[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 297U / 1999State vs Shyam Sunder And Ors ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20580]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 127/1999
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1.Shyam Sunder S/o Prakash Chandra
2. Mst. Krishna @ Mitho W/o Prakash Chandra
3. Nimmo W/o Ashok Kumar
4. Satpal S/o Prakash All R/o Bhatiwala Tehsil Vijaynagar
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sarita Bishnoi
Mr. Mrinal Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
29/04/2026
1. The present appeal has been instituted by the State
assailing the judgment dated 07.10.1998 passed by the learned
Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Padampur District Sri
Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.327/1997, whereby the
accused-respondents came to be acquitted of the charges levelled
against them under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The record reflects that leave to appeal was granted to the
State at an earlier point of time, and pursuant thereto, the present
appeal has been taken up for final adjudication on merits.
3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that a complaint was filed on
27.05.1997 by the complainant-Urmila Devi before the competent
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:15:17 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20580] (2 of 5) [CRLA-127/1999]
Court alleging that her marriage with accused Shyam Sunder was
solemnized on 09.12.1990 at Gajsinghpur in accordance with
Hindu rites and customs. It was averred that at the time of
marriage, customary dowry articles including household goods,
ornaments of gold and silver, and other valuables were given by
her parents.
3.1. It was further alleged that after a brief period of matrimonial
harmony, the conduct of the accused persons underwent a
perceptible change, and the complainant was subjected to cruelty
coupled with persistent demands for additional dowry. The
prosecution story proceeds that she was allegedly beaten and
harassed on account of non-fulfilment of such demands, and
ultimately turned out of her matrimonial home in the year 1994.
Subsequent panchayats were convened, wherein demands of
₹50,000/- were allegedly reiterated. Upon failure to meet such
demands, she was not taken back, culminating in the filing of the
complaint, which was forwarded for investigation under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of a case under Sections
498-A and 406 IPC.
3.2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be
filed. Charges were framed against the accused-respondents, who
denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as
many as nine witnesses, while statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and one defence witness was
examined.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:15:17 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20580] (3 of 5) [CRLA-127/1999]
3.3. The learned trial Court, upon a comprehensive evaluation of
the oral and documentary evidence, returned a finding of
acquittal, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the
charges beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the instant appeal.
4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced and have meticulously re-examined the
record of the case.
4.1. At the outset, it is trite that an order of acquittal strengthens
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and unless
the findings recorded by the trial Court are demonstrably
perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly against the weight of
evidence, interference by the appellate Court would be wholly
unwarranted.
4.2. A careful scrutiny of the testimony of the complainant
reveals material contradictions and inherent inconsistencies which
go to the root of the prosecution case. While in her examination-
in-chief she asserts participation in the panchayat proceedings and
demand of dowry articles therein, in her cross-examination she
resiles from the said position and admits that she was not present
in the panchayat. Such vacillation on material particulars seriously
undermines her credibility.
4.3. Furthermore, the complainant has failed to specifically
attribute entrustment of stridhan to any particular accused, which
constitutes a foundational requirement for establishing an offence
under Section 406 IPC. The evidence remains conspicuously silent
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:15:17 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20580] (4 of 5) [CRLA-127/1999]
as to which accused was entrusted with which article and in what
manner such property was dishonestly misappropriated.
4.4. The testimonies of material prosecution witnesses, namely
Madan Lal and others, are found to be mutually contradictory on
crucial aspects, particularly regarding the alleged demand of
₹50,000/- and the proceedings of the panchayat. Their statements
do not inspire confidence and appear to be interested in nature,
thereby diminishing their evidentiary worth.
4.5. The independent witnesses cited by the prosecution have not
supported its case and have been declared hostile. Even upon
cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing substantial could
be elicited so as to fortify the prosecution narrative. The conduct
of the complainant, as emerging from the record, also casts a
shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story. It has come in
evidence that she returned to her parental home at a time when
her husband was not present, which probabilizes the defence
version and weakens the allegation of forcible expulsion.
4.6. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that no
identification of alleged stridhan articles was carried out by the
complainant, thereby creating a serious lacuna in the prosecution
case. The absence of cogent evidence regarding entrustment and
misappropriation is fatal to the charge under Section 406 IPC.
4.7. It is equally noteworthy that the prosecution case rests
substantially on testimonies of interested witnesses, unsupported
by reliable independent corroboration. The cumulative effect of
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:15:17 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20580] (5 of 5) [CRLA-127/1999]
contradictions, omissions, and lack of substantive evidence
renders the prosecution version doubtful.
4.8. The legal position is well settled that mere non-return of
property, in the absence of proof of dishonest misappropriation or
conversion, does not ipso facto constitute an offence of criminal
breach of trust.
4.9. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial Court has undertaken a
judicious and well-reasoned appreciation of evidence. The findings
recorded are neither perverse nor illegal, but are firmly rooted in
the evidence available on record. No compelling ground is made
out warranting interference with the impugned judgment of
acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and
legally sustainable view.
5. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the State, being
devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The
judgment of acquittal dated 07.10.1998 passed by the learned
trial Court is affirmed in toto. The accused-respondents stand
acquitted of all charges.
5.1. The record of the trial Court be remitted back forthwith along
with a copy of this judgment.
(FARJAND ALI),J
41-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 10:15:17 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
