[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hansmukh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 158/1993
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Hansmukh son of Shri Keshav Lal Pandia
2. Kehsavlal son of Shri Vishwa Nath Pandia
3. Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri Keshavlal Pandia
All are residents of Village Ramsaur, P.S. Chitri, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 195/1991
1. Hansmukh son of Shri Keshav Lal Pandia
2. Kehsavlal son of Shri Vishwa Nath Pandia
3. Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri Keshavlal Pandia
All are residents of Village Ramsaur, P.S. Chitri, District
Dungarpur.
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, Amicus
Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Judgment
Judgment reserved on: 13/08/2025
Pronounced on: 28/08/2025
By the Court (PER, MRS. SHARMA, J):-
1. The instant Criminal Appeal No.158/1993 under Section 378
(III) & (I) has been preferred by the appellant State and the
Criminal Appeal No.195/1991 preferred by the appellants
(Hansmukh & Ors.) under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. while
challenging the judgment dated 28.06.1991 passed by the
District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No.36/89
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (2 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]whereby, the accused namely Hansmukh S/o Shri Keshavlal,
Keshavlal S/o Shri Vishwa Nath & Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri
Keshavlal were acquitted for the offence under Section 302, 304-
B and 201 of IPC but were held guilty for the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC.
2. Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.06.1991, the accused appellants (in Appeal
No.195/1991) Hansmukh S/o Shri Keshavlal, Keshavlal S/o Shri
Vishwa Nath & Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri Keshavlal have been
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A of
the IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, each accused
appellant further serve six months rigorous imprisonment.
However, Hansmukh S/o Shri Keshavlal, Keshavlal S/o Shri
Vishwa Nath & Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri Keshavlal were acquitted
for the offence under Section 302, 304-B and 201 of IPC.
3. The said acquittal is challenged in Appeal No.158/1993 since
both the instant criminal appeals arise out of the common
judgment dated 28.06.1991 passed by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as trial
Court) in Sessions Case No.36/89 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Hansmukh & Ors.)
4. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being
decided through this common judgment.
5. At the outset of the hearing, it has been brought to the
notice of this Court that the accused-appellants namely Keshavlal
S/o Shri Vishwa Nath & Smt. Saraswati W/o Shri Keshavlal have
passed away. In light of this submission, in appeal No. 195/1991
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (3 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
qua the aforesaid deceased-accused, the appeal stands
dismissed as abated.
6. In this view of the matter, the present appeal survives only
qua accused-appellant namely Hansmukh and the present
adjudication is being made accordingly.
7. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the State
submitted that credible evidence have been produced by the
prosecution and that the learned trial Court had erred in
acquitting the accused person of the charges under Section 302,
8. Further, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that
it is a case in which a young woman was killed by her husband
and her in-laws in respect of dowry demands, the marriage was
one and half years old and the death was unnatural. The
deceased was cremated in a hasty manner without even
informing her parents or other relatives in order to destroy the
evidence of crime.
9. It is further submitted that the paternal grandfather of the
deceased PW-4 (Shivnath) was present in a nearby village, at
the distance of approximately 2-3 kilometres from the village
Ramsaur, where the death occurred in her matrimonial home.
Thus, the onus lies heavily on the appellant to dislodge the
presumption.
10. Per contra, Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, the learned amicus
curiae who was requested to assist the Court on account of the
absence of the learned counsel who had filed the appeal, has
submitted that the allegations levelled by the witnesses
pertaining to dowry demand are baseless and the deceased
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (4 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
(Chanda) died a natural death due to heart failure and her
parents and other relatives were duly informed before the
commencement of the cremation.
11. He further submitted that the pre-requisite of raising
presumption under Section 304-B IPC is that “soon before the
death the deceased has been subjected to cruelty or harassment
for or in connection of dowry demand.” The presumption in
regard to dowry death can be raised in terms of Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act, only if it is shown that soon before
death, such woman had been subjected to cruelty or harassment
for or in connection of demand of dowry.
12. He further submitted that if the evidence led by the
prosecution is examined, no case for conviction under Section
302, 304-B, 201 and 498-A of IPC can possibly be made out, as
admittedly none of the family members of the deceased who
were living in the same village (Ramsaur) where the deceased
had her matrimonial home, ever stated to her parents about any
cruelty or harassment being caused by her husband or in-laws,
nor did they raise any issue either by lodging a complaint to the
police or otherwise.
13. It is further submitted that intimation of death of the
deceased was also given to the father, mother and other relatives
of the deceased by telegram Ex.P-1 and letter EX.P-2 and that
too were admittedly received by the parents of the deceased.
14. It is further submitted that material witness namely Jogi,
Narbda Shankar and Mohan Lal have not been produced by the
prosecution in evidence, who are admittedly the residents of the
village (Ramsaur) where the deceased used to live in her
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (5 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
matrimonial home and admittedly they have informed the
complainant – Jetha Lal and her wife about their daughter’s
death on the instance of her in-laws.
15. In the light of the above submissions, learned counsel
submitted that no presumption of dowry death can be drawn and
further submitted that the evidence that came on record, is well
appreciated by the trial court and the order of acquittal made
under Section 302, 304-B, 201 of IPC is correct, hence, appeal
preferred by the State be dismissed.
16. With regard to Criminal Appeal No.95/1991, he has
submitted that conviction of appellants under Section 498-A of
IPC by the learned trial court was also erroneously arrived at.
17. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at 5:30 pm
on 10.04.1989 at Police Station Chitri, District Dungarpur by the
complainant – Jetha Lal (father of the deceased) against the
three accused, in which, he submitted that the marriage of the
deceased (Chanda) took place on 23.08.1988 with the accused –
appellant Hansmukh and the death of the deceased took place
on 06.04.1989 at 3 a.m. in her matrimonial home at village
Ramsaur, and the cremation was completed on the same day in
hasty manner at 6 a.m. without giving information to the parents
or any other relatives of the deceased and it was showcased that
the deceased died a natural death due to heart failure, but in fact
after the marriage, she (deceased) was consistently being
harassed for dowry demand by her husband and her in-laws and
upon non-fulfilment of their demand she was killed by the
appellants.
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (6 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
18. On the basis of above facts, an FIR was lodged and
investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, Police
filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section
302, 304-B and 201 of IPC and the trial commenced accordingly.
19. During the course of trial, evidence of 8 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 11 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution, whereafter, the accused respondents
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they offered
details of their defence. This is not a case, where the accused
persons merely denied the questions put to them by the Court.
Thereafter, the accused persons examined six witnesses and
exhibited six documents in support of their defence.
20. After hearing both the parties as well as considering the
material and evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court
passed the impugned judgment which is the subject matter of
the present appeals.
21. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-1 –
Jetha Lal (father of the deceased), PW-2 – Rukmani (mother of
the deceased), PW-3 Prabhashanker (uncle of the deceased),
PW-4 – Shivnath (uncle of the deceased’s father), PW-5 –
Mansukhdas (maternal uncle of the deceased) and PW-6
(Ramashrey Mishra) a Vaidh (वैध) who was brought by the
respondents when the condition of the deceased was worsening
on 05.04.89 around 2:30 am.
22. Though PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had suported the case
presented by the prosecution pertaining to demand of dowry and
harassment being caused to the deceased by her husband and
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (7 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
his parents in their examination-in-chief but failed to produce
any cogent and credible evidence in this regard.
23. In their cross examination, they admitted that about 60-70
women from their village (Aajna) were married in the same
village as the deceased was (Ramsaur) and they used to visit
their parental home at a regular interval of four to five days but
none of them had ever complained them of any ill-treatment or
harassment being meted out to the deceased by her husband or
her in-laws.
24. PW-2 – Rukmani (mother of the deceased) has more
particularly stated in her cross-examination that her brother
Vinod, daughter of PW-5 – Mansukhdas, daughters and son of
PW-4 Shivnath were also married in the village Ramsaur but they
too never made any complaint against the husband and in-laws
of the deceased. The same is also admitted by PW-4 and PW-5 in
their cross-examination. PW -4 Shivnath in his cross-examination
submitted that the practice of dowry is not prevalent in their
caste and thus, he neither gave dowry in his daughter’s
weddings and nor accepted any dowry in his son’s wedding.
25. Looking at the above mentioned statement, there seems to
be no substantial evidence that too of demand of dowry and
cruelty being caused to the deceased by her husband or her in-
laws.
26. More particularly, father and mother of the deceased in their
Court’s statement categorically stated that after the marriage,
her daughter used to come to their house on regular basis with
her husband and the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased also visited their house four to five times but they
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (8 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
never pointed out to them about the demand of dowry or ill-
treatment with their daughter.
27. It is also admitted that there was no restriction on the
deceased in coming to her parents house ever by her husband
and in-laws. Further, it is also stated by PW-2 – Rukmani
(mother of the deceased) that her husband PW-1 – Jetha Lal was
very perturbed with the agony of her daughter. He wrote four to
five letters narrating the above facts. It is pertinent to mention
that no such letters were ever furnished to the Investigating
agency nor were produced in the Court to support their evidence.
28. As far as the submission of the prosecution that the parents
or the relatives of the deceased were never informed about the
death of the deceased and that she was cremated hastily in a
secret manner is concerned. It is noteworthy that PW-4 –
Shivnath stated in his examination-in-chief that he had visited
the village Ramsaur on 05.04.1989 in the evening to pay
condolence to his daughter’s matrimonial home adjacent to the
deceased’s home. He further submitted that he met the mother-
in-law of the deceased outside her house, but she did not allow
him to meet the deceased (Chanda). He further stated that at
that time he mentioned to the mother-in-law of the deceased
that he would be staying at Village Panchvada which is about two
to three kilometres away from the village Ramsaur and yet the
intimation of Chanda’s (deceased) death was not conveyed to
him, however, in his cross-examination, he stated that on
05.04.1989 when he was in Village Ramsaur and saw Chanda’s
(deceased) mother-in-law, she in fact invited him to come inside
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (9 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
the house but he himself did not go as he was going to pay
condolence to his daughter’s home.
29. He further admitted that when he received information of
Chanda’s (deceased) death, he did not go to village Ramsaur and
went back to his own village. He further stated that he could not
explain why he did not go to Ramsaur as he should have gone to
Ramsaur upon receiving intimation of Chanda’s (deceased)
death.
30. PW-1 – Jetha Lal admitted in his cross-examination that on
the instance of Chanda’s (deceased) in-laws DW-2
Narvadashanker sent a telegarm which was received by him in
Bombay i.e. Ex. P-1 containing the news of Chanda’s (deceased)
death. Likewise PW-2 – Rukmani (mother of the deceased)
admitted that she received the news of Chanda’s (deceased)
death through a letter Ex. P-2 delivered by a ‘Jogi’ sent by
Chanda’s (deceased) in-laws.
31. It is clearly mentioned in Ex. P-2 that Chanda’s (deceased)
untimely death occurred due to heart failure early in the morning
of 06.04.1989 and it is signed by one Mohanlal, a resident of
Village Ramsaur. It is further admitted by PW-1 – Jetha Lal that
there is a practice in their caste that the news of death is used to
be sent through a ‘Jogi’ .
32. During the course of prosecution evidence, an application
was moved on behalf of the defence that the prosecution be
directed to examine Narbada Shanker and Mohanlal listed as
material witnesses in the charge-sheet and it was also mentioned
that the prosecution is evading the same.
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (10 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
33. It is pertinent to mention that despite being in the witness
list, Narbada Shanker and Mohanlal were not examined by the
prosecution. Later on, defence side got examined
Narbadashanker as DW-2. He stated in his examination that he
had in fact sent telegrams to Jetha Lal and and Amritlal (DW-1)
i.e. Ex. P-1 and Ex. D-5 respectively which were received by
them and it is also submitted that the telegrams were sent at the
instance of deceased’s husband Hansmukh and his father
Keshavlal. He further submitted that on 06.04.1989 a letter was
sent through Nanu and Kachru Jogi to Jetha Lal’s house at Village
Ajana, who returned back at 9 a.m. to Ramsaur after delivering
the same and told that there is no male member at the parental
home of the deceased so no one can come to Ramsaur,
thereafter Chanda’s (deceased) funeral cortege started from
their house at about 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. for cremation.
34. Likewise PW-1 – Jetha Lal admitted in his cross-examination
that Amritlal DW-1 who is a resident of Village Ramsaur, met him
in Bombay. Amritlal was examined by the defence as DW-1
wherein he had stated that upon receiving the telegram
containing the news of Chanda’s (deceased) death, he went to
meet Jetha Lal to pay his condolence. Upon meeting, he enquired
about Chanda’s (deceased) sudden death to which he answered
that she suffered a heart failure of which she could not survive.
35. Further, it is, admitted that PW-1 – Jetha Lal was working at
Convent Jain Hospital, Bombay and PW-1 Jetha Lal and Amritlal
are in fact relatives and no fact of animosity has been taken by
Jetha Lal between them. So, looking to the incredible evidence of
the prosecution witnesses that too has substantial contradictions,
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (11 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve DW-1 – Amritlal’s
version. In his Court’s statement PW-1 – Jetha Lal denies the
fact that Chanda (deceased) was suffering from any heart
ailment or she had been taken for treatment to Bombay but
admits that he was working as an accountant at Convent Jain
Hospital, Bombay and further admits that he brought Chanda to
Bombay thrice with him.
36. In the same tune, the statement made by PW-6 Ramashrey
Mishra (Vaidh) is also relevant. He stated that on 05.04.1989 at
around 2:30 a.m., Hansmukh (husband of the deceased) came
to his house to fetch him to his home to see his wife as her
condition was worsening. Upon reaching there, he found that
Chanda was dead and was cold. He also stated that her death
was caused by heart failure and it was a natural death. Further,
he stated that it is true that if the death was caused by violence
it must be seen on her body but he did not see any sign on
Chanda’s dead body.
37. It is also pertinent to mention that admittedly PW-1 – Jetha
Lal (father of the deceased) received a telegram (Ex. P-1) on
07.04.1989 and letter (Ex. P-2) was received by PW-2 – Rukmani
sent by Chanda’s (deceased) in-laws on 06.04.1989, but no one
was sent to her daughter’s matrimonial home at Village Ramsaur
to do the last rites. It is also admitted that on receiving the
telegram (Ex. P-1), PW-1 – Jetha Lal reached to his village Aajna
on 08.04.1989 but he did not make a visit to the Village Ramsaur
nor did he make any complaint on 08.04.1989 or 09.04.1989
and no reasonable cause of such delay has been explained.
Further it is admitted by PW-1 Jetha Lal that on 10.04.1989
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (12 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
there was a community meeting in his village and thereafter he
lodged the complaint.
38. So, looking to the evidence led by the prosecution, no case
for any harassment or demand of dowry to the deceased
(Chanda) has been made out and it is an admitted position that
the presumption of dowry death thus could get activated only
upon proof of the fact that the deceased lady has been subjected
to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of
dowry by the accused (Section 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section
113-B of the Indian Evidence Act).
39. A conjoint reading of these provisions thus predicate the
burden on the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the
ingredients of the two offences (Section 304-B and Section 498-
A of IPC) by direct and convincing evidence, so as to avail the
presumption as engrafted in Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act against the accused. If the prosecution fails to
demonstrate by a cogent, coherrent and a persuasive evidence
to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above
referred offences (304-B, 498A of IPC) cannot be held guilty by
taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the short fall
in the case.
40. With reference to the legal position as referred above, the
matter is now required to be examined as to whether the case in
hand falls in the category, where the presumption can be raised
against the appellant and putting the onus on the accused-
appellant.
41. The date of the death of the deceased is 06.04.1989 in the
early morning at 3 a.m. and she was cremated after intimating
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (13 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
the parents and other relatives of the deceased. It is also an
admitted fact that the parents and other relatives were intimated
but they did not reach to village Ramsaur on that day nor after
the cremation. It was further stated that 60-70 ladies of Village
Aajna were living in Ramsaur village even the daughter of PW-4
– Shivnath was living next to the matrimonial home of the
deceased, but admittedly none of them raised any issue nor
informed the Police.
42. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfill
the prerequisite to invoke presumption under Section 304-B of
IPC and Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. Even, the
ingredients of 498-A of the IPC are not made out. For the same
reason, that there is no substantial evidence of cruelty and
harassment in connection with dowry demand or otherwise to
the deceased.
43. This Court is conscious of the fact that the incident is 35
years old and the appeal was preferred in the year 1991, the
evidence has been dealt with by the learned trial Court at length
and that such evidence is disbelieved qua the acquitted persons
for the offences under Section 302, 304-B and 201 IPC.
44. With regard to Appeal No.158/1993 filed by the State, at this
juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the
relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No.1162/2011) and Babusahebgouda
Rudragoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal
No.985/2010):-
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (14 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
45. “Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise
that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards
and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to
prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play
while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive –
inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result
in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that
two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view,
mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal
in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court
for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. (supra)
38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka this Court summarized the principles governing the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: –
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of
the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible.”
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (15 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.”
46. This Court further observes that the learned trial court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the
accused – respondent under Section 302, 304-B, 201 of IPC,
which in the given circumstances was justified as per the settled
principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgments to the effect that the judgment of the
trial court can be reversed by the appellate court only when it
demonstrates an illegality/perversity or error of law or fact in
arriving at such decision. But in the present case, the learned trial
court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each
and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analyzed
and examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and thus
the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law
or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the
instant appeal No. 158/1993.
47. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observation and looking
into the factual matrix of the present case, as well as in the light
of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it
a fit case wherein any interference in the instant Appeal
NO.158/1993 is required. Consequently, the said appeal filed by
the State is dismissed.
48. As far as the surviving accused-appellant No.1 Hansmukh in
Appeal No.195/1991 is concerned, the prosecution has not been
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37429-DB] (16 of 16) [CRLA-158/1993]
able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant has committed an offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
In the result, we hold that the learned trial Court has convicted
and sentenced the appellant – Hansmukh under Section 498-A of
IPC upon erroneous appreciation of evidence.
49. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal No.195/1991 is allowed. The
impugned judgment/order dated 28.06.1991 passed by the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur is quashed and
set aside and the appellant – Hansmukh S/o Keshavlal is
acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
50. He need not surrender and set at liberty forthwith. In view of
the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./48 BNSS 2023, the
appellant Hansmukh is directed to furnish a personal bond
amounting to the sum of Rs.50,000/- and surety bond of the like
amount before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall
be effective for a period of six months undertaking that in the
event of grant of special leave petition being filed against this
judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt
of notice, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
51. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the trial
Court be sent back forthwith.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
2-3-amit/-
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:51:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link