[2025:RJ-JP:44852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 49/2007 Manohar Singh son of Shri Chatar Singh resident of village Sabalpur Dist. Nagaur ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Bhagwan Singh s/o Shri Ram Singh resident of Dang. P.S. Arai, Dist. Ajmer ----Accused-Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshat Khan for Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahni Mr. Ashir Gauri for Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka and Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner complainant aggrieved from judgment dated 12.12.2006 in sessions case No.12/2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer, Camp Kishangarh, Ajmer whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted from charge under Section 304B IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Petitioner Manohar Singh, has lodged a report, Exhibit P1, at P.S. Arai, Dist. Ajmer, that the marriage of his sister, Surugayan, was solemnized with Respondent No. 2, Bhagwan Singh, four years before, but after marriage, she was harassed for demand of dowry. The complainant made conciliation with Respondent No. 2 on multiple occasions, but yesterday he was informed that Surugayan had expired due to [2025:RJ-JP:44852] (2 of 6) [CRLR-49/2007] consumption of poison. On the basis of the report, FIR No. 09/2006, under Section 304B IPC, was registered at P.S. Arai, District Ajmer. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was filed against Respondent No. 2. After committal of the case, charge under Sections 498A and 304B IPC were framed against Respondent No. 2. 3. The prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. Respondent No. 2 was examined under Section 313 CrPC and he opted to submit defence evidence. In defence, Bhagwan Singh examined himself as a witness. After considering the evidence and arguments, the trial court acquitted Respondent No. 2 from the charge under Section 304B IPC but convicted him under Section 498A IPC. 4. Herein, we are only considering the order of acquittal from the charge under Section 304B IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner–complainant submits that the evidence on record clearly suggests that the charge of cruelty and harassment of the deceased is fully established against Respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is available on record to show that Respondent No. 2 demanded dowry from the petitioner and their family and on non-fulfilment, he committed cruelty with the deceased. He also submitted that the evidence on record cannot be discarded by the trial court. He also submitted that the demand of dowry is fully established from the evidence and the trial court has committed illegality and perversity by not relying upon the evidence available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:44852] (3 of 6) [CRLR-49/2007] 6. Aforesaid contention was opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and he submitted that instant revision petition is preferred against an order of acquittal and while considering the revision petition, this Hon’ble Court cannot substitute its opinion upon the conclusion drawn by the trial court. He also submitted that the offence under Section 304B IPC can only be proved if there exists evidence of demand of dowry soon before the death. He submitted that not a single iota of evidence is available on record to establish that there was demand of dowry soon before the death. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the entire record. The trial court has convicted Respondent No. 2 under Section 498A IPC, which means the trial court has found that Respondent No. 2 is guilty of committing cruelty and harassment to the deceased. In order to convict any person under Section 304B IPC, it is necessary to prove that a married woman dies within 7 years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and it must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. 8. Herein, the trial court has acquitted Respondent No. 2 from the charge under Section 304B IPC on the ground that cruelty or harassment was not in connection with demand of dowry. The only issue before us is to consider the evidence on record about the demand of dowry. 9. The legal position settled till date clearly indicates that “soon before” appearing in Section 304B IPC means existence of a [2025:RJ-JP:44852] (4 of 6) [CRLR-49/2007] proximate and live link between the death of the deceased, and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband. 10. In case of Parvati Devi Vs. of State of Bihar (2021) 9 SCR 711=2021 SCC Online SC 1285 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to destroy the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. It is the duty of the prosecution to demonstrate that the woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death then only the court shall proceed on a presumption that the person has subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry and caused dowry death within the meaning of Section 304B IPC. 11. The evidence on record clearly suggests that Respondent No. 2, Bhagwan, was working at Bangalore and around the time of her death, Bhagwan Singh had visited the village. The evidence recorded by the prosecution also suggests that no complaint on any previous occasion was made by anyone, about demand of dowry. The evidence also suggests that the sister of the deceased was also married in the same village with Mahindra Singh, but there is no evidence of any cruelty with her. 12. Herein the father of deceased and brothers of deceased were examined and we have considered their cross-examination. There is no specific evidence of demand or fulfillment of [2025:RJ-JP:44852] (5 of 6) [CRLR-49/2007] demand. The evidence suggest the difference between deceased and Bhagwan Singh but it does not relate to demand of dowry, therefore the essential ingredient as required to establish charge under Section 304B IPC is not established and the trial court has rightly considered the evidence while deciding the charge under Section 304B IPC. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka:(2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka:2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthend by the Trial Court. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh:AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan:1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra:1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra: (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat: (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka: (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana: (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered [2025:RJ-JP:44852] (6 of 6) [CRLR-49/2007] the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 15. 15. Herein this case, there is no live link or proximate link between demand of dowry or cruelty or harassment, therefore, essential ingredient under Section 304B IPC is not established and the trial court has rightly acquitted respondent No.2 from charge under Section 304B IPC. It is not possible for us to substitute the opinion expressed by the trial court. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court therefore revision petition sans merit and liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant petition filed aggrieved from order of acquittal dated 12.12.2006 from offence under Section 304B IPC is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 17. No order as to cost. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /24