The benefit of doubt weighs in favor of the accused appellants due to lack of scientific evidence, and no presumption could be drawn in the absence of such evidence.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(ii) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the appellants may kindly be allowed and they be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.”

2. The present Criminal Appeal emanates from the report, filed by the complainant-Gorkharam, P.W.-6, on 16.09.2009 at Police Station, Chohtan on the basis of which an F.I.R. bearing No. 139/2009, was lodged and upon investigation, the present appellants were arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against them for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; thereafter the concerned Court took cognizance against the appellants and forwarded the same to be committed to the concerned Sessions Court, Barmer, for trial. Upon trial, the learned Court below convicted the present appellants for the aforementioned offences, assailing which the appellants have approached this Court, by preferring the present appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of the record would reveal that the complainant-Gorkharam averred that his daughter-Shanti (the deceased victim) was married to the appellant no.3-Hanuman Singh, three years prior to the filing of the impugned FIR. That about six months, after the marriage was solemnized between the couple, the appellants being the husband, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased victim, subjected her to mental and physical harassment in connection with the demands for dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-and 10 ‘tolas’ of gold, threatening to oust her from her matrimonial home, in case of non-fulfillment of such demands. That upon visiting her paternal home, she had narrated to her father and other family members about attempts made on her life, that her husband and his family had attempted to poison her, if the dowry demand is not fulfilled; whereupon the complainant conveyed to the husband and his family that he did not have the sufficient means to fulfill their demands of dowry, to which they acquiesced; but 15 days prior to the filing of the said complaint, they again began harassing the deceased victim with demands for dowry.

3.1 That when the complainant was informed that another attempt on her (deceased victim’s) life was made by the appellants, he phoned his daughter and she answered, in tears and narrated incidents of harassment and threats to her life. That she stated further that her father-in-law had made inappropriate advances toward her and would violate her person, that the appellant no.2-Banka Ram then came on the phone call, and demanded dowry from the complainant, as a consequence of non compliance of which his daughter (deceased victim) would continue to suffer. That the husband and his family physically assaulted his daughter as a result of which she passed away, and attempts were made by them to cover up the same.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged after a 24 hours delay from the date of the alleged incident.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that witnesses P.W.1-Moolaram and P.W.4-Thanaram turned hostile and the other witnesses, namely P.W.7-Veermaram and P.W.10-Pukhraj are maternal uncles of the deceased victim and cannot be relied upon, as they are interested witnesses. He also drew the attention of this Court to the testimonies of witnesses, P.W.6-Gorkharam, P.W.8-Devika, P.W.10- Pukhraj, P.W.11-Ravatram, P.W.9-Andu.

4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the call details of the alleged phone conversation between the deceased victim and her father, were not brought on the record, and therefore such averment could not be corroborated.

4.3 Learned counsel further submits that the cause of death of the deceased victim could not be ascertained, and that in absence of the same, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the present accused-appellants. The attention of this Court was drawn to the testimony of P.W.5-Dr. Vibhay Tanwar and P.W.20-Dr. Pankaj Khurana, the