Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Trilok Singh And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:25213) on 15 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:25213]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 248/1995
1. Trilok Singh S/o Madho Singh ( Since Deceased)
2. Balwant Singh S/o Trilok Singh
3. Darshan Singh S/o Trilok Singh (Since Deceased)
Residents of 26 KYD, P.S. Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathor, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
15/05/2025
1. By way of filing this instant appeal, the appellants have
assailed the judgment and order dated 27.05.1995 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in
Sessions Case No. 17/94, whereby they were convicted for
offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 304/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years' simple
imprisonment on the first count and seven years'
imprisonment on the second count, with both sentences
directed to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, it has been
officially verified by the learned Public Prosecutor that
Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have expired. In light of this, the
appeal, to the extent it pertains to Appellant Nos. 1 and 3,
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (2 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
stands abated and is accordingly disposed of as infructuous
qua them.
3. Breifly stated facts of the case are that in Sessions Case No.
17/94, based on FIR No. 66/94 registered at Police Station
Khajuwala, Bikaner, the accused Trilok Singh, his sons
Darshan Singh and Balwant Singh were charged under
Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC for subjecting Balwant
Singh's wife, Sunita (daughter of Joga Singh), to cruelty in
connection with dowry. Soon after this alleged cruelty, Sunita
died under suspicious circumstances on 10.05.1994 at the
accused's residence in village 26 K.Y.D. The accused claimed
that Sunita died by suicide, either by consuming poison or
due to pesticide inhalation. However, their versions were
inconsistent and shifted over time, especially as different
defense lawyers appeared. The prosecution examined 14
witnesses and produced 37 documents. Despite the hostile
stance of key witnesses like Joga Singh and his wife Jaspal
Kaur (Sunita's stepfather and mother), other credible
witnesses corroborated the allegations of dowry-related
cruelty. The court noted the alarming rate of dowry deaths in
the Bikaner district and the rarity of convictions, emphasizing
the need for courts to evaluate such cases with a nuanced
understanding of circumstantial and indirect evidence.
Applying the presumptions under Sections 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC, the trial court
concluded that the accused were guilty of causing Sunita's
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (3 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
dowry death within seven years of marriage following
persistent cruelty.
4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
5. It is evident from the record that prosecution witnesses PW-
1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 were declared hostile, and their
testimonies do not support the prosecution's case.
Specifically, PW-4's statement is wholly exculpatory in nature
and does not in any manner establish or substantiate the
charge against the surviving appellant Balwant Singh.
Rather, the witness has categorically denied any demand for
dowry or cruelty, and has attributed the death of the
deceased to a medical condition triggered by pesticide
exposure, thus ruling out any culpability on the part of the
accused.
6. PW-5 and PW-6 were also declared hostile and did not
support the prosecution's case. PW-5 stated that the
deceased suffered a seizure due to pesticide spray and
denied having ever witnessed any harassment or dowry
demand by the accused. PW-6 similarly deposed that the
deceased had a history of seizures, received no
mistreatment from the accused, and confirmed her death
was due to a seizure caused by pesticide exposure. Their
statements clearly negate the prosecution's allegations of
cruelty or dowry demands. PW-7, the formal witness
regarding seizure and storage of chemical evidence, merely
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (4 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
proved procedural aspects of handling the seized spray bottle
and did not contribute towards proving the charge against
the accused
7. PW-8 Heera Singh, a neighbour of the complainant
Jogasingh, has broadly supported the factum of a panchayat
being convened at the instance of Jogasingh, in which the
deceased Sunita allegedly disclosed instances of harassment
and dowry demands by her in-laws. However, upon critical
scrutiny, it becomes evident that the witness's deposition
lacks specificity or any direct imputation against the present
surviving appellant Balwant Singh. PW-8 does not attribute
any overt act or statement to Balwant Singh indicating
cruelty, harassment, or demand for dowry. On the contrary,
his narration of the panchayat proceedings shows that
Balwant Singh, along with others, merely gave assurance of
non-repetition of alleged misbehaviour and took the
deceased back with them. There is no reference to Balwant
Singh having made any demand or threat, nor is there any
assertion of him having played a dominant or instigating
role. The role of the surviving appellant, Balwant Singh, thus
appears to be more in the nature of a passive participant or
a mediator, rather than a perpetrator of the alleged cruelty.
The overall tenor of PW-8's testimony does not disclose any
material indicating specific culpability of Balwant Singh under
the alleged offences. Hence, in absence of direct
incriminating evidence, the testimony of PW-8 does not
advance the prosecution case qua the present appellant.
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (5 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
8. PW-9 Gurudev Singh, who identifies himself as the uncle of
the deceased Sunita and brother of Jogasingh, has testified
regarding the circumstances surrounding Sunita's marriage
to the appellant Balwant Singh and the subsequent demands
for dowry. According to PW-9, after the marriage, Balwant
Singh demanded a motorcycle, a gold bracelet (kada), and a
ring. He also confirms that a panchayat was held
approximately six months after the marriage to address
disputes between Sunita and her in-laws over dowry. The
panchayat members included several persons such as
Gurdeep Singh, Heera Singh, and others, and it was agreed
that no further harassment would take place. However,
critically examining the testimony of PW-9 reveals that,
despite his close familial relationship and knowledge of the
alleged demands and disputes, there is no specific or direct
evidence brought out against the surviving appellant Balwant
Singh regarding any act of cruelty or harassment beyond the
mention of dowry demands. There is no indication that
Balwant Singh engaged in any overt acts of ill-treatment or
violence towards the deceased in this witness's deposition.
Furthermore, PW-9 does not provide any corroborative
evidence about Balwant Singh's conduct post-panchayat or
any direct involvement in the circumstances leading to
Sunita's death. His testimony, while relevant to establishing
a backdrop of dowry-related issues, does not directly
implicate Balwant Singh in any punishable offence.
Therefore, similar to PW-8, the role of the surviving
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (6 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
appellant Balwant Singh, as per PW-9's evidence, appears to
be limited to the mention of dowry demands, with no
concrete evidence pointing to cruelty or culpable actions by
him. The testimony falls short of establishing Balwant Singh's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
9. PW-12 Gejo Bai deposes regarding the circumstances around
the deceased Sunita and the appellant Balwant Singh. She
confirms that Sunita, her niece, was harassed and beaten by
her in-laws over dowry demands, including a motorcycle and
gold ornaments. Gejo Bai narrates the incident when Sunita
was taken back to her in-laws' house in the evening with
folded hands, but later did not return alive. She states that
when she and family members went to see Sunita at her in-
laws' place, they found her lying dead on a cot with foam
coming from her mouth. Sunita's mother-in-law told them
she had a seizure. She also testifies that Sunita had confided
in her once about the demands for dowry items, but there is
no specific instance of sustained cruelty mentioned.
Importantly, PW-12's evidence does not establish any overt
acts of cruelty, physical or mental harassment, or assault by
the accused after the marriage other than the initial demand
for dowry. The seizure explanation by the mother-in-law and
absence of other direct proof weakens the prosecution's
claim for offences under Section 304B IPC (dowry death).
Hence, on a careful reading, the ingredients required to
attract Section 304B IPC -- i.e., death caused by harassment
or cruelty over dowry -- are not sufficiently made out from
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (7 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
PW-12's testimony alone or in conjunction with other
evidence.
10. PW-13 Jaspal Kaur is the biological mother of deceased
Sunita and Neeta. She states on oath that both daughters
were married to Balwant Singh (surviving appellant) and
Jaswant Singh (since deceased), sons of Trilok Singh. She
confirms that the marriages were solemnised approximately
14-15 months prior to Sunita's death.
However, PW-13 turned hostile during her deposition. She
clearly stated:
• She does not know the circumstances under which Sunita
died.
• The police never recorded her statement nor interrogated
her.
• She gave dowry according to her means.
• When confronted with her police statement (Ex. P-26 Part
A), she denied having made any such statement to the
police.
Most importantly, she expressly denied that Sunita ever
informed her of any harassment or cruelty by her in-laws, or
that there was any demand for dowry.
• She repeatedly maintained that Sunita was living happily in
her matrimonial home, and any minor disputes with husband
or in-laws were not related to dowry.
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (8 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
• In cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, her testimony
remained non-incriminating and exculpatory toward the
accused. She categorically denied the essentials required to
invoke Section 304B IPC. Therefore, her evidence, as the
natural and primary witness (mother of the deceased), does
not support the prosecution case. Rather, her hostile turn
and denial of cruelty or dowry demand seriously dents the
prosecution's version. Hence, the ingredients of Section
304B IPC -- dowry demand and cruelty soon before death --
are not made out from the testimony of PW-13.
11. It is pertinent to note that the term "dowry" has not
been defined in the Indian Penal Code. For its legal
connotation, reference must be made to Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which defines "dowry" to mean
any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the
other, or by the parents or any other person to either party,
at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection
with the marriage of the said parties. The definition explicitly
excludes dower or mahr as applicable under Muslim Personal
Law.
12. A cursory yet purposeful examination of the statutory
definition reveals that dowry is inextricably linked to the
institution of marriage, and its demand or transfer may occur
in three distinct phases: prior to, at the time of, or
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (9 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
subsequent to the marriage, provided it is in connection with
the marriage.
13. In legal parlance, for any demand or transaction to
qualify as "dowry," there must be a discernible nexus with
the solemnization of marriage, whereby such transfer of
property or valuable security is a condition or consideration
for the marriage taking place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Satvir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR
2001 SC 2828, laid down the tripartite test for invoking the
presumption of guilt under Section 304-B IPC, namely:
(a) That the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment;
(b) That such cruelty or harassment was in connection with a
demand for dowry; and
(c) That such cruelty or harassment occurred "soon before
her death.
14. It is only upon the successful establishment of these
foundational facts that the statutory presumption under
Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be
invoked against the accused.
15. In the present case, however, upon a holistic
appreciation of the evidence adduced, it becomes manifest
that these essential ingredients remain unsubstantiated.
Notably, PW-13 Jaspal Kaur, the mother of the deceased and
a natural witness, turned hostile and unequivocally deposed
that her daughter Sunita never complained of any dowry-
related cruelty. She further asserted that the deceased was
[2025:RJ-JD:25213] (10 of 10) [CRLA-248/1995]
living 'raajikhushi' at her matrimonial home and categorically
denied any dowry demand by the accused persons. Other
prosecution witnesses also failed to attribute specific or
proximate acts of dowry-related harassment to the accused,
particularly to appellant No. 2 Balwant Singh.
16. In the absence of any credible, cogent, and consistent
evidence regarding cruelty qua dowry demand inflicted upon
the deceased soon before her unnatural death, the
mandatory legal requirements to attract Section 304-B IPC
remain unfulfilled. The presumption under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act, therefore, cannot be pressed into
service in the prosecution's favour.
17. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court
are set aside.
18. In view of the above:
• Appellant No. 2, Balwant Singh, is acquitted of all charges.
He is on bail, he need not to surrender back. His bail bonds
are discharged hereby.
• As regards appellant Nos. 1 and 3, who are reported to have
died during the pendency of appeal, the appeal against them
is deemed to have abated.
• Disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
19-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
