Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
TEK SINGH – Appellant
Versus
HEMAN DAS – Respondent
CRLR 1425/2019
['HS SANDHU', 'PP', '', 'DHARMENDRA SURANA']
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had demanded dowry from his wife and that her death was due to dowry harassment.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 304B IPC - SECTION 498A IPC - SECTION 3/4 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Sections 304B, 498A IPC, and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the dowry death of his wife. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand for dowry and that the death of his wife was due to suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had demanded dowry from his wife and that her death was due to dowry harassment. The court relied on the testimony of the victim's parents, siblings, and friends, as well as the medical evidence, to conclude that the victim had been subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner and his family.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand for dowry? 2. Whether the death of the victim was due to dowry harassment?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had demanded dowry from his wife and that her death was due to dowry harassment. The court relied on the testimony of the victim's parents, siblings, and friends, as well as the medical evidence, to conclude that the victim had been subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner and his family.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction of the petitioner.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1425/2019
Tek Singh S/o Sh. Didar Singh, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste
Sikh, Address Kake Da Hotel, Opposite Railway Station, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Heman Das S/o Sh. Bulchand, By Caste Sindhi, Resident Of E-
11, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, At Present R/o 419, Vardhman
Nagar, Shobhawaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur. (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. H.S. Sandhu, on V.C.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Dharmendra Surana, on V.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
12/01/2022
01-
;g nkafMd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vihykFkhZ us fo}ku vij
ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&06] tks/kiqj egkuxj ds }kjk nkafMd vihy la[;k
498@2017 Vsdflag cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-09-2019
ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dh vksj
ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= /kkjk 391 naM izfØ;k lafgrk dks [kkfjt fd;k] ftlls O;fFkr
gksdj ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
02-
eSaus ;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vihykFkhZ o ;ksX; vf/koDrk
izR;FkhZ&ifjoknh dh cgl lquh ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
03-
;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vihykFkhZ us ;g rdZ fn;k fd ifjoknh us
vius ifjokn esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd iq'rSuh edku cspus ds ckn ikfjokfjd
caVokjs esa ifjoknh dks mlds fgLls ds 5]00]000@&#i;s izkIr gq, rFkk vkbZ-Mh-ch-
vkbZ- cSad ls edku cukus ds mÌs'; ls 12]50]000@&#i;s _.k izkIr fd;kA ifjoknh
us vfHk;qDr dh enn djus ds fy, 5]00]000@&#i;s fn,] tcfd ,sls rF; ifjoknh
(2 of 4)
[CRLR-1425/2019]
us vius uksfVl izn'kZ&3 ,oa eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk&i= esa vafdr ugha dh gSA edku
dh jftLVªh ,oa _.k ds nLrkost lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd,A ;fn ifjoknh dh ikap
yk[k :i;s dh gSfl;r gksrh rks fQj mls foØe vkuUn fla?kkuh ls iPpkl
gtkj :i;s _.k ysus dh vko';drk ugha gksrhA ifjoknh ds fo#) psd vuknj.k
dk ifjokn izLrqr gksus ij mldh nks"kflf) gksus] ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ds le{k vihy esa
nks"kflf) dh iqf"V gksus vkSj fQj jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa fuxjkuh ;kfpdk esa
jkthukek gksus ds ekeys ds rF;ksa ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fopkj ugha fd;k gSA
ifjoknh dh gSfl;r ds laca/k esa iq'rSuh edku dh jftLVªh] _.k laca/kh nLrkost o
vk;dj fjVuZ ryc fd, tkus dk vkosnu iqujh{k.kdrkZ us vihyh; U;k;ky; ds
le{k /kkjk 391 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu izLrqr fd;k] tks vk{ksfir vkns'k
ds }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA tcfd mDr nLrkost gLrxr izdj.k esa lqlaxr ,oa
egRoiw.kZ gS] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ls vikLr fd, tkus dk
fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa fuEufyf[kr uthjsa izLrqr dh]
ftudk eSaus voyksdu fd;kA
1. (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 759, Rambhau and Anr.
Versus State of Maharashtra.
2. (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 158, Zahira Habibulla H.
Sheikh and Anr. Vs State of Gujrat and Others.
3. 2011(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 298, Laxmimal Lodha & Anr. Versus
Suresh Lodha.
04-
tcfd ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&ifjoknh us mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k fd;k
vkSj vk{ksfir vkns'k dk leFkZu djrs gq, rdZ fn;k fd lu~ 2009 dk pSd gSA
vfHk;qDr us /kkjk 391 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkFkZuk&i= esa tks rF; vafdr fd, gSa
muds ckjs esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa ifjoknh ls vfHk;qDRk us foLr`r izfrijh{k.k fd;k
gSA vfHk;qDRk us izfrijh{kk lk{; gsrq dkQh volj izkIr fd,A vfHk;qDr us /kkjk 311
naM izfØ;k lafgrk dk izkFkZuk&i= Hkh izLrqr fd;k] tks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk
[kkfjt fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) vfHk;qDr us jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk
(3 of 4)
[CRLR-1425/2019]
izLrqr dh] ftlesa 5]000@&#i;s ds [kpsZ ij ,d ekSdk vkSj fn;k x;k] fQj Hkh
vfHk;qDr us dksbZ xokg izLrqr ugha fd;kA /kkjk 391 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr
vfrfjDr lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj rc fn;k tk ldrk gS tc fdlh uohu
lk{;@rF;ksa dh tkudkjh gqbZ gks] ysfdu gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;qDRk dk ,slk dksbZ
dFku ugha gSA vfHk;qDr dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k i;kZIr volj fn, x, gSaA
/kkjk 391 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu vihyh; U;k;ky; ds le{k izkFkZuk&i=
vfHk;qDr us dsoy ek= izdj.k dks foyafcr djus ds vk'k; ls izLrqr fd;k gS]
blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k dk leFkZu djrs gq, iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk
fuosnu fd;kA
