1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. CHHITAR SINGH & ORS.

SB Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2001

under Section 378 (i) & (iii) Cr.P.C.

against the order dated April 7, 2000

November 11, 2000 of Special Judge

(Atrocities on Women and Dowry Cases )

Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 114 of

1997 by which the accused respondents

were acquitted of the offence under

sections 498A, and 304 B IPC.

Date of Order

: April 16, 2009

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the appellant

State of Rajasthan.

Mr. K.R.Rao and Mr. Deepak Sharma, for the accused

respondents.

BY THE COURT :

State of Rajasthan has preferred

this appeal against the order dated April 7,

2000 of Special Judge (Atrocities on Women and

Dowry Cases ) Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 114

of 1997 by which the accused respondents were

acquitted of the offence under sections 498A,

and 304 B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that

Chhitar Singh (accused-respondent) father

2

in law of deceased Rajkanwar lodged a

report at Police Station Jhotwara on July

26, 1996 that Rajkanwar after getting

midnight dinner went for sleeping in her

bedroom and his son Balweer Singh went for

giving food to his mother admitted in the

Hospital. In the morning when Rajkanwar

did not open the door he called his sister

in laws' son Omveer, who opened the door

and found that deceased Rajkanwar is lying

on her bed and from her mouth froath was

coming and found Rajkanwar in dead

condition. Police prepared Mrig report

and the SDM Jaipur on July 26, 1995

prepared Panchnama under section 174

Cr.P.C. of the dead body in presence of

Motbirs. No injury was found on the body

of the deceased. The SDM sent the body for

postmortem. After investigation the police

filed challan under section 498 A and 304

B IPC against the accused respondents.

The learned Judicial Magistrate committed

the case to the Sessions for trial. The

trial court framed charge under sections

3

498 A and 304 B IPC against the accused

respondents, who denied the same and

claimed to be tried. The prosecution in

support of its case produced 17

witnesses .

Statements of accused

respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C. were

also recorded. After receiving report

from Forensic Scienece laboratory Dr. P.C.

Vyas's statement was again recorded as CW.

1. In defence the accused respondents

produced six witnesses. After hearing

both the parties, the trial court vide its

judgment dated April 7, 2000 acquitted the

accused respondents from the charge for

the offence under sections 498 A and 304 B

IPC.

3.

The learned Public Prosecutor

contended that the trial court has not

considered the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses in proper prospective. The

marriage between the accused respondent

with deceased took place on March 3, 1995

and only after few days i.e. July 25, 1995

4

she committed suicide on account of not

bringing sufficient dowry. The Public

Prosecutor mainly drawn the attention

towards the postmortem report. In the

postmortem report it has come on record

that the deceased was having a foetus of

20-24 weeks. Hence the Public Prosecutor

prayed for convicting the accused

respondents for dowry death under sections

498 A and 304 B IPC.

4. On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Rao and

Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel

appearing for the accused respondents,

argued that before the marriage of

deceased Rajkanwar with accused respondent

Balbir, she was pregnant as is proved by

Post mortem report that the age of foetus

was 20-24 weeks on the date of post mortem

which was done on July 27, 1995. It may

be a point that since she was pregnant

before her marriage and that is why she

has committed suicide. The learned

Special Judge (Atroci