HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 346 / 1992
Kana Ram son of Shri Lichhman Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
Nokha Chandawat, Merta Road, Police Station, District Nagaur.
State of Rajasthan —-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment dated 24.9.1992 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Merta, in Sessions Case No.5/89 whereby he has convicted
the appellant under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced him to 3
years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default
of payment of fine, further to undergo six months rigorous
Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Bhanwari
who married with appellant in the year 1981 was committed
suicide on 22/23.10.1988 by falling into a well. Thereafter on FIR,
a criminal case No.9/1988 was registered under Sections 306,
304B and 498A I.P.C. After completion of investigation, challan
was filed under said sections against the husband-appellant,
mother-in-law father-in-law and one Hari Ram.
All the four accused denied the charges and claimed
(2 of 9)
trial. After hearing arguments, the learned trial court vide
judgment dated 24.9.1992 acquitted all the four accused-persons
of the offences under Section 306 and 304-B I.P.C. Lichhman
Ram and Hari were acquitted of the offence under Section 498A
I.P.C. but convicted the present appellant Kanaram and Smt.
Chandra under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six
months’ rigorous imprisonment.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated
24.9.1992 of the trial court, the present appeal was filed by the
appellant-Kana Ram and Smt. Chandra, but during the pendency
of this appeal Smt. Chandra was expired on 9.9.2015, therefore,
this Court vide order dated 18.5.2017 abated the appeal against
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that the learned trial court has committed an error while passing
the impugned judgment. Learned trial court has not appreciated
the whole evidence carefully. The offence under Section 306, 304
and 498A I.P.C. are similar. The learned trial court has committed
an error in convicting the present appellants under Section 498A
It is contended that there is no mention in the FIR
about the cruelty and all the witnesses are interested witnesses.
There is no evidence on record about making demand of money
for jeep, flour mills or motor cycle. It has also come in the
(3 of 9)
evidence produced by the defence that no demand of dowry was
In view of above arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant has prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and
the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled
against him under Section 498A I.P.C.
On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has
supported the impugned judgment and vehemently opposed the
contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended
that the learned trial court has not committed any error in
convicting the appellant under Section 498A I.P.C. The finding of
learned trial court is based on material available on record.
The State of Rajasthan has neither opposed nor
challenged the order of acquittal passed by the trial court to the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and
I have scanned the judgment in the light of arguments
advanced and material available on record.
So far as the charge against the accused-appellant
under Section 498A is concerned, upon perusal of record, it
reveals that PW-3 Tulsi Baii, who is mother of deceased has
categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that ” taokbZ dkukjke
us :i;ksa dh ekWax dh] dkukjke us vkVk dh pDdh yxkus ds fy;s gekjs ls nl
gtkj :i;s dh ekax dhA Hkaojh ds lkFk mldk ifr] mlds lklllqj] nsoj
ekjihV djrs Fks A Hkaojh dks dwVekj dj dqos esa Mky fn;kA esjs taokbZ dkukjke
us thi ds fy;s chl gtkj :i;s ekaxs FksA ” In her cross-examination, she
(4 of 9)
stated that “‘kknh ds le; eqyfteku us dksbZ ngst ugha ekaxkA gekjh tkfr us
ngst dh izFkk ugha gS] vkxs mlus Li”V dgk gS fd pDdh ds fy;s :i;s ekaxus
ds fy;s Hkaojh dh lkl vk;h FkhA taokbZ dkuk pDdh ds :i;s ekaxus xkao esa ugha
vk;k Fkk A vkxs mlus ;g Hkh dgk gS fd eSaus iqfyl dks ;g ckr crk;h Fkh fd
esjh yM+dh Hkaojh dks dwV ekjdj dqos esa Mky fn;k] irk ugha gS izn’kZ Mh1
esa ,slk D;ksa ugha fy[kkA”
PW-3 Tulsi Bai has not stated specific day, month or
year for demand of Rs.10,000/- for floor mill and Rs.20,000/- for
jeep. Apart from this, in cross-examination, she stated that for
demand of money for floor mill, the accused-appellant Kana Ram
never came to her village and specifically stated that mother-in-
law of her daughter came to her village for demand of money for
floor mill. In these circumstances, contradictory statements about
demand of money for floor mill were given by PW-3 Tulsi Bai in
examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, therefore, the
learned trial court has wrongly believed on statement of the PW-3
about demand of money for floor mill.
PW-3 Tusli Bai has stated in her examination-in-chief
that accused thrown away her daughter in well after beating, but
in her cross-examination, she stated that ^^eSaus iqfyl dks ;g ckr crkbZ
fd esjh yM+dh Hkaojh dks dwVekj dj dq, esa Mky fn;k irk ugha izn’kZ Mh 1 esa ,slk
D;ksa ugha fy[kk gS^^, therefore, beating to the deceased by accused is
contradictory statement of PW-3 with her police statement Ex.D/1.
Apart from this, upon perusal of statement of PW-2 Dr.
Narender Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem of the
deceased, he has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that
(5 of 9)
“mlds ‘ko ij fdlh izdkj dh pksV ugha Fkh] ^^ it proves that accused
had never beaten the deceased and statement of PW-3 Tulsi Bai
about beating to the deceased is not corroborated by medical
evidence as well as her statement Ex.D/1. In these
circumstances, the learned trial court has also committed an error
in believing on statement of PW-3.
So far as demand of Rs.20,000/- for jeep is concerned,
PW-3 Tulsi Bai has neither stated any specific day, month or year
about the said demand nor she has stated any place where the
accused has made the said demand. In these circumstances, the
demand of Rs.20,000/- for jeep as stated by PW-3 Tulsi Bai in her
statement is vague. In connection with above statement of PW-3,
Tulsi Bai, PW-4 Ramu Ram, who is father of the deceased, he
stated in his examination-in-cheief that “esjs taokbZ dkukjke us esjs ls
i O;ogkj dj chl gtkj :i;s thi [kjhnus ds fy;s ekaxs ^^, but no any
letter has been produced by the prosecution in the trial court to
prove this fact. Apart from this, PW-3 Tulsi Bai has not stated that
the accused-appellant had sent any letter for demand of
Rs.20,000/- for jeep to her husband.
In these circumstances, the statement of PW-4 Ramu
Ram is contradictory from the statement of PW-3 Tulsi Bai about
demand of Rs.20,000/- for jeep.
PW-5 Ramesh, who is brother of the deceased has not
said even a single word in his examination-in-chief that the
accused-appellant had personally come to his house and
demanded Rs.10,000/- for floor mill and thereafter demanded
(6 of 9)
Rs.20,000/- for jeep. He stated in his examination-in-chief that
“Hkaojh [kRe gqbZ mlls nks fnu igys xksVu vk;h Fkh mlus vkdj crk;k fd
mlds ifr us :i;s eaxok;s gSa] Hkaojh us dgk fd ikap gtkj :i;s
eksVjlkbZfdy gsrq eaxok;s gSa^^. PW-5 Ramesh has stated that two
days before the incident, deceased came to her maternal home
and told that accused-appellant demanded Rs.5,000/- for motor
cycle, but PW-3 Tulsi Bai and PW-4 Ramu Ram have not
corroborated this thing.
In these circumstances, PW-5 Ramesh has not
corroborated the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 about demand of
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- who are parents of the deceased.
PW-5 Ramesh added new thing that accused-appellant demanded
Rs.5,000/- for motor cycle whereas PW-3 Tulsi Bai and PW-4
Ramu Ram has not corroborated the statement of PW-5 Ramesh.
In these circumstances, with regard to the demand of
money by the accused-appellant, there is major contradiction on
record in the statements of father of deceased, mother and
Other witnesses, who have been produced by the
prosecution in trial court are hear say witnesses.
In my considered view, when eye witness does not
corroborate the prosecution story similarly and there is major
contradiction in their statements, then accused cannot be
convicted on the basis of hear say evidence.
In view of above discussions, I am of the view that
there is major contradiction in prosecution witnesses, who are
(7 of 9)
father, mother and brother of the deceased and the statement of
PW-3 is contradictory with Ex.D/1 and statement of PW-2 Dr.
Narender Kumar, there is major contradiction in the statements of
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, but the learned trial court on the basis of
statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 has held the accused-
appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A
For the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., the
prosecution is required to prove the willful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the women or harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
When prosecution failed to prove the above facts, no
offence under Section 498A is made out.
In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed
to prove the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. against the
accused-appellant. Therefore, the learned trial court has
committed an error in believing on the statements PW-3, PW-4
and PW-5 and holding the accused-appellant guilty for the offence
under Section 498A I.P.C.
Here in the present case in view of above discussion,
the prosecution failed to prove any demand by the appellant with
his in-laws, in my considered view, only the demand of money
(8 of 9)
from father-in-law by his son in law does not amount the offence
under Section 498-A. If a person demands money from his
father-in-law and he does not fulfill the demand, thereafter if any
person commits cruelty with his wife physically or mentally due to
non-fulfillment of demand, then offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.
is made out.
It is a human being that if a person is in financial
problem, then he will first go to his family members and if his
family members fail to solve the problem, thereafter he will go to
his in-laws and if his in-laws fails to solve the problem, then he
will go to another person, so the demand of money itself does not
make offence under Section 498A I.P.C.
In the present case, only the prosecution case is that
the accused-appellant demanded money from his in-laws for floor
mill, jeep and motor-cycle which is not proved by the prosecution.
Apart from this, the prosecution is silent that after not fulfilling the
demand of money whether the accused-appellant has committed
any cruelty with his wife or not.
It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution is
required to stand on its own legs and prosecution cannot take
support from the weakness of the defence.
It is also settled proposition of law that in criminal case,
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one
amount to the guilty of the accused and the another to his
innocence, then the view which is favourable to the accused,
should be adopted.
Consequently, I extend the benefit of doubt to the
(9 of 9)
accused-appellant Kana Ram S/o Lichhman Ram.
As a result, the present appeal is hereby allowed. The
conviction pronounced and sentence awarded by the trial court
upon the accused-appellant Kana Ram S/o Shri Lichhman Ram is
set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 498A I.P.C.
Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section
437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in
the like amount, before the learned trial court within one month,
which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the
judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
( RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA), J.