Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 152 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal son of Chunnilal v. State of Rajasthan

2017-01-12

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.09.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Laxmangarh (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 13/2002, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused non-petitioners from the charge under Section 498A, 306, 201 and 120-B IPC. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the deceased with Banni accused Non-petitioner NO. 2 took place in the year 1989. Admittedly, the incident is of the year 1999 and 10 years period has lapsed between the marriage and the death. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there was demand of dowry and the witnesses have given statement to this effect. It is also contended that the deceased died at the residence of the accused non-petitioners and therefore, it was for them to establish the cause of death as there is presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act. 4. I have perused the impugned order. 5. It is revealed from the order that the deceased and her sister were married in the same house and deceased sister has been produced in defense as DW-3, who has stated that the deceased died due to fever. Though there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution that the deceased committed suicide by consuming Aldrin no recovery of vomited matter has been made. The bone of the deceased were sent for FSL but no FSL report has been placed on record. The court below, therefore, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide by consuming Aldrin. The defense witnesses have specifically stated that the deceased died due to high fever. 6. There is no reliable evidence regarding demand of dowry as the marriage took place 10 years back. The court below, therefore, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the offences alleged. The scope of Criminal Revision being limited in case of acquittal, I am not inclined to entertain present revision petition, the same is dismissed. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.