Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
State Of Raj vs Vinod And Ors. (2026:Rj-Jp:10437-Db) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266/2002
State Of Raj
----Appellant
Versus
1. Vinod Son of Chhotelal, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer
2. Chhotelal Son of Bhola Ram, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer
3. Smt. Prem Wife of Chhotelal, Resident of Joshganj, Ajmer
----Accused-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP
Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunit Awasthi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
12/03/2026
(Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal)
The appellant-State (for short, ‘the State’) has preferred this
appeal against the judgment dated 26.04.2001 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer (for brevity, “the learned
trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 41/1999 whereby, the accused-
respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them
under Sections 302, 498-A, 201 IPC and in alternative, under
Sections 302, 201, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
The relevant facts in brief are that on a written report
furnished by Additional District Magistrate City, Ajmer, after an
enquiry conducted under Section 176 Cr.P.C., an FIR No. 72 dated
18.06.1998 came to be registered at Mahila Thana Ajmer, District-
Ajmer for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC stating
therein that deceased-Sunita was married to respondent No.1-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
Vinod Kumar on 02.02.1998 at Agra whereafter, she was residing
with her in-laws at Joshganj Ajmer. It was averred that she
expired on 29.04.1998 and as per the members of her in-laws
family, it was so on account of her sickness. It was alleged that
her body was being taken to the cremation ground surreptitiously
for last rites whereupon, it was intercepted and upon postmortem
of her body, it transpired that there were injury marks on it. After
investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted. Charges
were framed against them and they have been acquitted of the
same vide judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001, as stated
hereinabove.
As per the order of this Court dated 13.08.2025, the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely Chhotelal and Smt. Prem have
expired during pendency of the appeal and it stood abated qua
them. In view thereof, this appeal survives only against the
respondent No. 1-Vinod who shall be referred, hereinafter, as the
respondent.
Learned Public Prosecutor, inviting attention of this Court
towards the Postmortem Report (Ex. P8) of the body of the
deceased-Smt. Sunita, would contend that she has received
multiple injuries including an injury on her head which was found
to be the cause of death. He submitted that her marriage with
respondent was solemnized on 02.02.1998 and she has met with
the unnatural death on 29.04.1998, i.e., within a short span of
less than three months and the conduct of the respondent post
her death; such as, instead of taking her to the hospital as
advised by Sh. Kishan Balani (PW15)-a Private Doctor who had
first examined her after she was brought to him by the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
neighbours, taking her to the cremation ground during night
without informing the members of her maternal side, was
sufficient to establish that it was a case of murder/dowry death;
but, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the important
aspect of the matter. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be
allowed, judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001 be quashed and
set aside and the respondent be convicted of the charges framed
against him and be sentenced accordingly.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the
submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
As per the Autopsy Report (Ex. P8), Smt. Sunita-wife of the
respondent has died on account of a head injury. Dr. R K Mathur
(PW12), who had conducted the postmortem, has deposed that
though, hematoma was present on the right parietal region; but,
there was no corresponding external injury as also, no fracture on
her head. However, we find that the prosecution has miserably
failed to establish that the respondent committed murder of Smt.
Sunita by inflicting any head injury upon her. As a matter of fact,
none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed to have seen the
respondent inflicting any bodily injury on the person of the
deceased much less the head injury. Moreover, neither the nature
of weapon of offence allegedly used by respondent is disclosed
nor, there is any corresponding recovery. Rather, the evidence on
record reflects that the deceased was sick for last 2-3 days before
her death, she fell down near the washroom and was immediately
taken to a doctor, i.e., Sh. Kishan Balani (PW15) in dead condition.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
Shri Somdutt Sharma (PW5)-a neighbour of the respondent,
though, declared hostile by the prosecution, has stated during his
cross-examination by the defense counsel that Smt. Sunita was
sick 2-3 days prior to her death and had gone to the washroom
where she fell down and was brought by the neighbours. The
Investigating Officer-Shri Sameer Kumar Singh (PW13) has
admitted during his cross-examination that during the course of
his investigation, it transpired that the deceased was sick and the
place of incident, i.e., the bathroom was situated at a distance
from her in-laws house. The site plan (Ex.P4) also corroborates
the deposition of the PW13 inasmuch as the place of incident, i.e.,
mark ‘X’ is shown to be situated at a distance from the subject
house. Further, Shri Kishan Balani (PW15) has deposed that in the
evening of 29.04.1998, two boys had brought the deceased to him
for examination whereupon, he found her dead. He has further
stated that upon asking by him, the boys disclosed that the
deceased was suffering from nausea and vomiting.
It may be relevant to mention here that although, Shri
Kishan Balani has stated that he advised the attendants to take
the body to the JLN Hospital; but, instead of doing so, the body
was being taken to the cremation ground which was intercepted
by Shri Sangram Singh (PW6)-a Head Constable and was taken for
postmortem. Although, the respondent, in his plea recorded under
Section 313 CrPC, did not offer any explanation as to why the
body was taken for cremation without any information to
members of her maternal side that too without acceding to the
advice of Shri Kishan Balani to take her first to the JLN Hospital;
but, this lack of explanation cannot take place of a proof to
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
establish that the respondent had, as a matter of fact, committed
her murder as it is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong,
cannot take place of proof.
So far as remaining injuries in the shape of bruises and
abrasions on the body of the deceased are concerned,
indisputably, she was being taken to the cremation site on ‘Arthi’
(a wooden or iron stair shaped structure) tied with ropes and
Dr. R K Mathur has admitted that these injuries could be on
account of tying of the dead body with the rope
In view of complete lack of any evidence on the part of the
prosecution to demonstrate the manner in which the respondent
had allegedly committed murder of the deceased, we are not
persuaded to reverse the findings of acquittal of the respondent of
the charge under Section 302 IPC.
Further, a perusal of the material available on record reflects
that the prosecution has come out with a case of dowry death
rather than it being a case of murder; however, no charge under
Section 304-B IPC was framed. Still, if the prosecution evidence is
tested on the touchstone of Section 304-B IPC, we find that it was
not established to be a case of dowry death either. No doubt, Smt.
Sunita has died an unnatural death within three months of her
marriage; but, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment with regard to
demand of dowry or even otherwise before her death.
A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court
vide judgment impugned dated 26.04.2001 reflects that after
critically and forensically analysing the evidence available on
record, it has come to a conclusion that the testimony of family
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
members of the deceased with regard to subjecting her to torture
or harassment for demand of dowry was full of contradictions,
improvements and embellishments on important aspects of the
matter whereas, the testimony of independent witnesses was
uniform and reliable on the aspect that the deceased was never
subjected to any maltreatment by the respondent during the short
span they lived together either for demand of dowry or, otherwise.
Shri Charan Singh (PW1)-brother of the deceased has, in his
examination-in-chief, expressed only a doubt that Smt. Sunita was
murdered by the respondent with regard to demand of dowry,
however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that before her
death, Sunita had spoken to Shri Bhagwan-his son and had
informed that she was well and had no problem in her sasural. He
has further admitted that the respondent raised no demand either
with him or with deceased-Sunita with a further admission that he
had never gone to Ajmer after her marriage, and she was not
subjected to any cruelty with regard to demand of dowry.
Although, he alleged that Smt. Sunita had once, telephonically
complained of demand of dowry; but, admitted that such
averment was absent in his police statement (Ex. D3). He further
admitted that the allegation of demand of dowry was levelled, for
the first time, after ten months of the incident. Shri Gulab Singh
(PW2)-brother-in-law of the deceased, has stated, contradicting
the statement of Shri Charan Singh, that he, alongwith Shri
Charan Singh, had gone to Ajmer after 5-10 days of marriage
whereupon, Sunita had complained of abuse by the members of
her in-laws family on account of demand of dowry. PW3 Smt.
Munni Devi-Aunt of the deceased, has alleged that when brother
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
of the deceased had gone to Ajmer to brought her, she had
complained of demand of dowry; but, as already observed, Shri
Charan Singh has categorically stated as PW1 that he never went
to Ajmer after her marriage. Moreover, in her cross-examination,
she has admitted that the allegation of demand of dowry was
absent in her police statement (Ex. D4). Similar is the statement
of Smt. Shyama Devi (PW4)-elder sister of the deceased wherein,
she has stated that her brother alongwith 5-6 other person, went
to Ajmer whereupon, members of Sunita’s in-laws family
quarreled with them with regard to demand of dowry; but, brother
of the deceased namely Charan Singh has denied to have ever
gone to Ajmer. Further, no such other person who, allegedly
accompanied Shri Charan Singh, was examined by the prosecution
to corroborate the allegation. Moreover, during the course of
cross-examination of Smt. Shyama Devi, she admitted that the
allegations of demand of dowry were absent in her statement (Ex.
D6) recorded under Section 176 Cr.P.C. S/Shri Somdutt Sharma
(PW5), Netra Pal (PW7), Pushp Kumar Sharma (PW9) and Smt.
Basanti (PW8)-the neighbours of the deceased at Ajmer have been
declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.
Thus, there is complete absence of evidence that the deceased
was subjected to cruelty or harassment with regard to demand of
dowry before her death by the respondent.
In the conspectus of aforesaid analysis, we do not find it to
be a case either of murder or of dowry death. Therefore, no
interference is warranted with the well-reasoned findings recorded
by the learned trial Court of acquittal based on cogent evidence
available on record.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10437-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-266/2002]
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Tahir/136
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 03:31:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:22:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
