VISHNU DUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. (now Sec. 415 (2) of BNSS) has been filed by the appellants against the order dtd. 6/7/2024 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:-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_1.jpg</IMG> Brief facts of the case are that on 4/4/2009, 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 4/4/2009 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 Rs.Muklava' happened on 13/3/2008 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 3/4/2009 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 Ss. 498-A and 306 of IPC and started investigation. After investigation, challan was filed for offence under Ss. 498-A and 304-B IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and 26 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellants under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and five documents were exhibited in defence. 4. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dtd. 6/7/2024 convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of IPC as mentioned above. 5. 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 13/3/2008, 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 498A and 304B IPC and same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. 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 accused-appellants by the Court below be maintained by this Court. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. PW-1 Vimla is the sister of deceased who during her examination, has not supported the prosecution version and stated in the following terms :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_2.jpg</IMG> PW-3-Lunaram, who is father of the deceased in his Court statement has deposted as under :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_3.jpg</IMG> PW-5-Rameti who is another sister of the deceased who has deposed in her Court statement as under :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_4.jpg</IMG> 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 :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_5.jpg</IMG> PW-9-Sultanram has also not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. It was stated by the PW-9 as under :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_6.jpg</IMG> 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 :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_7.jpg</IMG> 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. PW-14-Rameshwarlal who was an independent witness and has deposed in his Court statement as under :-- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(RAJ)2_2025_8.jpg</IMG> 10. 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 7/6/2010 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 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. 11. The relevant provisions regarding dowry death, cruelty and presumption, are reproduced herein below:--