JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal filed by the accused appellant may kindly be allowed and the judgment dated 28.4.94 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, may be set aside and the accused appellant may kindly be acquitted of the charge of section 306 I.P.C.”

3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the accused-appellant, Ashok Kumar, lodged a verbal report on 08.09.1991 at about 12:40 p.m. before the Police Station Padampur under Section 174 Cr.P.C. as an inquest, wherein he stated that he had been married to Rukmani, D/o Mangal Ram, about 2 years ago and that, he had left the house at about 7 a.m. for work, and when he returned, he found a crowd of people outside his house, from which one Ram Krishan Arora and one Mr.Baazigar informed him that his wife caught fire. And that, he then rushed into house, broke open the door and found that she passed away, by committing suicide while alighting herself on fire. Subsequent to this, the police conducted an investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, on the basis of the testimony of the father of the deceased victim, i.e. wife of the accused-appellant, concluded that demands for dowry were made by the accused-appellant and his family members, with the further conclusion that they wanted to start a ‘chakki’ business, and that the deceased victim had conveyed the same to him during her visit to her parents’ house during the festival of Rakhi (Raksha Bandhan); thereafter, the learned Court below took cognizance against the accused-appellant and his family members, and after trial acquitted the accused-appellant and his family members of the offences under Section 304B, 498A I.P.C. but convicted the accused-appellant, vide impugned judgment dated 28.04.1994, for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 4 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default of payment of which, he was to further undergo 3 months S.I.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant made his submissions on the five issues, namely, non production of material witnesses; misreading of evidence, specific witnesses’ testimonies; and a lack of evidence to prove the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and that no charge for offence Section 306 I.P.C. either expressly or in substance is made out against the accused-appellant.

4.1 Learned counsel submitted that Mangalram, the father of the deceased and the first informant, a material witness to the case of prosecution was not produced in evidence. And that as per the F.I.R. the witness Darshan Lal Master went with Mangalram to negotiate with the accused persons regarding the alleged harassment committed by them against his daughter. But that, Darshan Lal Master was not produced before the learned Court below as a prosecution witness but as a defence witness, who stated that no conversation regarding dowry ever took place before him or Mangalram.

4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below heavily relied upon the testimonies of P.W. 3 Shobharam, P.W. 4 Dharamchand, and P.W. 10 Ishwari Devi and after finding that there were several discrepancies and contradictions in their testimonies, and that the alleged demand for dowry was not proved, acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. but convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of the said testimonies.

4.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the conviction so made against the accused-appellant was made on a mere presumption, which lacks evidence. And that, the learned Court bel