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 (Atrocities on Women and Dowry Cases) by a detailed order gave a 5 finding that deceased Rajkanwar was having a foetus of 20-24 weeks and her marriage was solemnised on March 3, 1995. The prosecution has not been able to investigate the matter properly and in absence proper investigation, the court was of the opinion that no case of dowry death is made out against the accused respondents and acquitted them. The order passed by the trial court is just and proper. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The trial court by a detailed judgment acquitted the accused respondents in absence of evidence for dowry death and the findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. The court's attention 6 was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. For these reasons the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed after confirming the judgment dated April 7, 2000 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities on Women and Dowery Cases) Jaipur. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/