Ramu Ram vs Bishnaram & Ors on 22 February, 2018

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 81 / 2018
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2108/2017

Ramu Ram S/o Shri Manglaram, By Caste- Meghwal, Resident of
Desalsar, Tehsil- Nokha, District- Bikaner (Raj.)


1. Bishnaram S/o Asuram, By Caste- Meghwal, Resident of Ward
No. 1, Deshnok, District Bikaner.

2. Patasi Devi W/o Asuram, By Caste- Meghwal, Resident of Indra
Colony, Deshnok, District Bikaner (Raj.)

3. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
For Respondent Nos. 1 2 : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent No.3-State : Mr. R.K. Bohra, P.P., for the State

Appellant-complainant has laid this Leave to Appeal under

Section 372 read with Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to challenge verdict

dated 05.12.2017, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Women

Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, whereby learned Court below has

convicted accused-respondents for offence under Sections 498A

and 306 IPC, while acquitting them for offence under Section 304B

IPC. Leave to appeal by the appellant is with limited grievance of

not convicting respondents for offence under Section 304B IPC.

(2 of 4)
[ CRLLA-81/2018]

The facts, in brief, are that appellant-complainant submitted

a written report on 14.07.2013 before Police Station Deshnok,

inter-alia, alleging therein that his daughter Suman

was married to respondent Bishnaram about two years back and

soon after marriage Bishnaram and his family members started

harassing her for demand of dowry. It is further averred in the

report that she died an unnatural death by drowning within two

years of marriage and being a case of dowry death case against

the respondents be registered under Section 498A and 304B IPC.

Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the

aforesaid offence against respondents before Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner and later on case was committed

to the learned trial Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Learned trial

Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B

IPC and on denial the accused-respondents were put on trial.

During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and

exhibited thirteen documents. After completion of prosecution

evidence statements of accused-respondents were recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, learned trial Court heard final


Learned trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence and other

materials available on record found no evidence of sterling worth

to constitute offence under Section 304B IPC. Learned trial Court,

upon appreciation of evidence, has recorded its finding that

though the unnatural death of deceased, Ms. Suman, has

occasioned within two years of matrimony, but there is no
(3 of 4)
[ CRLLA-81/2018]

evidence to show that soon before her death she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by the respondents in connection with any

demand for dowry. It is in that background, the trial Court has

found that respondents cannot be indicted for offence under

Section 304B IPC. While considering overall facts of the case, in

the backdrop of evidence available on record, learned trial Court

has found that accused-respondents subjected deceased Ms.

Suman to cruelty with unlawful demand of property and

consequently convicted respondents for offence under Section

498A IPC. Furthermore, learned trial Court has also noticed that

there is evidence available on record to show that the respondents

were responsible for instigating or intentionally aiding Ms. Suman

to commit suicide and consequently convicted the respondents for

offence under Section 306 IPC, i.e. abetment for suicide.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-

respondents, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned

the entire record of the case.

After perusal of the statements of witnesses, more

particularly P.W.3 Ramuram and P.W.7 Anshuyia it is clearly

discernible that soon before death deceased Ms. Suman was not

subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents. In totality,

a cumulative reading of the evidence of these two material

witnesses and other witnesses, unhesitatingly, in my opinion,

learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of

evidence and acquitting the respondents for offence under Section
(4 of 4)
[ CRLLA-81/2018]

304B IPC. I am also constrained to observe that learned trial

Court has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence in

right perspective and the conclusions drawn by learned trial Court

are not perverse or inherently improbable in the backdrop of

evidence and materials available on record.

It is trite that appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is to be

examined as per yardsticks and parameters set out under Section

378 Cr.P.C. and normally any verdict of acquittal or punishment for

a lessor offence cannot be interfered with unless and until the

Court comes to the conclusion that the Court below has eschewed

the material evidence; misread the evidence, or appreciation of

evidence is perverse. In this case no such infirmity is

forthcoming upon perusal of impugned judgment. Moreover, in

my view, by the impugned judgment no injustice has resulted

much less grave failure of justice.

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, neither I am able to find any perversity in appreciation

of evidence, nor it is noticeable that learned trial Court has

overlooked the material evidence while passing the impugned


In view thereof, I feel disinclined to grant leave in the

matter. Consequently, the leave craved for is declined and the

appeal of the appellant is dismissed.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *