Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P vs Bhajan Lal S/O Jaggo @ Jagdish on 5 July, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 421/2018
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P., Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhajan Lal S/o Jaggo @ Jagdish, B/c Bhadbhooja Risiding
At Khoh, Police Station Khoh, Tehsil Deeg, Distt.
Bharatpur Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Premwati W/o Jaggo @ Jagdish, B/c Bhadbhooja
Risiding At Khoh, Police Station Khoh, Tehsil Deeg, Distt.
Bharatpur Rajasthan.
3. Rajaram S/o Jaggo @ Jagdish, B/c Bhadbhooja Risiding At
Khoh, Police Station Khoh, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur
Rajasthan.
4. Hari Singh @ Kalua S/o Jaggo @ Jagdish, B/c Bhadbhooja
Risiding At Khoh, Police Station Khoh, Tehsil Deeg, Distt.
Bharatpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 05/07/2019 Respondents had faced trial qua offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B & 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') in FIR No. 393 dated 24.11.2014 registered at Police Station Women Cell, District Bharatpur.
Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 20.11.2017 has ordered the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section 498-A I.P.C. and has acquitted the respondents qua (Downloaded on 11/07/2019 at 10:52:07 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLLA-421/2018] charges framed against them under Section 304-B, 201 I.P.C. by giving them benefit of doubt. Hence, the present appeal by the State.
We have heard learned state counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Prosecution story in brief is that Gora (since deceased) was married to Bhajan Lal on 21.04.2008. However, after her marriage, Gora was being harassed on account of demand of dowry by her in-laws family. Demand of Rupees fifty thousand in cash and a motor-cycle was being raised from Gora. Since, the said demand could not be met, Gora was given beatings by her in- laws family. On 09.11.2014, complainant came to know that his daughter had been murdered by the appellants about three days earlier.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered.
"Section 304-B I.P.C. reads as under:-
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 purpose 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.] Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-
Presumption as to dowry death.--(Downloaded on 11/07/2019 at 10:52:07 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLLA-421/2018] 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 has 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 purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)."
Thus, in order to constitute an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., a death of a woman must have been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances and should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relative of her husband and such cruelty must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
Thus, in order to establish a dowry death would it be necessary to establish that the woman has died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. However, in the present case, there is no postmortem examination report to establish that Gora had died an unnatural death. In these circumstances, learned Trial Court rightly held that respondents were liable to be acquitted qua offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:-
(Downloaded on 11/07/2019 at 10:52:07 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLLA-421/2018] "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out.
Dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (SABINA),J
Mohita /16
(Downloaded on 11/07/2019 at 10:52:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)