Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
SHARVAN RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2015
Decided on : 15-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Mukesh Mehriya, Adv., J.P.S. Choudhary, Adv.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 (2) and 437(A) – Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 304B and 498A – Appeal against Conviction – Dowry death – Prosecution failed to prove guilt – Benefit of doubt – Appeal against impugned Order – Challenged – Held, Court held that prosecution failed to lead cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to bring home any of circumstances relied upon by it to prove charges against appellant – Accused appellant deserves to be acquitted from charge under Section 304B IPC in alternate 302 IPC by extending him benefit of doubt – However, since there is circumstantial evidence on record to show that accused was regularly threatening to leave her and re-marry on pretext that she disliked her, prosecution has been able to bring home charge for offence under Section 498A IPC against accused appellant – However, keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A CR.P.C., accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond before learned trial court – Special Leave Petition against present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, appellant shall appear before Supreme Court – Appeal partly allowed (Para 25, 27 and 29)
Facts of the Case:
The appellant stands convicted and sentenced and judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge and challenged his conviction.
Findings of the Case:
Court held that prosecution failed to lead cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to bring home any of circumstances relied upon by it to prove charges against appellant – Accused appellant deserves to be acquitted from charge under Section 304B IPC in alternate 302 IPC by extending him benefit of doubt – However, since there is circumstantial evidence on record to show that accused was regularly threatening to leave her and re-marry on pretext that she disliked her, prosecution has been able to bring home charge for offence under Section 498A IPC against accused appellant – However, keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A CR.P.C., accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond before learned trial court – Special Leave Petition against present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, appellant shall appear before Supreme Court
Result: Appeal partly allowed
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.50/15 (189/11) (55/14).
304-B IPC
Life Imprisonment
498-A IPC
Two Years' SI and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' SI.
201 IPC
Two Years' SI and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' SI.
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal, are noted hereinbelow.
Facts in brief:
3. The appellant herein was married with the deceased Samdu in August, 2011. Smt. Samdu had gone to her father's house (Nathuram, complainant) on the occasion of Rakhi. She went missing upon which Shri Nathuram lodged a Missing Person Report ('MPR') (Ex.D/1) on 28.08.2011 at Police Station Khinvsar inter alia alleging that on 26.08.2011 in the evening at 7:30, while he and his family members were taking dinner, Samdu went out from the home without informing anyone and was missing thereafter. She had been married to Shri Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Champaram by Caste Nayak and had been going to her matrimonial home for the last two years. She had a mobile phone bearing No.8890432039. Soon before her disappearance, she was overheard talking to someone with this phone. Thereafter, she secretly went out of the house. After Samdu went missing, the complainant and the members of his family made inquiries with various paternal relatives as well as her matrimonial relatives but there was no clue of her whereabouts. On 27.08.2011 also, the first informant continued to search for Samdu but he could not succeed. It was categorically mentioned in the report that Samdu was having no dispute with anyone either in the matrimonial home or at her Pihar. The statement of Nathuram was recorded in connection with the MPR on 28.08.2011 itself wherein he verbatim repeated the averments made in the MPR. However, Samdu could not be traced out for about ten days.
4. Shri Nathuram lodged a detailed report with the SHO PS Khinvsar on 05.09.2011 alleging therein that Samdu had been married to Shri Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Champa Ram (the appellant herein) about two and half years ago. The informant had given significant dowry in the marriage as per his capability. However, whenever Samdu came to his house after the marriage, she complained that her husband was threatening to kill her on account of demand of dowry and was sniding that he would remarry. Samdu came to his house on the occasion of Rakhi. On 26.08.2011 at about 8 to 9 PM, her husband Sharvan Ram came outside his house and called Samdu on her phone. Smt. Samdu intimated her mother that her husband was calling and thereafter she left the house but did not return. They made search for her whereabouts. On the next morning, they went to Tadwas and made an inquiry from Sharvan Ram who admitted that Samdu had accompanied him to Tadwas on the previous night but thereafter she sneaked away surreptitiously. When Samdu could not be traced out despite all efforts, the first informant alongwith PW-3 Arjunram, PW-5 Jagram and PW-6 Paburam, confronted Sharvan Ram under the oath of God, upon which he confessed that he and his four-five friends conspired together and had murdered Samdu. The informant alleged in the report that these facts could be verified from the call details and that requisite action should be taken against Sharvan Ram and his companions. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR No.135/2011 was registered at Police Station Khinvsar for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 304B and 201 IPC. The investigation was assigned to the CO, SC/ST Cell, Nagaur because t
