[2025:RJ-JP:19764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 573/2007 1. Shambhu Prakash 2. Sitaram (Both sons of Rameshwar, resident of village Karwar police station Dei, Bundi (At present in District Jail, Bundi) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/04/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners Shambu and Sitaram aggrieved from judgment dated 29.05.2007 in criminal appeal No.43/1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.04.1999 in criminal case No.400/1993 passed by learned ACJM, Nainwa, Bundi whereby both the petitioners were convicted under Section 498A IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years each with fine of ₹500/-. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that an inquest report registered after death of Smt. Kamla and the matter was investigated by police and a charge-sheet under Sections 498A and 306 IPC was filed. [2025:RJ-JP:19764] (2 of 5) [CRLR-573/2007] He further submitted that when this matter was considered by learned Sessions Court then the petitioners were discharged from charge under Section 306 IPC but directed to face trial under Section 498A IPC. He further submitted that all independent witnesses examined by prosecution have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that PW-4 Bhagwati has deposed that mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased had demanded dowry of ₹10,000/-(ten thousand) from her. He submitted that according to PW-4, the deceased was harassed by mother-in-law and brother-in-law. He also referred statement of PW-5 and submitted that he is a hearsay witness and not enough to corroborate the allegations made against the petitioners. He further submitted that PW-7 Mathura Lal has named Sitaram, wife of Sitaram, husband Shambhu and father in law about demand of dowry but witness has not mentioned any single incident of harassment or cruelty. He further submitted that no evidence is available on record to fulfil the ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC. He further referred the findings of sessions court recorded while discharging the accused from charge under Section 306 IPC and submitted that when the evidence is not sufficient to charge petitioners for abetting the suicide then how a charge under Section 498A IPC is made out. He further referred discrepancies in evidence and submitted that the trial court and appellate court have committed serious error while convicting petitioners. At last, he submitted that in case conviction is affirmed then lenient approach be adopted against petitioners, who remained in custody for quite some time. [2025:RJ-JP:19764] (3 of 5) [CRLR-573/2007] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of information about felling of deceased in a well, an inquest report No.19/1989 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 13.06.1989. After inquiry, FIR No.108/1989 was registered at P.S. Dei, Dist. Bundi under Sections 498A, 306 IPC. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Shambu and Sitaram under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The matter was committed to learned Sessions Court on 13.07.1992 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi was of the view that charge under Section 306 IPC is not made out and both accused were discharged from charge under Section 306 IPC. The matter was remanded for charge under Section 498A IPC but after framing the charge under Section 498A IPC, 15 witnesses were examined by prosecution. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and one of them Sitaram has submitted DW-1 Sohan Lal as defence witness whereas Shambu has not produced any defence. Learned trial court has convicted both the petitioners under Section 498A IPC and further sentenced them. On an appeal, against conviction and sentence, same was dismissed. 6. A perusal of statement of PW-12 indicated that post mortem of deceased was conducted on 14.06.1989 and reason of death was asphyxia. Both the petitioners were initially charged under Section 306 IPC but they were discharged from charge under Section 306 IPC. PW-4 Bhagwati is mother of petitioner and her [2025:RJ-JP:19764] (4 of 5) [CRLR-573/2007] deposition is omnibus and general in nature. She has not mentioned about any specific date or month when dowry demand was made and on non-fulfillment cruelty was committed and by whom. The evidence clearly indicated that PW-4 has named the entire family, for committing cruelty but no specific allegation was made against petitioners. PW-5 Hanuman Prasad is brother of deceased and again he has not mentioned incident of any specific date. The period of marriage was 8-10 years and no police report was registered prior to present incident. The admission of PW-5 indicated that deceased was suffering from illness. PW-6 is Suresh but his statement could not be completed and remained inconclusive. PW-7 Mathuralal is family friend. PW-8 to PW-11, PW-14 and PW-15 have not supported the case of prosecution. The only witness left is PW-13 Chotte Lal and when we peruse statement of PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-13 then the witnesses have narrated story in their own way and everyone is telling a different version. It is very difficult to concile their version. The deceased has committed suicide. 7. Herein after considering the evidence of 6 witnesses, it is apparent that neither any specific date or month was mentioned by any of prosecution witness about the demand of dowry or committed of cruelty with deceased. The evidence on record is not sufficient to convict petitioners under Section 498A IPC. The trial court and the appellate court have failed to consider that the allegations in evidence are general in nature. The courts below without ascertaining and verification of the allegations have convicted both the petitioners under Section 498A IPC therefore [2025:RJ-JP:19764] (5 of 5) [CRLR-573/2007] both the courts below have committed serious error while convicting petitioner. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, revision petition is hereby allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.04.1999 in criminal case No.400/1993 passed by learned ACJM, Nainwa, Bundi and affirmed by appellate court on 29.05.2007 in criminal appeal No.43/1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bundi is hereby set aside. The petitioners Shambu and Sitaram are hereby acquitted from charge under Section 498A IPC. Their bail bonds are discharged. 9. Accordingly, revision petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /10