[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266/2002 State Of Raj ----Appellant Versus 1. Vinod Son of Chhotelal, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer 2. Chhotelal Son of Bhola Ram, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer 3. Smt. Prem Wife of Chhotelal, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer ----Accused-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunit Awasthi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 12/03/2026 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal) The appellant-State (for short, ‘the State’) has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.04.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 41/1999 whereby, the accused- respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302, 498-A, 201 IPC and in alternative, under Sections 302, 201, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written report furnished by Additional District Magistrate City, Ajmer, after an enquiry conducted under Section 176 Cr.P.C., an FIR No. 72 dated 18.06.1998 came to be registered at Mahila Thana Ajmer, District- Ajmer for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC stating therein that deceased-Sunita was married to respondent No.1- [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] Vinod Kumar on 02.02.1998 at Agra whereafter, she was residing with her in-laws at Joshganj Ajmer. It was averred that she expired on 29.04.1998 and as per the members of her in-laws family, it was so on account of her sickness. It was alleged that her body was being taken to the cremation ground surreptitiously for last rites whereupon, it was intercepted and upon postmortem of her body, it transpired that there were injury marks on it. After investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted. Charges were framed against them and they have been acquitted of the same vide judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001, as stated hereinabove. As per the order of this Court dated 13.08.2025, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely Chhotelal and Smt. Prem have expired during pendency of the appeal and it stood abated qua them. In view thereof, this appeal survives only against the respondent No. 1-Vinod who shall be referred, hereinafter, as the respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor, inviting attention of this Court towards the Postmortem Report (Ex. P8) of the body of the deceased-Smt. Sunita, would contend that she has received multiple injuries including an injury on her head which was found to be the cause of death. He submitted that her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 02.02.1998 and she has met with the unnatural death on 29.04.1998, i.e., within a short span of less than three months and the conduct of the respondent post her death; such as, instead of taking her to the hospital as advised by Sh. Kishan Balani (PW15)-a Private Doctor who had first examined her after she was brought to him by the [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] neighbours, taking her to the cremation ground during night without informing the members of her maternal side, was sufficient to establish that it was a case of murder/dowry death; but, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the important aspect of the matter. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001 be quashed and set aside and the respondent be convicted of the charges framed against him and be sentenced accordingly. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Heard. Considered. As per the Autopsy Report (Ex. P8), Smt. Sunita-wife of the respondent has died on account of a head injury. Dr. R K Mathur (PW12), who had conducted the postmortem, has deposed that though, hematoma was present on the right parietal region; but, there was no corresponding external injury as also, no fracture on her head. However, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the respondent committed murder of Smt. Sunita by inflicting any head injury upon her. As a matter of fact, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed to have seen the respondent inflicting any bodily injury on the person of the deceased much less the head injury. Moreover, neither the nature of weapon of offence allegedly used by respondent is disclosed nor, there is any corresponding recovery. Rather, the evidence on record reflects that the deceased was sick for last 2-3 days before her death, she fell down near the washroom and was immediately taken to a doctor, i.e., Sh. Kishan Balani (PW15) in dead condition. [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] Shri Somdutt Sharma (PW5)-a neighbour of the respondent, though, declared hostile by the prosecution, has stated during his cross-examination by the defense counsel that Smt. Sunita was sick 2-3 days prior to her death and had gone to the washroom where she fell down and was brought by the neighbours. The Investigating Officer-Shri Sameer Kumar Singh (PW13) has admitted during his cross-examination that during the course of his investigation, it transpired that the deceased was sick and the place of incident, i.e., the bathroom was situated at a distance from her in-laws house. The site plan (Ex.P4) also corroborates the deposition of the PW13 inasmuch as the place of incident, i.e., mark ‘X’ is shown to be situated at a distance from the subject house. Further, Shri Kishan Balani (PW15) has deposed that in the evening of 29.04.1998, two boys had brought the deceased to him for examination whereupon, he found her dead. He has further stated that upon asking by him, the boys disclosed that the deceased was suffering from nausea and vomiting. It may be relevant to mention here that although, Shri Kishan Balani has stated that he advised the attendants to take the body to the JLN Hospital; but, instead of doing so, the body was being taken to the cremation ground which was intercepted by Shri Sangram Singh (PW6)-a Head Constable and was taken for postmortem. Although, the respondent, in his plea recorded under Section 313 CrPC, did not offer any explanation as to why the body was taken for cremation without any information to members of her maternal side that too without acceding to the advice of Shri Kishan Balani to take her first to the JLN Hospital; but, this lack of explanation cannot take place of a proof to [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] establish that the respondent had, as a matter of fact, committed her murder as it is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof. So far as remaining injuries in the shape of bruises and abrasions on the body of the deceased are concerned, indisputably, she was being taken to the cremation site on ‘Arthi’ (a wooden or iron stair shaped structure) tied with ropes and Dr. R K Mathur has admitted that these injuries could be on account of tying of the dead body with the rope In view of complete lack of any evidence on the part of the prosecution to demonstrate the manner in which the respondent had allegedly committed murder of the deceased, we are not persuaded to reverse the findings of acquittal of the respondent of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Further, a perusal of the material available on record reflects that the prosecution has come out with a case of dowry death rather than it being a case of murder; however, no charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed. Still, if the prosecution evidence is tested on the touchstone of Section 304-B IPC, we find that it was not established to be a case of dowry death either. No doubt, Smt. Sunita has died an unnatural death within three months of her marriage; but, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment with regard to demand of dowry or even otherwise before her death. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001 reflects that after critically and forensically analysing the evidence available on record, it has come to a conclusion that the testimony of family [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] members of the deceased with regard to subjecting her to torture or harassment for demand of dowry was full of contradictions, improvements and embellishments on important aspects of the matter whereas, the testimony of independent witnesses was uniform and reliable on the aspect that the deceased was never subjected to any maltreatment by the respondent during the short span they lived together either for demand of dowry or, otherwise. Shri Charan Singh (PW1)-brother of the deceased has, in his examination-in-chief, expressed only a doubt that Smt. Sunita was murdered by the respondent with regard to demand of dowry, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that before her death, Sunita had spoken to Shri Bhagwan-his son and had informed that she was well and had no problem in her sasural. He has further admitted that the respondent raised no demand either with him or with deceased-Sunita with a further admission that he had never gone to Ajmer after her marriage, and she was not subjected to any cruelty with regard to demand of dowry. Although, he alleged that Smt. Sunita had once, telephonically complained of demand of dowry; but, admitted that such averment was absent in his police statement (Ex. D3). He further admitted that the allegation of demand of dowry was levelled, for the first time, after ten months of the incident. Shri Gulab Singh (PW2)-brother-in-law of the deceased, has stated, contradicting the statement of Shri Charan Singh, that he, alongwith Shri Charan Singh, had gone to Ajmer after 5-10 days of marriage whereupon, Sunita had complained of abuse by the members of her in-laws family on account of demand of dowry. PW3 Smt. Munni Devi-Aunt of the deceased, has alleged that when brother [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] of the deceased had gone to Ajmer to brought her, she had complained of demand of dowry; but, as already observed, Shri Charan Singh has categorically stated as PW1 that he never went to Ajmer after her marriage. Moreover, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the allegation of demand of dowry was absent in her police statement (Ex. D4). Similar is the statement of Smt. Shyama Devi (PW4)-elder sister of the deceased wherein, she has stated that her brother alongwith 5-6 other person, went to Ajmer whereupon, members of Sunita’s in-laws family quarreled with them with regard to demand of dowry; but, brother of the deceased namely Charan Singh has denied to have ever gone to Ajmer. Further, no such other person who, allegedly accompanied Shri Charan Singh, was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the allegation. Moreover, during the course of cross-examination of Smt. Shyama Devi, she admitted that the allegations of demand of dowry were absent in her statement (Ex. D6) recorded under Section 176 Cr.P.C. S/Shri Somdutt Sharma (PW5), Netra Pal (PW7), Pushp Kumar Sharma (PW9) and Smt. Basanti (PW8)-the neighbours of the deceased at Ajmer have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. Thus, there is complete absence of evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment with regard to demand of dowry before her death by the respondent. In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we do not find it to be a case either of murder or of dowry death. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court of acquittal based on cogent evidence available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002] Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Tahir/136