Mool Chand And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan

MOOL CHAND AND ANR. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2005

O R D E R

Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 2005

Mr. Calla, learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant states that the apepllant has

already undergone the sentence awarded to him and he has

since been released, he does not press this appeal.

This Appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.

Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2005

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 2

1. Appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the deceased Premlata. They alongwith the husband of

the deceased namely Virendra Kumar and their daughter

Alka were put on trial for the offences under Sections

302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial

court by its judgment dated 7th February, 2001, acquitted

the appellants and their daughter of all the charges

levelled against them. However, the husband Virendra

Kumar was found guilty of offence under Sections 304B

and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The State of

Rajasthan aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants

and Alka preferred an appeal before the High Court.

Virendra Kumar, aggrieved by his conviction had also

preferred an apepal. Both the apepals were heard

together by the High Court and disposed of by a common

judgment. The appeal preferred by the State against the

acquittal of the appellants and Alka was partly allowed.

The High Court maintained the acquittal of Alka but set

aside the order of acquittal of the appellants and

convicted them for offences under Section 304B and 498A

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years

respectively besides the fine.

2. Appellants, aggrieved by the same have preferred

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 3

this appeal.

3. The prosecution commenced on the basis of a report

given by the father of the deceased P.W. 1 Ramesh

Chander on 16.7.1998 alleging therein that his daughter

Premlata was married to accused Virendra Kumar about

four years ago. He received an information on phone

from the co-accused Alka (since acquitted) that the

deceased, his daughter - Premlata, had committed suicide

by hanging herself. According to the report, after ten

minutes of the aforesaid telephonic conversation, he

received another telephone call from the appellant

Sunita, mother-in-law asking him to come immediately to

take the dead body of his daughter. On the telephonic

communication the informant Ramesh Chand along with his

other family members and friends reached at the

matrimonial home of their daughter and found the dead

body hanging with a sari. It has been alleged by the

father of the deceased that the accused persons had

hanged his daughter and further that the appellants were

regularly making demands for dowry and due to the

harrassment meted out to the her, she committed suicide.

4. The trial court on perusal of the evidence came to

the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 4

these appellants harassed the deceased for demand of

dowry soon before the death and, accordingly, acquitted

these appellants. In this connection, the trial court

observed as follows:

"There is no evidence of the prosecution side to prove the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In Ex. P-1 there is no such evidence that the deceased was used to be harassed or distressed or used to be taunted or subjected to cruel behaviour and nor in the police statement, there is any such statement. Even to the extent that in the statement recorded before the court, it has not been revealed that as to what illtreatment or cruelty was subjected with the deceased Smt. Premlata by her in-laws for dowry demand."

5. The High Court, however, in appeal without

assigning any reason came to the conclusion that the

finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is not

based on correct appreciation of evidence. We have been

taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

and from that it cannot be inferred that these

appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty in

connection with the demand of dowry soon before the

death.

6. In our opinion, the trial court while giving the

appellants benefit of doubt assigned good and cogent

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 5

reasons and in any view of the matter the conclusion

arrived by it was one of the possible conclusion. That

being the position, the High Court erred in reversing

the judgment of acquittal to that of conviction.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The

appellants are on bail. They are discharged of their

bail bonds.

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 29, 2011.