Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 761 of 2005

MOOL CHAND AND ANR. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

 STATE OF RAJASTHAN    .....   RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2005

O R D E R

Criminal Appeal No. 968 of 2005

Mr.  Calla,  learned  Senior  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the appellant states that the apepllant has  

already undergone the sentence awarded to him and he has  

since  been  released,  he  does  not  press  this  appeal.  

This Appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.

Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2005

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 2

1. Appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of  

the deceased Premlata.  They alongwith the husband of  

the deceased namely Virendra Kumar and their daughter  

Alka were put on trial for the offences under Sections  

302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.  The trial  

court by its judgment dated 7th February, 2001, acquitted  

the appellants and their daughter of all the charges  

levelled against them.  However, the husband Virendra  

Kumar was found guilty of offence under Sections 304B  

and  498A  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.   The  State  of  

Rajasthan aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants  

and  Alka  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  High  Court.  

Virendra  Kumar,  aggrieved  by  his  conviction  had  also  

preferred  an  apepal.   Both  the  apepals  were  heard  

together by the High Court and disposed of by a common  

judgment.  The appeal preferred by the State against the  

acquittal of the appellants and Alka was partly allowed.  

The High Court maintained the acquittal of Alka but set  

aside  the  order  of  acquittal  of  the  appellants  and  

convicted them for offences under Section 304B and 498A  

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years  

respectively besides the fine.

2. Appellants, aggrieved by the same have preferred

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 3

this appeal.

3. The prosecution commenced on the basis of a report  

given  by  the  father  of  the  deceased  P.W.  1  Ramesh  

Chander on 16.7.1998 alleging therein that his daughter  

Premlata  was  married  to  accused  Virendra  Kumar  about  

four years ago.  He received an information on phone  

from  the  co-accused  Alka  (since  acquitted)  that  the  

deceased, his daughter - Premlata, had committed suicide  

by hanging herself.  According to the report, after ten  

minutes  of  the  aforesaid  telephonic  conversation,  he  

received  another  telephone  call  from  the  appellant  

Sunita, mother-in-law asking him to come immediately to  

take the dead body of his daughter.  On the telephonic  

communication the informant Ramesh Chand along with his  

other  family  members  and  friends  reached  at  the  

matrimonial home of their daughter and found the dead  

body hanging with a sari.  It has been alleged by the  

father  of  the  deceased  that  the  accused  persons  had  

hanged his daughter and further that the appellants were  

regularly  making  demands  for  dowry  and  due  to  the  

harrassment meted out to the her, she committed suicide.

4. The trial court on perusal of the evidence came to  

the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 4

these  appellants  harassed  the  deceased  for  demand  of  

dowry soon before the death and, accordingly, acquitted  

these appellants.  In this connection, the trial court  

observed as follows:

“There  is  no  evidence  of  the  prosecution side to prove the offence under  Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.  In  Ex. P-1 there is no such evidence that the  deceased  was  used  to  be  harassed  or  distressed  or  used  to  be  taunted  or  subjected to cruel behaviour and nor in the  police  statement,  there  is  any  such  statement.  Even to the extent that in the  statement recorded before the court, it has  not  been  revealed  that  as  to  what  illtreatment or cruelty was subjected with  the  deceased  Smt.  Premlata  by  her  in-laws  for dowry demand.”

5. The  High  Court,  however,  in  appeal  without  

assigning any reason came to the conclusion that the  

finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is not  

based on correct appreciation of evidence.  We have been  

taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses  

and  from  that  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  these  

appellants  subjected  the  deceased  to  cruelty  in  

connection  with  the  demand  of  dowry  soon  before  the  

death.   

6. In our opinion, the trial court while giving the  

appellants  benefit  of  doubt  assigned  good  and  cogent

Crl.A. No. 761 of 2005 5

reasons and in any view of the matter the conclusion  

arrived by it was one of the possible conclusion.  That  

being the position, the High Court erred in reversing  

the judgment of acquittal to that of conviction.   

7. In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  impugned  

judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside.  The  

appellants are on bail.  They are discharged of their  

bail bonds.  

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 29, 2011.