[2025:RJ-JD:32999-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 676/2012 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus

1. Bhawani Singh son of Mob Singh

2. Smt. Bhanwari Kanwar @ Anoop Kanwar wife of Mob Singh Both the accused-respondents by caste Rajput, R/o Koliya, Tehsil-Didwana, District Nagaur.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

28/07/2025

1. The instant challenge has been made to the judgment dated

27.01.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.01/11, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Section 304B of the IPC in alternate Section 302 R/w 34 and Section 498A of the IPC.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the diseased Vinod Kanwar was married with the respondent No.-1 Bhawani Singh around one and a half year before her death. She died at her matrimonial home on 26.09.2010 and based on the report furnished by PW-2 Bheru Singh, the report exhibit P-3 came to be lodged in which after investigation both the respondents were arrested and charge-sheeted for committing offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The charges were framed by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 304B of the IPC in alternate 302 of IPC R/w 34 and Section 498A of the IPC and commenced the trial.

3. As many as seventeen witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and seventeen documents were tendered into evidence to substantiate the charge. Whereafter the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he claimed innocence. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused- respondents holding the failure of the prosecution in proving the charges.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

5. Bereft of elaborate details, suffice it would be state in brief that to attract the penal provision contained under Section 304B of the IPC and to draw a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it would be imperative for the prosecution to establish the below three things:-

a) The death occurred within seven years of marriage b) The death was other than in normal circumstance like burning, poisoning, hanging etc.

c) If it is shown that soon before her death, the ladies was subjected to cruelty or in any connection of demand of dowry;

Only upon satisfaction of above mentioned circumstances, the penal provision of Section 304B of the IPC would attract and conviction can be made if evidence to bolster the charge is convincingly brought on record.

6. Here in this case, though the deceased died at her matrimonial home within a short span after her marriage but when her body was brought to the hospital, a board of three medical officers were constituted for examination of her body. Exhibit P-12 is the postmortem report reads as: “ In board opinion cause of death cannot be ascertained so viscera preserved and sent to FSL for chemical and histopathological examination for common poisoning”

The above part was specifically tendered as G to H part of exhibit P-12. The Doctor who testified for the prosecution PW9 - Dr Dharamveer Swami did not gave any opinion in absence of any adverse material.

7. As a matter of fact, no histopathological report was produced. Exhibit D7 is the report of forensic lab as per which, the visceras of the deceased were subjected to examination and whereupon it was found that the same gave negative tests for metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and insecticides. In these circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the fact of death of the deceased in other than the normal circumstances could not be established.

8. Suffice it would be to say that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the requisites