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.

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, based on FIR No. 66/94 registered at Police Station Khajuwala, Bikaner, the accused Trilok Singh, his sons Darshan Singh and Balwant Singh were charged under Sections 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC for subjecting Balwant Singh’s wife, Sunita (daughter of Joga Singh), to cruelty in connection with dowry. Soon after this alleged cruelty, Sunita died under suspicious circumstances on 10.05.1994 at the accused’s residence in village 26 K.Y.D. The accused claimed that Sunita died by suicide, either by consuming poison or due to pesticide inhalation. However, their versions were inconsistent and shifted over time, especially as different defense lawyers appeared. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 37 documents. Despite the hostile stance of key witnesses like Joga Singh and his wife Jaspal Kaur (Sunita’s stepfather and mother), other credible witnesses corroborated the allegations of dowry-related cruelty. The court noted the alarming rate of dowry deaths in the Bikaner district and the rarity of convictions, emphasizing the need for courts to evaluate such cases with a nuanced understanding of circumstantial and indirect evidence. Applying the presumptions under Sections 113-B of the EVIDENCE ACT and Section 304 -B IPC, the trial court concluded that the accused were guilty of causing Sunita’s dowry death within seven years of marriage following persistent cruelty.

4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

5. It is evident from the record that prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 were declared hostile, and their testimonies do not support the prosecution’s case. Specifically, PW-4’s statement is wholly exculpatory in nature and does not in any manner establish or substantiate the charge against the surviving appellant Balwant Singh. Rather, the witness has categorically denied any demand for dowry or cruelty, and has attributed the death of the deceased to a medical condition triggered by pesticide exposure, thus ruling out any culpability on the part of the accused.

6. PW-5 and PW-6 were also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. PW-5 stated that the deceased suffered a seizure due to pesticide spray and denied having ever witnessed any harassment or dowry demand by the accused. PW-6 similarly deposed that the deceased had a history of seizures, received no mistreatment from the accused, and confirmed her death was due to a seizure caused by pesticide exposure. Their statements clearly negate the prosecution’s allegations of cruelty or dowry demands. PW-7, the formal witness regarding seizure and storage of chemical evidence, merely proved procedural aspects of handling the seized spray bottle and did not contribute towards proving the charge against the accused

7. PW-8 Heera Singh, a neighbour of the complainant Jogasingh, has broad