[2025:RJ-JP:40948] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 976/2006 Mohammed Ayub Ansari son of Mohammed Rajab Ali, resident of Khanyabanda, Goner Road, Jaipur. (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor. 2. Saleem Khan alias Guddu son of Shri Hanif Khan, aged 27 years, Resident of D-30, Dev Vihar, Panchayat Vijaypura, Police Station Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. (Rajasthan). 3. Hanif Khan son of Shri Mobin Khan, aged 55 years, resident of Village Baktikalan, Tehsil Phalaudi, Distt. Jodhpur. (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/10/2025 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 16.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur whereby, the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B, 498-A, 120-B & 304-B/120-B of IPC. 2. As per story of the prosecution on 06.09.2005, one FIR was lodged by PW-1 Mohammed Ayub in Police Station Kanota that his daughter Sabnam was married to accused- Saleem Khan son of Shri Hanif Khan. Earlier also, they caused beatings on her, however, after settlements, he sent his daughter back to her in- law's place. On 03.09.2005, she came to meet her mother and [2025:RJ-JP:40948] (2 of 5) [CRLR-976/2006] was totally hale and hearty, not having any ailment whatsoever. However, on 05.09.2005 she has been killed by her in-laws. 3. On the basis of such FIR (Exh.P1), case under Section 304-B, 498-A & 120-B of IPC was registered against the accused- respondents, thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge- sheet was filed for the consideration of the Court, where charges under Section 498-A, 304-B, 120-B & 304-B/120-B were framed against the accused-respondents, who denied the charges and requested for trying the same. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of prosecution story and also exhibited documentary evidence. Thereafter, statements of accused- respondents under Section 313 were recorded and after hearing arguments of both the sides, learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents vide judgment dated 16.05.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the judgment dated 16.05.2006, learned trial Court has utterly failed to appreciate that under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution was simply required to prove that the death of the deceased has taken place in unnatural circumstances within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. In case, both these facts are established by the prosecution, then burden shifts upon the accused to prove that they were no innocent. In the instant case, as per the post-mortem report (Exh.P9), cause of death of the deceased Sabnam was asphyxiation, which cannot be said to be natural death and it was also not disputed that death of Sabnam took place within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage with accused- Saleem Khan. In order to prove post- mortem report (Exh.P9), both the doctors who conducted post- [2025:RJ-JP:40948] (3 of 5) [CRLR-976/2006] mortem were examined as PW-9 and PW-12, who also supported the fact of death of the deceased on account of asphyxiation. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that mother of the deceased (PW-2), in her statements had categorically stated that on 03.09.2005, when the deceased came to meet her, she complained that her in-laws were demanding Rs.50,000/-, failing which life threats were given to her. It is also submitted that all these evidences were sufficient to show that it was a clear cut case of unnatural death of deceased Sabnam, however, by wrongly appreciating the evidence on record, learned Court below has erroneously disbelieved upon the story of the prosecution and has wrongly acquitted the accused-persons. 5. On the basis of aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the revision petition by quashing judgment dated 16.05.2006 and to remand back the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and submitted that the learned trial Court has passed judgment dated 16.05.2006, after meticulously examining the statements of witnesses, material on record and on the basis of law prevailing at the relevant time. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. Although, it has come on record that death of the deceased Sabnam took place within seven years of her marriage, yet, establishment of only such fact is not sufficient to draw presumption of commission of offence under Section 304-B. For [2025:RJ-JP:40948] (4 of 5) [CRLR-976/2006] the purpose of establishing the offence under Section 304-B, the prosecution was required to prove that apart from the fact that the deceased has died within seven years from the date of her marriage, it was required to be proved that such death has taken place in unnatural circumstances, out of cruelty committed by her in-laws for demand of dowry. In addition to above, language of Section 304-B is quite clear and it is also required to be proved by the prosecution that the woman died on account of burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under natural circumstances. In the instant case, after perusing the statements given by doctors in PW-9 and PW-12, who conducted post-mortem, it becomes clear that there was no bodily or external injury over the person of the deceased. 9. Both the doctors have utterly failed to give any considered and final opinion with regard to cause of death. Post- mortem report (Exh.P9) also does not give any definite opinion with regard to cause of death and the definite opinion was reserved subject to FSL examination report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that FSL report was never exhibited before the learned trial Court. 10. So far as evidence with regard to demand of dowry is concerned, PW-1 who was father of the deceased and PW-2 who was mother of the deceased, both of them have not given any consistent statements for the purpose of proving any demand of dowry. Rather, it has been admitted by both of them at the time of marriage, that no dowry was either demanded or given by them in consideration of marriage of deceased with accused- Saleem Khan. Although, it was stated by PW-2 (mother of the deceased) [2025:RJ-JP:40948] (5 of 5) [CRLR-976/2006] that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- by in-laws of the deceased, yet, simultaneously she has also admitted that such Rs.50,000/- were earlier borrowed by them from the accused persons and therefore, such demand cannot be termed with regard to dowry rather, if any, such demand was there, that was only for repayment of the loan which was earlier taken by the parents of the deceased. 11. It also comes out from perusal of the record that PW-6 Kesanti, PW-7 Maya Devi, PW-8 Kalli, PW-10 Mukesh Kumar, PW- 13 Rafiq & PW-14 Hasia Begam were the independent witnesses, but they never supported the prosecution story and were declared hostile. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also utterly failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity or illegality in the judgment delivered by the trial Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and after examining the findings given by the learned Court below, I do not find any ignorance of material evidence or mis-appreciation thereof by the trial Court. No error or illegality has been committed by the trial Court to arrive at conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Hence, in view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with judgment dated 16.05.2006. The revision petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /4