The prosecution must prove both unnatural death and cruelty for IPC 304-B; mere timing of death is insufficient.

Order

08/10/2025

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 16.05.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur whereby, the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B , 498-A, 120-B & 304-B/120-B of IPC.

2. As per story of the prosecution on 06.09.2005, one FIR was lodged by PW-1 Mohammed Ayub in Police Station Kanota that his daughter Sabnam was married to accused- Saleem Khan son of Shri Hanif Khan. Earlier also, they caused beatings on her, however, after settlements, he sent his daughter back to her in- law's place. On 03.09.2005, she came to meet her mother and was totally hale and hearty, not having any ailment whatsoever.

However, on 05.09.2005 she has been killed by her in-laws.

3. On the basis of such FIR (Exh.P1), case under Section 304-B , 498-A & 120-B of IPC was registered against the accused- respondents, thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge- sheet was filed for the consideration of the Court, where charges under Section 498-A , 304-B, 120-B & 304-B/120-B were framed against the accused-respondents, who denied the charges and requested for trying the same. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of prosecution story and also exhibited documentary evidence. Thereafter, statements of accused- respondents under Section 313 were recorded and after hearing arguments of both the sides, learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents vide judgment dated 16.05.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the judgment dated 16.05.2006, learned trial Court has utterly failed to appreciate that under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution was simply required to prove that the death of the deceased has taken place in unnatural circumstances within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. In case, both these facts are established by the prosecution, then burden shifts upon the accused to prove that they were no innocent. In the instant case, as per the post-mortem report (Exh.P9), cause of death of the deceased Sabnam was asphyxiation, which cannot be said to be natural death and it was also not disputed that death of Sabnam took place within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage with accused- Saleem Khan. In order to prove post- mortem report (Exh.P9), both the doctors who conducted post-

mortem were examined as PW-9 and PW-12, who also supported the fact of death of the deceased on account of asphyxiation. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that mother of the deceased (PW-2), in her statements had categorically stated that on 03.09.2005, when the deceased came to meet her, she complained that her in-laws were demanding Rs.50,000/-, failing which life threats were given to her. It is also submitted that all these evidences were sufficient to show that it was a clear cut case of unnatural death of deceased Sabnam, however, by wrongly appreciating the evidence on record, learned Court below has erroneously disbelieved upon the story of the prosecution and has wrongly acquitted the accused-persons.

5. On the basis of aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for allowing the revision petition by quashing judgment dated 16.05.2006 and to remand back the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and submitted that the learned trial Court has passed judgment dated 16.05.2006, after meticulously examining the statements of witnesses, material on record and on the basis of law prevailing at the relevant time. Hence, the revision petition