Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1944
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AVNEESH JHINGAN, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
Bhanwar Singh son of Jeevan Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 358 Of 1995
Decided On : 17-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Rinesh Gupta with Ms. Chandrakala Sahu Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Mr. Sarwat Alam
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP
Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of unnatural death and harassment for dowry to sustain a conviction under dowry death provisions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B, 176 and 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113B - Appeal against conviction in dowry death case - Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove unnatural death or harassment for dowry; FIR delayed and inconsistent witness testimonies raise doubts about prosecution case. (Paras 8, 11, 24)
(B) Standard of proof - Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 113B cannot be invoked without established cruelty or harassment. (Paras 11, 24)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was married in 1989-90 and died in suspicious circumstances, cremated without informing her parents. The FIR was lodged long after the incident, alleging dowry-related harassment. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish unnatural death, harassment, or timely information regarding death to the deceased's family; conviction quashed. (Paras 11, 24)
Issues: Whether the death was natural or unnatural; adequacy of evidence for conviction under dowry death provisions. (Paras 11, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: Presumption of dowry death under Section 113B cannot stand without clear proof of harassment, with the court emphasizing the need for concrete evidence in such serious allegations. (Paras 11, 24)
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments about delay in lodging fir and evidence discrepancies. (Para 3 , 4 , 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 3. pre-requisites for invoking section 304b ipc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. supreme court standards for dowry death presumption. (Para 9) |
| 5. failure to prove unnatural death. (Para 11) |
| 6. conclusion regarding quashing of conviction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN,J:-
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.07.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk in Sessions Case No.52/94 whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Name of Accused- Appellants | Convicted under section | Punishment |
| Smt. Samajh Kanwar and Maina Kanwar | 304B IPC | Seven years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| 176 IPC | Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. | |
| 201 IPC | Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment. | |
| Bhanwar Singh | 304B IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo two month rigorous imprisonment. |
| 176 IPC | Six months simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo three month simple imprisonment. | |
| 201 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. | |
| Jeevan Singh and Kishore Singh | 176 IPC | Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. |
| 201 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. |
2. The facts as per the prosecution are that marriage of Umrao Kanwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was solemnized in the year 1989-90 with Bhagwan Singh son of Jeevan Singh. On the night of 25.03.1992, the deceased died and was cremated by in-laws on 26.03.1992 that to without informing the parents of the deceased. On 09.04.1992, Bhanwar Singh Rathore (brother of the deceased) filed a complaint and FIR No.91/1992 was registered at Police Station Todaraisingh, District Tonk. In the investigation, husband of the deceased, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth), sister-in-law (bhabhi) and brother-in-law (jeeja of husband) were nominated as accused. Charges were framed u/s 304-B, 201 and 176 IPC. In the statement made u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated it to be a case of false implication. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses and twenty documents were exhibited. In defence, ten witnesses were examined and fifty five documents were exhibited.
2.1 The trial Court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment. The husband of the deceased was tried separately and was acquitted vide judgment dated 14.02.2008.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was delay of fourteen days in lodging the FIR and the explanation put-forth for covering the delay that the complainant was admitted in hospital at Jaipur was false. The contention is that it is the case of false implication and the FIR was registered only when the in-laws of the deceased demanded back the jewelry of the deceased, which was lying with the parents of the deceased.
3.1 The contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution evidence are being relied upon to argue that the harassment for demand of dowry was not proved and the relatives of the deceased including her brother had attended the Tiya Baithak (ceremony held on third day of death) and kirya (ceremony held on eleventh day of death). It is contended that there was nothing on record to prove that death of the deceased was an unnatural death. Submission is that husband of the deceased was acqui
