Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali
Trilok Singh S/o Madho Singh ( Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. By way of filing this instant appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 27.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 17/94, whereby they were convicted for offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 304/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment on the first count and seven years’ imprisonment on the second count, with both sentences directed to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, it has been officially verified by the learned Public Prosecutor that Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have expired. In light of this, the appeal, to the extent it pertains to Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, stands abated and is accordingly disposed of as infructuous qua them.
3. Brifely stated facts of the case are that in Sessions Case No. 17/94, ba
The acquittal of the surviving appellant was based on insufficient evidence, with key witnesses turning hostile and failing to establish allegations of dowry-related cruelty.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand to establish charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to prove cruelty and harassment for a dowry demand, and highlights the importance of material witnesses in establishing the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed that dowry death can be established through evidence of demand and torture, even if not immediately preceding death, under IPC Sections 498-A and 304-B.
The Court established that dowry death under IPC 304-B requires proof of cruelty related to dowry demands occurring soon before the victim's death.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on uncontradicted evidence of witnesses to establish the demand of dowry, cruelty, and the circumstances leading to the victim's suici....
To secure conviction under Section 304(B) and 498(A) IPC, specific overt acts of cruelty must be established against the accused; mere familial relations are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article