Dismissed

State v. Mahendra Kumar and Anr.

Rajasthan HC24 May 2017CRLA/144/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Leave Petition challenging the acquittal of an appellant for dowry-related offences was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court did not commit any illegality, as there was no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offences under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the acquittal of the accused under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC is dismissed. The appeal against the respondent No. 2 is dismissed as abated.

State Vs Mahendra Kumar and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144 / 1989

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Mahendra Kumar son of Ram Kumar by caste Gupta

¶7

Smt. Kaushaliya Devi wife of Ram Kumar by caste Gupta All the resident of Quarter No.131 Labour Colony, Police Station Purani Abadi Gangangar, District Ganganagar

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr O.P.Rathi- P.P.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr S.G.Ojha

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶12

24/05/2017

¶13

This criminal appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.01.1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.63/1987, whereby it has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, convicted the accused-respondent No.2 Kaushalya Devi for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC and sentenced her for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month’s rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

As per the report of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Purani Abadi dated 24.05.2017, produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, respondent No.2 – Kaushalya Devi is reportedly

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

CRLA-144/1989]

¶17

died around 10-12 years ago while residing at Bhiwani, Haryana.

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that he is not aware about the whereabouts of respondent No.2 as she is not in contact with him after suspension of her sentence by this Court in the year 1989.

¶19

In view of the report dated 24.05.2017 submitted by the Station House Officer, the appeal preferred by the State against the respondent No.2 is dismissed as abated.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. It is argued that from the statements of PW.1 Shyam Sunder, PW.3 Tara Devi and PW.7 Roshan Lal the charges against the accused-respondent No.1 Mahendra Kumar for the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC are fully proved, however, the trial court without appreciating the said piece of evidence in right perspective has acquitted him from the aforesaid offences illegally. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accusedrespondent No.1 be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and be adequately punished.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that the trial court has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused-respondent in defence in detail and has given a finding to the effect that there is no iota of evidence

¶22

(3 of 5)

¶23

[CRLA-144/1989]

¶24

available on record to suggest that the wife of the accusedrespondent No.1 Usha Gupta was tortured for dowry by the accused-respondent No.1 just prior to her death. It is also submitted that on the other hand the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on behalf of the accused-respondent clearly demonstrate that the relation between the deceased and the respondent No.1 were very cordial and both of them were in deep love. It is submitted further that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC while holding that wife of the accused-respondent has died on account of ill-treatment given by her mother-in-law. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.1 has, therefore, prayed that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the appeal being devoid of any force be dismissed.

¶25

Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and carefully scrutinized the record.

¶26

PW.1 Shyam Sunder, in his complaint, police statement and court statement, has levelled allegations against accusedrespondent No.1 that he along with his mother Kaushalya Devi had demanded dowry just before the death of the deceased. PW.3 Tara Devi and PW.7 Roshan Lal have also levelled similar allegations against the accused-respondent.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased Usha Gupta and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 08.10.1986 and Usha Gupta died on 02.09.1987 due to burn injuries at

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[CRLA-144/1989]

¶30

hospital. Evidence of this effect is available on record that the accused-respondent had tried to save Usha Gupta when she was burning and in that process he also received burn injuries. The allegation of demand of dowry by the accused-respondent NO.1 is not corroborated by any independent witness. PW.1 Shyam Sunder and PW.3 Tara Devi are the parents of the deceased, whereas PW.7 Roshan Lal is their near relative. The accusedrespondent in his defence has produced oral evidence of the defence witnesses, who are the neighbours and all the said defence witnesses in unequivocal terms deposed before the trial court that the relation between the accused-respondent and the deceased were very cordial, they were in deep love with each other.

¶31

Apart from that certain letters written by the deceased herself are also produced in defence. All those letters were written in the year 1987 and the last was of August, 1987 i.e. less than a month before the death of the deceased. Those letters were written to the accused-respondent No.1, his mother and sister. In all those letters, the deceased expressed her deep love with accused-respondent No.1 and there is no complaint about the behaviour of the accused-respondent in the said letters. Some of the letters written by the accused-respondent No.1 have also been produced in defence and from those letters also, it is clear that the accused-respondent No.1 was in deep love with the deceased and the relation between them were very cordial.

¶32

It is also to be noticed that some of the letters written

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

[CRLA-144/1989]

¶35

by PW.1 Shyam Sunder to his daughter Usha Gupta have also been produced in defence and in those letters PW.1 did not complaint anything about the alleged ill-treatment given to his daughter by accused-respondent No.1. All the letters produced in defence are of the year 1987 and the last of August, 1987.

¶36

The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the defence has given specific finding that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the accused-respondent No.1 has ever demanded dowry from the father of the deceased or ill treated the deceased for the purpose of dowry. After holding this, the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

¶37

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent No.1 and after scrutinizing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent No.1 from the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC as there is no evidence available on record to connect him with the commission of offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

¶38

Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶40

m.asif/PS

State v. Mahendra Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Mahendra Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohanlal Vs State and Ors.

Pancha Ram Vs UOI

Roop Kanwar and Ors. Vs Bhawani Singh and Ors.

State Vs Dr.Sumitra Choudhary

Preetam Singh @ Titu @ Raju Vs State

Bachu Khan and Ors. Vs State