1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:ORDER:
1. D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No584/2009.
(Kumbha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others)
2. D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal Appln. No.294/2009.
(State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwara Ram & Others)
DATE OF ORDER : February 03, 2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
_________________________________________
Mr. Dhirendra Singh for the petitioner.
Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for the State.
BY THE COURT :
State has preferred leave to appeal
application, whereby, the State has sought to
challenge the judgment dated 24.03.2009 passed
by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra
(Headquarters Barmer) in Sessions Case No.71/08
(46/08), whereby, accused-respondents were
acquitted from the charge for commission of
offences under Sections 498 A, 304 B/alternatively
302, I.P.C. Another revision petition has been filed
by the complainant against the same judgment.
2
Hence, this common order in both these cases.
It is contended by the learned Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel
for the complainant that the judgment impugned is
totally erroneous and passed without application of
mind. The prosecution proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt for committing offences under
Sections 498 A and 304 Part B, I.P.C. but the
learned trial Court without appreciating the
prosecution evidence acquitted the accused-
respondents from the charges levelled against them
which is contrary to the basic principles of law. It
is argued that ample evidence was produced before
the Court to prove the allegations of demand of
dowry and, admittedly, deceased was married to
accused Bhanwara Ram on 27.05.2007 and she
died within seven years of marriage, therefore,
upon this reason alone, presumption was to be
drawn for convicting the accused-respondents for
offences under Sections 304 Pt B and 498A, I.P.C.
but the learned trial Court erroneously gave finding
that there is no evidence on record to convict the
3
accused-respondents for commission of the alleged
offences.
Learned counsel for the complainant invited
our attention towards one of the facts that
judgment was delivered by the trial Court on
24.03.2009 and FSL report was received after the
judgment was rendered in the case and in the FSL
report it was observed that poison was found in the
stomach of the deceased but the said document
was not on record on the date of the judgment,
therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed
and case may be remitted to the trial Court for re-
considering the matter afresh while taking into
consideration the FSL report which is said to be
received after the judgment and was not brought to
the notice of the trial Court when the judgment was
delivered in the case. Learned counsel for the
revisionist vehemently argued that the FSL report
was to be considered at the time of deciding the
case by the trial Court.
We have considered the submissions made by
learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel
4
for the complainant and perused the judgment
impugned alongwith application for leave to appeal
and revision petition.
After perusing the judgment, we are of the
opinion that the learned trial Court after considering
the entire material on record gave the finding that
prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the
death of the deceased, there was any demand of
dowry, so also, no injury was found upon the body
of deceased Kamla and cause of death was also not
ascertained. In whole of the discussion, it has
been categorically found by the learned trial Court
that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt because no injury was found upon
the body of the deceased. Further, the prosecution
case with regard to demand of dowry soon before
the occurrence has also not been proved by the
prosecution, therefore, the finding arrived at by the
learned trial Court does not require any
interference.
With regard to argument of learned counsel
for the appellant/petitioner for remanding the case
5
to the trial Court for re-consideration on the ground
that FSL report was received after the judgment
was delivered, we are of the opinion that at this
stage after perusal of the FSL report, we do not find
sufficient cause made out to remit the case for
retrial because upon perusal of the FSL report also
there is still doubt what was the cause of death. In
this view of the matter, in our opinion, the
judgment impugned does not suffer from any
perversity or illegality and the finding arrived at by
the learned trial Court does not require any
interference.
Consequently, both, criminal leave to appeal
application as well as revision petition are hereby
dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. (A.M. Kapadia) J.
Ojha, a.