckuk vk;sA ogka MkDVj lqHkk'k dks fn[kk;k mlus dgk fd ;g ej pqdh gSA "

From the oral evidence as referred above, the Court finds

that all the witnesses of fact had not supported the prosecution

version and most of them were declared hostile by the

prosecution. All three sisters were married in the same family of

three brothers. PW/5- Rameti who is the sister of the deceased

has supported the prosecution story but the other sister (PW/1-

Vimla) has mentioned that Saroj asked her father to take her to

paternal home but her father refused her, due to which deceased

Saroj got annoyed and on the next morning, hanged herself.

Further, a perusal of statement of father Luna Ram would go to

show that on the one hand, he has deposed that the appellants

used to harass his daughter for demand of dowry but on the other

hand, during his court statement recorded in Case No. 32/2010

which was recorded on 07.06.2010 i.e. after the death of his

daughter, he has denied any harassment or cruelty meted out to

any of his three daughters with regard to dowry. Thus, there are

contradictions in the statement of complainant father Luna ram.

Similarly, PW-5 Rameti in her statement has although stated that

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (10 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

they used to be harassed for demand of dowry by the appellants

but they did not file any criminal case. PW/7 Sohan lal who is

uncle of deceased, has deposed that he had attended the

Panchayat which was held regarding the assault on Saroj, but the

same was on trivial issues and not with regard to dowry.

The relevant provisions regarding dowry death, cruelty and

presumption, are reproduced herein below:-

304B. 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 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.

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"--

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (11 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

113-B. 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 purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].

In this case, there is no dispute that the death occurred

within seven years of the muklava. As per the statutory provisions

of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court is

considering the question whether the person has committed the

dowry death of a woman, he shall be presumed to have caused

the dowry death, if it is shown that before her death such woman

had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment in

connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. To

secure a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must

meticulously establish all essential ingredients, particularly the

connection between the demand for dowry and the harassment

faced by the deceased. In the case of Sher Singh @ Partapa vs

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (12 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCR 29 it has been

held:

"16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word "deemed" in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word "shown" is used as synonymous to "prove" and the word "presume" as freely interchangeable with the word "deemed". In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word "deem" to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory [AIR 1953 SC 333] and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326] , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word "deemed" so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the later oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word "shown" in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote "prove". In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a "dowry death" has occurred, namely,

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (13 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured,

(ii) within seven years of her marriage,

(iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband,

(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry, and

(v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry.

Recently, in the recent case of Karan Singh vs. State of

Haryana reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 514, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of the

prosecution's responsibility to prove all essential ingredients of

dowry death and cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court

reiterated that in cases involving dowry-related offenses, including

dowry death and cruelty, the prosecution must establish the

demand for dowry, the cruelty inflicted, and the causal connection

between these factors and the death. If the prosecution fails to

provide convincing evidence on any of these elements, it will

result in the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores

the need for a thorough and strong evidentiary foundation to

secure convictions in such sensitive and complex cases. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the essential

ingredients of the Section 304B of IPC, made observations as

under :-

"6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (14 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;

b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage;

c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and

d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband's relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC."

In the present case in hand, the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses are unreliable and inconsistent. They have

provided conflicting statements which are not corroborated by

reliable evidence or independent witnesses. There was no

complaint filed by the deceased during her lifetime, nor was there

any independent witness who could testify to the alleged cruelty.

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (15 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

In the aforementioned circumstances, the presumption arising

either under Section 304-B of the Penal Code or Section 113-B of

the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the appellants. The

prosecution, therefore, failed to establish any case for offence

under Section 304B IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable

doubt, therefore, they are liable to be acquitted from the charges

levelled for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is concerned,

from the evidence on record, it could be seen that there were

specific allegations of matrimonial cruelties and most of the

witnesses have stated that the accused used to assault the

deceased and number of times, panchayat were also held. This

Court finds that the charge of cruelty being proved against the

appellants, which is the most basic ingredient for the offence

under Section 498-A, the said offence is clearly made out against

both the accused appellants and their conviction for said offence is

not liable to be interfered with.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a report according to

which the appellant No.1 Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram is in custody

for last one year, seven months and ten days. So far as appellant

No.2-Smt. Chandi Devi is concerned, she remained in custody for

a period of about six months and one day. Thus, the appellants

have so far undergone a period of one and half year and six

months respectively, out of the total two years imprisonment so

also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,

looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the

appellants have remained behind the bars for considerable time

and a compromise has also arrived at between the parties, it will

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (16 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for

offence under Sections 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already

undergone by them while maintaining the fine amount.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned

judgment dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case

No.10/2009 to the extent of conviction and sentence for offence

under Section 304B is quashed and set aside and appellants are

acquitted from offence under Section 304B IPC. However, while

maintaining the appellants' conviction for offence under Section

498-A IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period

already undergone by them. The fine imposed by the trial court is

not interfered, with default stipulation. The appellant No.2-Smt.

Chanda Devi @ Rami Devi is on bail. Her bail bonds stand

discharged on deposition of fine. One month's time is granted to

appellant No.2-Smt Chanda Devi @ Rami Devi to deposit the fine

before the trial court. So far as appellant No.1 Vishnu Dutt @

Bishna Ram is concerned, he is in custody. He may be released

forthwith on deposition of fine amount, if not required in any other

case.

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. the accused appellants are directed to forthwith furnish

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the

like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one

month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the

effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against

[2025:RJ-JD:4969] (17 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]

the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of

notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The record of the trial court, be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 138-Ishan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)