Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Mangalsingh And Ors on 23 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 521/2003
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mangalsingh S/o Sohan Singh.
2. Smt. Rashal Kanwar W/o Shri Mangal Singh
3. Chandan Singh S/o Shri Mangal Singh
[All b/c Rajput, R/o Mawadi, P.S. Siwana, Barmer.]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora with
Ms. Khushbu Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
(per Hon'ble Beniwal,J.)
Reserved on : 14/05/2025
Pronounced on : 23/05/2025
1. Challenge has been laid by the appellant-State to the
judgment and order dated 25.09.2002 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra in Sessions Case
No.4/2002, vide which the accused-respondents have been
acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34 and
498-A/34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2001, the
complainant, Guman Singh, submitted a written report (Ex.P/14)
at Police Station Siwana, alleging, inter alia, that his daughter,
Sushila Kanwar, was married to accused-respondent No. 3,
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
Chandan Singh, in January 1999, and that dowry was given
according to his financial status. After the marriage, she began to
be tortured by her husband and in-laws. Whenever she visited her
paternal home, she would complain about the same to him and
other family members. In the intervening night between
21.08.2001 and 22.08.2001, at about 1:00-1:30 a.m., Jabbar
Singh and Udman Singh came to him in Barmer and informed him
that his daughter, Sushila Kanwar, had consumed poison and
hanged herself.
2.1 Upon receiving such complaint, the police registered a case
under Section 304-B of IPC and investigation commenced. After
investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 304-B
IPC against the accused-respondents. Charges were framed under
Sections 302/34, 304-B/34 and 498-B/34 of IPC. The prosecution
examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents.
The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and in defence 8 witnesses were examined.
2.2 After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges levelled against
them vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State placed heavy
reliance on the statements of Panney Singh (PW-8) (neighbour),
Om Kanwar (PW-10) (real sister of the deceased), Usha Kanwar
(PW-11) (sister-in-law, i.e., brother's wife), Tina Kanwar (PW-12)
(sister), and Guman Singh (PW-16) (father). While relying on
these statements, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that all these witnesses, who appeared in the witness
box, have categorically stated that the accused-respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
murdered Sushila Kanwar. Despite these consistent statements,
the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents by
extending the benefit of doubt. He also relied upon the
postmortem report (Ex. P/13), which recorded the cause of death
as asphyxia due to strangulation.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant, while supporting
the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, submitted that this is a clear case under Section 304-B
of the IPC. The deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty and
harassment by her in-laws. It was a case of unnatural death
occurring within seven years of marriage. Guman Singh, the
father of the deceased, as well as her brother and two sisters,
have consistently deposed that there was a persistent demand for
dowry soon after the marriage, and the harassment continued
until she took the drastic step of ending her life. While relying on
the statements of the witnesses and drawing the Court's attention
to them, it was submitted that Sohan Singh, the brother of the
deceased, had visited the matrimonial home of Sushila Kanwar
shortly before her death and had witnessed that she was being
treated with cruelty. She was not even being given food and had
informed him that her in-laws were harassing her for dowry,
including demands for cash and other articles.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents
supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record,
has rightly acquitted all the accused-respondents, which requires
no interference by this Court. While elaborating her arguments,
the learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
the prosecution story is not supported with reliable evidence. The
deceased Sushila Kanwar died after consuming poison and
hanging herself. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The
medical evidence does not indicate any injury marks on the body
of the deceased or any sign of injuries. The dowry demand was
not proved and that too just before her death. The main reason
for committing suicide was the difference in life style which she
was enjoying at her maternal home and that of matrimonial home
The essential ingredients as required for constituting offence
under Section 304-B of IPC are missing. As a matter of fact,
deceased was not happy with her life as her mother was not
keeping well, married to illiterate person and was not getting basic
amenities at her matrimonial home and thereupon she decided to
end her life.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
7. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased Sushila
Kanwar was married in January, 1999 and the unfortunate incident
occurred on 21.08.2001. The record further indicates following
undisputed facts:-
(i) The deceased, Sushila Kanwar, was an educated girl, and her
father was an Honorary Captain with a strong financial
background.;
(ii) the accused-respondent No.3 Chandan Singh, husband of the
deceased Sushila Kanwar, was an illiterate person;
(iii) the mother of the deceased, Sushila Kanwar, was suffering
from a mental illness and, therefore, was kept inside a room.
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
Sushila Kanwar and her sister ensured that one of them always
remained at their parental home to take care of their mother; and
(iv) all the witnesses have stated that there was huge difference
between family status of Sushila Kanwar and that of Chandan
Singh.
8. A close scrutiny of the statements given by Guman Singh
(PW-16), the father of the deceased, shows that he categorically
stated in his cross-examination that there was no dowry demand
at the time of the marriage and that the accused-respondents
were more than happy with what was gifted at the time of the
marriage. It was also admitted by this witness that there is a
tradition in their community whereby, when the daughter-in-law is
sent to her parental house for delivery of the first child, she is sent
on an auspicious day and time. It is also noted that no doubt was
raised by the father of the deceased or any family member at the
time the postmortem was conducted or when the funeral
ceremony was performed against the accused-respondents being
in any manner involved in the unnatural death. This clearly
indicates that the statement was an afterthought.
9. In the statement given by Panney Singh (PW-8), who claims
to be the brother of the deceased by religion, it is stated that he
received a call from the deceased, Sushila Kanwar, during which
she conveyed that she was being harassed and might be killed.
While narrating this fact, this witness did not mention at what
time he received the call. If such a message was indeed conveyed
by the deceased, it raises the question as to why he waited until
around 11:00 p.m. to inform the father of the deceased. Another
fact to be noted from his statement is that the deceased, Sushila
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
Kanwar, took the drastic step of committing suicide not because of
dowry, but because she was unhappy with her life due to the huge
difference in the living standards of both families. This
contradiction in the statement, along with the reason provided for
her death, creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of this
witness's statement. The statement of this witness does not
appear to be trustworthy, as, despite claiming to be the brother of
the deceased, he did not attend the funeral ceremony.
10. Sohan Singh (PW-17), the brother of the deceased, stated
that when he went to the matrimonial house of his sister, Sushila
Kanwar, to bring her to the parental house, he was badly treated
by the in-laws of the deceased. He was not even offered food. He
further stated that when he was sitting with his sister under the
fan, the in-laws of his sister came into the room and switched off
the fan, saying that if they wanted to enjoy the facility of the fan,
they should get the same from their father.
11. Though it is stated by the prosecution witnesses, PW-10,
PW-12 and PW-16, that there was a consistent dowry demand by
the accused-respondents, no specific incident was highlighted with
a specific date and place that could prove the fact of the dowry
demand soon before the death. A common incident, which
occurred when Sohan Singh visited the matrimonial house of
Sushila Kanwar, was narrated by all the witnesses. They alleged
that Sushila Kanwar and her brother were not even allowed to use
the electric fan and were told to demand an electric fan from her
father. It is also noted that Sushila Kanwar was not allowed to use
the telephone, and whenever she attempted to use it, the
accused-respondents demanded that if she wanted to use the
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
telephone, she should ask her father to provide another one. Such
minor instances of not being permitted to use the telephone or
electric fan were not considered by the trial court as incidents of
dowry demand.
12. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order,
framed two specific issues: (i) whether, on the intervening night of
21/22.08.2001, the accused persons, with a common object and
intention, strangled the deceased, Sushila Kanwar, and killed her;
and (ii) whether, on account of cruelty, harassment, and
continuous demands, the deceased, Sushila Kanwar, was
instigated to commit suicide?
12.1 So far as issue No.1 is concerned, it would be apposite to
examine the testimony of Dr. Ganpat Singh (PW-9), who
conducted the postmortem, stated that there was evidence of
poisonous substance intake and ligature marks around the neck,
which indicate that after consuming the poisonous substance,
Sushila Kanwar committed suicide by hanging herself. He further
deposed that there were no injuries found on her body or any
marks that could indicate she had struggled at the time of her
death. According to the FSL Report (Ex.P/15), an insecticide,
namely Organo Phosphorous, was found in the liver and kidney of
the deceased. He further noted that, upon analyzing the face of
the deceased, it gave the impression that she died due to
asphyxia from a lack of oxygen supply. No insecticide was found
on her body or clothes, which could indicate that the substance
was forcibly administered.
12.2 Moreso, it was recorded by the learned trial Court that during
arguments, the prosecution accepted that, based on the evidence
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
available on record, it is not established that the deceased, Sushila
Kanwar, was strangled by the accused persons. Furthermore, even
from the perusal of the evidence, as submitted by the prosecution,
it does not indicate that the deceased, Sushila Kanwar, was
murdered. In view of this, the learned trial court decided this issue
against the prosecution.
12.3 In view of the above testimony by the doctor, it is clear that
it was a case of suicide and not a forceful administration of poison
at the behest of the accused-respondents, which would support an
allegation under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the accused
persons.
12.4 As far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the learned trial court
made an extensive and detailed discussion. After considering the
entire evidence available on record, it concluded that the
prosecution had failed to make out a case under the provisions of
Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC against the accused-
respondents.
12.5 In order to examine the correctness of the findings given by
the learned trial court, it would be appropriate to revisit the
statements of witnesses Om Kanwar (PW-10) and Tina Kanwar
(PW-12).
12.6 Om Kanwar (PW-10) clearly deposed that when Sohan Singh
(brother of the deceased) went to the matrimonial home of
Sushila Kanwar (deceased), her in-laws were opposed to sending
her to her parental home except for her father-in-law, who stated
that Sushila Kanwar would be sent to her parental home on an
auspicious day ("kqHk eqgqrZ), as she was due to deliver her first child.
It is important to note that Om Kanwar narrated these incidents
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
based on the information she received from her brother, Sohan
Singh.
➢ In her cross-examination, she stated that there was no
electricity connection in the matrimonial home of Sushila Kanwar,
and that, in its absence, fans and electrical appliances were
operated through an illegal power connection. She admitted that,
on the day Sohan Singh visited the matrimonial home, the only
issue was whether Sushila Kanwar should accompany her brother
immediately or be sent later on an auspicious day.
➢ It is also worth noting that, during her cross-examination,
she stated that she had last met Sushila Kanwar about 1 to 1½
months prior, despite living only 2-3 kilometers away. She
admitted that she had not witnessed any fights or untoward
incidents involving Sushila Kanwar in her presence. She also
clearly stated that, due to their mother's ill health, she and Sushila
Kanwar used to alternatively staying at their parental home.
➢ A complete reading of this witness's statement indicates a
few facts; (i) the living conditions at Sushila Kanwar's matrimonial
home were not satisfactory, as there was no basic amenities such
as electricity connection; (ii) the last reported disagreement was
whether Sushila Kanwar should be sent to her parental home
immediately or on an auspicious day, as she was about to deliver
her first child; and (iii) due to their mother's ill health, Sushila
Kanwar and Om Kanwar took turns visiting their parental home.
➢ These facts do not suggest that the drastic step taken by
Sushila Kanwar on the fateful day was due to cruelty or
harassment shortly before her death.
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
12.7 Tina Kanwar (PW-12), the real sister of the deceased Sushila
Kanwar, was 10 years old when her statement was recorded,
stated that an alternative arrangement had been made between
the deceased Sushila Kanwar and Om Kanwar to take care of their
mother. In cross-examination, she fairly conceded that she was
unaware of any dispute between Sushila Kanwar's in-laws and her
parents whenever they visited her home. She also stated that she
did not know whether her father or his brother had any dispute
with Sushila Kanwar's in-laws.
➢ She mentioned that Sushila Kanwar used to call once or
twice a week, and sometimes even two to three times a day.
Furthermore, she stated that when her sister visited their parental
home, she did not observe any injury marks or signs of physical
abuse on her body. However, about one to one and a half months
prior, during a telephonic conversation with Sushila Kanwar, it was
felt that some kind of dispute had arisen.
➢ It is noteworthy that she stated her father had not visited
Sushila Kanwar's matrimonial home after receiving call from
Panney Singh and had only spoken with Sushila Kanwar over the
phone. She also mentioned that her brother, Sohan Singh, had
informed the family that Sushila Kanwar would be sent to her
parental home on an auspicious day.
➢ She stated the following facts:
(i) The last telephonic call to her was approximately one and a
half months ago;
(ii) Both her sisters used to visit the parental home alternately;
(iii) Sushila Kanwar maintained regular telephonic contact;
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
(iv) Whenever Sushila Kanwar visited the parental home, there
were no visible injury marks or signs of abuse on her body;
(v) After visiting Sushila Kanwar's matrimonial home, Sohan
Singh informed the family that she would be sent to her
parental home on an auspicious day; and
(vi) The relationship between both families was never severed.
12.8 The statement of Tina Kanwar (PW-12) also do not indicate
that there was any cruelty or harassment towards the deceased
Sushila Kanwar by her in-law nor does it indicate that there was
dowry demand and what all is highlighted was that she was not
allowed to sit under fan or there was some dispute with regard to
the date when she was to be sent to her parental home.
13. In view of the discussion made above, the prosecution has
utterly failed to prove that there was any cruelty or harassment
soon before death or there was consistent dowry demand, which is
the pre-requisite to bring the accused in the four-corners of the
offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC as has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent rendition in the case of
Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal
No.1076/2014, decided on 29.01.2025], wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that if the four ingredients of Section 304-B of
IPC 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. The following are the
essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC:-
"(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;
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
(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."
14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka : (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No.985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as under:-
Mallappa & Ors (supra):
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error
of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoundar and Ors(supra):
"38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C. as follows:
'8.1 The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2 The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3 The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of
the evidence on record;
8.4 If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and
8.5 The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible.
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles :
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are
possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on record."
15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondents under Sections 302/34, 304-B/34 and 498-A/34 of
IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because
as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that
the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate
Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of
law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case,
the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment
had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with
examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and
thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error
of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in
the instant appeal.
16. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the
acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited,
and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court
demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a
contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and
thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the
aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit
case warranting any interference by this Court.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the
accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount,
before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a
period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of
Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave,
the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called
upon to do so.
[2025:RJ-JD:23797-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLA-521/2003]
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
