Patna High Court
Sulochana Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 3 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.289 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2010 Thana- JALALGARH District- Purnia
======================================================
SULOCHANA KUMARI Wife of Dr. Priya Ranjan Kumar @ Dr. Priya
Ranjan Bhaskar, D/o Sri Sushil Kumar Residing at Village- Jalalgarh, P.S.-
Jalalgarh, District- Purnea
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr. Priya Ranjan Kumar @ Dr. Priya Ranjan Bhashkar S/o Amol Rai
Resident of Ward No.1, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate
Ms. Saloni Saran, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 03-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at length and perused
the trial court's records.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal passed on 06.02.2021 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'impugned judgment') by the learned 1st
Assistant Sessions Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2011 CIS
No. 2567 of 2013 arising out of Jalalgarh P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010
dated 25.05.2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
2/29
has been pleased to acquit Respondent No. 2 of the charges under
Sections 498A, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
'IPC' and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition (in short 'D.P.') Act.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution story is based on the written
statement of the informant (PW-7) in which it has been stated that
she was married to Dr. Priya Ranjan Bhaskar (respondent no.2),
resident of District Madhepura on 06.05.2009 as per Hindu rituals.
She and her husband both are doctor by profession. At the time of
marriage, her father had given Rs. 10 lakh and one Alto car as gift.
It is alleged that when she went to her matrimonial home, her
husband Priya Ranjan Bhaskar, mother-in-law Rita Devi, father-in-
law Dr. Amol Roy, brother-in-law Hans Raj Gautam, mamera sasur
Krishna Kumar @ Murari Babu, fufera devar Gautam Yadav,
fufera sasur Ravindra Yadav and fuferi saas Anita Devi started
harassing and torturing her on petty issues. They started making
demand of Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry as her husband was also a doctor.
Her husband tried to kill her several times for non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry. Her father came to her matrimonial home and
arranged panchayati several times and had expressed his inability
to pay dowry. She herself requested several times that her father is
a poor man and he is not in a condition to pay Rs. 20 lakhs in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
3/29
dowry but just after two months, she was ousted from matrimonial
home and was threatened that she would be killed, if demand of
dowry is not met. She went to her uncle Sadanand Yadav, who is
working in police department at Madhepura and saved her life.
Thereafter, her uncle had taken her to Jalalgarh. It is further
alleged that at the request of informant's father, the accused Dr.
Priya Ranjan Bhaskar, Dr Amol Roy and Gautam Yadav came
there and took the informant along with them for the matrimonial
home. She was accompanied by her uncle Lila Kant Yadav but
when they came out of Jalalgarh, the accused persons started
misbehaving and abusing informant. On protest by her uncle, they
said to keep quiet. It is alleged that when they reached her
matrimonial home at Madhepura, then Rita Devi, Krishna Kumar
@ Murari Babu, Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi caught her and
poured kerosene oil upon her and tried to burn her. On alarm,
neighbours had assembled and she was saved. She returned her
home with her uncle saving her life.
4. On the basis of this written statement, Jalalgarh P.S.
Case No. 37 of 2010 dated 25.05.2010 was registered under
Sections 498A, 323 and 307 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet bearing No. 73
of 2010 dated 31.08.2010 against this appellant under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
4/29
498A, 323, 307 and 34 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. On the
basis of the charge-sheet, learned trial court took cognizance of the
offences vide order dated 05.10.2010 and the case was committed
to the court of Sessions on 30.11.2010. Charges were read over
and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated
23.04.2011
, charges were framed under Sections 498A/34, 323/34
and 307/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as fourteen witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove its’
case. The list of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits
produced on behalf of the prosecution are being shown hereunder
in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Sunil Kumar Yadav
PW-2 Sushil Kumar
PW-3 Vedanand Singh
PW-4 Laxmi Prasad Yadav
PW-5 Ashok Yadav
PW-6 Gopal Sah
PW-7 Sulochana Kumari (informant)
PW-8 Leela Kant Yadav
PW-9 Shekhar Kumar
PW-10 Sadanand Yadav
PW-11 Ram Vilash Singh
PW-12 Vidya Nand Mandal
PW-13 Dipankar Sri Gyan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
5/29PW-14 Dr. K.K. Yadav
List of Exhibits on behalf of prosecution
Ext-1 fyf[kr vkosnu dks igpkurs gS tks viuh fy[kkoV esa
gSA ml ij firkth] pkpk th dk Hkh gLrk{kj gSA
Ext-2, vuqla/kku ds Øe esa vuqla/kku dÙkkZ dks “kknh dk nks
Ext- 2/1 QksVks xzkQ dks iznZFk &02 ,oa 2@0 vafdr fd;k x;kA
Ext- 03 fn0 11&1&10 dk Mk0 D K. Yadav dk nok dk
iqtkZ fn;k gSA
Ext- 04 vuqla/kku dÙkkZ dk “kknh dk dkMZ fn;k Fkk
Ext- 05 fn0 11&1&10 dk nkfgus gkFk gFksyh dk X Ray
Report gS
Ext- 06 ]]]] fuea=.k i{k gekjs firkth ds }kjk fn;k FkkA
Ext- 07 fn0 12&7&10 dks izLrqrh lg tCrh lqph rS;kj fn;k
Fkk mlij Mk0 lqykspuk nsoh dk gLrk{kj
Ext- 7/1 fyf[kr vkosnu ij vuqla/kku vkns”k ij S.H.O dk
gLrk{kj
Ext- 8 vkSIkpkjhd izkFkfedh ij jke foykl flag dk gLrk{kj
Ext- 7/1 fo/kkuan eaMy dk tCrh lqph ij gLrk{kj
Ext- 9 izLrqrh lg tCrh lqph
Ext- 10 Certified copy of order dated 8.10.12 passed
in Matrimonial suit no. 11 of 2012/ 48 of
2012List of Exhibits on behalf of the defence
Ext- A C.C. of receiving
Ext- B C.C. of Notice foPNsn okn la0& 11-10
Ext- C C.C. of Attendance Certificate
Ext- D C.C. of order sheet matrimonial case no.
& 11/10
Ext- E Leave certificate letter no. 1648 dt.
25/4/11
Ext-E/1 Leave certificate letter no. 389 dt.
28/1/11
Findings of the learned Trial Court
6. The learned trial court examined the evidences
available on the record. It has been found that the accused-
respondent no. 2 had filed a case for divorce on 22.03.2010. In this
connection, Exhibit ‘D’, which is a copy of the summons issued by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
6/29
the learned Principal Family Judge, Madhepura in Divorce Case
No. 11 of 2010 on 20.05.2010 and the certified copy of the service
report of the process server have been brought on record. The
learned trial court has recorded that the FIR was lodged on
25.05.2010. There was no previous complaint to any authority
prior to the institution of the matrimonial suit. This has been taken
as a very important circumstance to suggest that the FIR was
lodged as a counterblast, particularly in the facts where cruelty and
demand of dowry started within 2-3 months of the marriage. The
trial court found from Exhibit ‘A’, which is the certified copy of
the postal envelope in the matrimonial suit, that there was an
endorsement on the service report “not found” dated 24.05.2010
and “addressee refused to accept” dated 26.05.2010. The FIR was
sent to the court of learned CJM on 27.05.2010.
7. The learned trial court further disbelieved the
prosecution case that the accused and his family members had
gone to bring back the informant on 24.05.2010, despite the fact
that the suit for divorce had already been filed on 22.03.2010.
8. It has been further held that the informant, who is the
victim of this case, is herself an independent, highly qualified
professional woman and she comes from a politically influential
educated family. She was working in government hospital and her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
7/29
father, an erstwhile engineer, was Block Pramukh at the time of
her marriage, therefore, she was not a helpless, poor and rustic
lady. In these circumstances, it has been held that it is very
difficult to believe that if demand for dowry was being made and
cruelties were being done to her, she would have waited for one
year to make a complaint.
9. The learned trial court found that the father of the
victim, who has deposed as PW-2, has stated that there was no
demand for dowry prior to the marriage. He had given cash and
kinds to his daughter and son-in-law as gift. He has further stated
that the informant was kept well for five months after her
marriage, though there had been some complaints in between. The
trial court held that here the cruelty had been alleged solely for not
meeting the demand of Rs.20 lakhs for the purpose of construction
of house. The court held that if there was no previous demand, the
demand immediately after marriage is just unbelievable. It
weakens the case of the prosecution.
10. The trial court further found that the accused-
husband moved to the workplace of the wife, Kasba leaving the
attractive metropolitan life of Delhi. The victim (PW-7) herself
stated in her evidence that she was posted at Kasba and her
husband had also got the posting there itself. She has further stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
8/29
that she used to attend her duties coming from her maike and her
husband was also accompanying her. These facts, in the opinion of
the trial court, goes in favor of the accused and against the
prosecution.
11. The learned trial court, while examining the
evidences with regard to the charge under section 307 IPC, found
that the two eyewitnesses of the occurrence – the victim (PW-7)
and her uncle Leela Kant Yadav (PW-8), have made contradictory
statements on material points. As per PW-7 and chief of PW-8, the
victim was only poured/sprinkled kerosene and there was no
lighting of the fire but in the cross-examination, PW-8 says that
fire was lit and the victim had started burning. Her clothes had also
burnt. Further while the allegation in the evidence of PW-7 is on
the accused-husband, PW-8 specifically attributed the act to the
mother-in-law. The FIR says that this act was done by Rita Devi,
Krishna Kumar, Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi and in that act,
the present accused had also helped. The mother-in-law was not
facing trial. On the point of place of occurrence too, the trial court
found contradictions in the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8. In this
regard, a good deal of discussions have been made by the learned
trial court in paragraph ’33’ to ’37’ of the impugned judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
9/29
12. The learned trial court further believed the leave
certificate of the accused (Exhibit ‘C’), which showed that he was
present on his duties on 24.05.2010. This certificate was
challenged and the concerned registers were called for at the
request of the informant but no evidence was led to controvert it.
The certificate (Exhibit ‘C’) could not be falsified. The accused-
respondent no.2 being a government official, the trial court held
that there would be a presumption with respect to the official
documents when there was nothing in the rebuttal. The accused-
respondent no. 2 was not on leave on 24.05.2010, he was on duty
and if he was on duty, the alleged occurrence could not have taken
place. Thus, the charge under section 307 IPC would not be
established.
13. As regards the charges for the offences under section
498A/323 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, the learned trial court held that
there are a series of allegations of cruelty and torture against the
accused, assault, electrocution and attempt to kill but there is no
medical evidence in support of Exhibit ‘3’ and Exhibit ‘5’. The
doctor (PW-14), who has authored the prescription (Exhibit ‘3’),
has said that the informant had told him that she has sustained
injury while she was coming out of the gate, she has not
complained of any assault by someone. This statement has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
10/29
found admissible under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as
“res gestae”. It has been found that this doctor is not from the side
of the accused but was teacher of the informant at the medical
college where she studied. There was complete absence of medical
evidence for corroboration and it creates serious doubt over the
prosecution story.
14. The trial court considered the evidences as regards
the allegation of assault on way to Madhepura on 24.05.2010,
fracturing hand and electric shock/electrocution. It has been found
that there is no mention of such occurrence in the FIR. The FIR
was lodged after lapse of considerable time, therefore, in the
opinion of the trial court, considerable time of lapse to cool the
mind and material particulars were required to be mentioned there.
The victim (PW-7) had not disclosed the same in her statement
under section 161 CrPC either, which has been recorded in
paragraph ‘2’ of the case diary. The victim (PW-7) was confronted
with her previous statement in FIR under section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
15. While examining the evidence of Sadanand Yadav
(PW-10), who is the uncle of the victim and was posted in Bihar
Military Police-7, Katihar, the learned trial court has found that
this witness was apparently lying in his statement where he alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
11/29
that when he visited the informant and met her, she had shown
several injuries on her person and had told him that the accused-
husband had badly assaulted her and tried to burn her alive by
poring kerosene. He had not informed the police nor got the
informant treated medically after seeing her injuries which cannot
be said to be a natural conduct, therefore, this witness cannot be
believed. The trial court found that all the prosecution witnesses
had given general statements without specifying any specific date,
time and manner of the occurrence. Referring to section 212 of the
CrPC, the learned trial court noted that Section 212 CrPC provides
that (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and
place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom,
or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are
reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with
which he is charged. Section 213 CrPC provides that – when
manner of committing offence must be stated. When the nature of
the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and
212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with
which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars
of the manner is which the alleged offence was committed as will
be sufficient for that purpose no conviction can be made on such
vague evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
12/29
16. The learned trial court found that though there is an
allegation of demand of Rs. 20 lakhs as the father of the accused
required to pay back the housing loan but there was no proof of
existence of any such loan. The evidence on this point was found
completely vague and contradictory. PW-2, who is the father of the
victim and a principal witness of this case, has stated that he was
told about the demand of dowry by his daughter. The trial court,
therefore, held that there was no direct demand from PW-2.
17. The trial court also examined the defence witnesses
and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. In ultimate analysis, it has been
found that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts and the accused definitely deserves a clean
acquittal. Accordingly, the accused-respondent no. 2 has been
acquitted for all the offences under section 498A, 323, 307 IPC
and 3/4 DP Act.
Submissions on behalf of the Informant
18. Learned counsel for the informant-appellant has
assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is
submitted that the judgment of acquittal has been passed without
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
13/29
application of judicial mind and without considering the
statements (evidences available on the record).
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the
material witnesses have completely supported on the point of
torture, harassment and demand of dowry as well, but the learned
trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidences adduced
by the witnesses available on the record and wrongly acquitted the
respondent no. 2.
Submissions on behalf of the State
20. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State submits that on a bare perusal of the
impugned judgment, it would appear that the learned trial court
has gone into every piece of evidence available on the record,
meticulously examined them, discussed the same in the impugned
judgment and ultimately found that those evidences were not
sufficient to prove the guilt of the husband-respondent no. 2
beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the prosecution
has miserably failed to lead reliable evidences to prove the
charges. In his submissions, this Court hearing an appeal against
acquittal would be guided by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Others Vs. State
of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and the case of Babu
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
14/29
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149.
Consideration
21. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused
the trial court records. In order to take an appropriate view of the
matter, we will first examine the evidences adduced by the parties
which are discussed in the impugned judgment.
22. Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-1) is the husband of the
younger sister of the informant. He has stated that the marriage of
the younger sister of the informant took place in the year 2003. At
the time of her marriage, the informant was studying in MBBS
course and one year after his marriage, she became a doctor. She
was married on 06.05.2009, went to her matrimonial home and
thereafter for about a month, the relationship between the husband
and wife remained cordial. He has stated that thereafter, her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and other members of
the family started demanding a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on the pretext
of construction of house. When the informant refused to provide
the money, her sasural people started torturing her mentally and
physically and they were threatening her to kill. She was ousted
from her sasural and thereafter she started living in her father’s
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
15/29
house but even thereafter, her husband and father-in-law used to
come to Jalalgarh and were demanding money. There was also a
panchayati held. This witness has stated that on 24.05.2010, the
husband, his father and cousin Gautam Kumar came to Jalalgarh
and on promise to keep the informant well, they took her to her
sasural but thereafter, she was being beaten and attempt was made
to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her.
23. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that
at the time of marriage, the informant was posted at Kasba. He has
further stated that after marriage, her husband, Dr. Priyaranjan
Bhaskar got himself transferred to Kasba. In paragraph ’21’, he
has stated that after marriage, the informant was living with her
husband for one year and she used to come to attend her duties by
Alto car together with her husband. During this period, she often
used to go to her maika with her husband and stayed there. She
used to return with her husband. He has stated that he did not
remember the date, day and month in which the panchayati was
held. In the said panchayati, the present or former Mukhiya of
Jalalgarh and Sarpanch were not present. Sadanand Yadav, who is
the brother of the father-in-law of this witness, was also not
present. This witness has stated that the fact that there was a
demand of dowry was told to him by the informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
16/29
24. From the evidence of PW-1 it is found that the
relationship between the wife and husband was cordial, they used
to attend their duties together and were also visiting the maika of
the informant from time to time.
25. Sushil Kumar (PW-2) is the father of the informant.
He has stated in his deposition that no demand of dowry was made
prior to the marriage. According to this witness, he had provided
some cash and kinds to his daughter and son-in-law by way of gift.
This witness also said that the informant was kept well for five
months after the marriage, though there had been some complaints
in between. It is important to note that this witness (PW-2) states
that as regards the demand of Rs. 20 lakhs, he was told by the
informant over telephone. He claims that there had been injuries
on the person of his daughter and for the same she was treated and
medical prescription is on the record but this witness has stated
that his daughter had not complained to the court or police in
Madhepura. PW-2 admits that his maternal cousin is a reader in the
S.P. Office, Madhepura and after being assaulted, his daughter
went to his maternal cousin but he did not know whether the
maternal cousin who was a reader in the S.P. Office had informed
the local people or not. This witness further stated that his
daughter was posted at Kasba, Primary Health Centre and his son-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
17/29
in-law joined the service after marriage, he too got the posting at
Kasba. He was attending his duty at Kasba coming from
Madhepura or Purnia. His daughter was attending her duties
sometimes from Madhepura, sometimes from Purnia and
sometimes from his place. This witness has admitted that they
came to know about the divorce case after the notice but his
daughter does not want divorce.
26. The learned trial court has examined the evidence of
PW-2 and has rightly concluded that the fact that there was no
demand of dowry prior to the marriage and the informant was kept
well for five months after marriage, though there had been some
complaints in between is a very important fact because the reason
for all the offences has been alleged to be non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry. The learned trial court has rightly held that it is
very unnatural and highly improbable that if no demand of dowry
was made prior to marriage, it would have been made just after the
marriage. The reasoning and rationale provided by the learned trial
court in this regard are based on the evidences available on the
record. We find no reason to disturb this finding of the learned trial
court.
27. Vedanand Singh (PW-3) has stated that during the
marriage, the father of the informant had given dowry in the nature
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
18/29
of gift. The relationship became sour after two/four months and
thereafter the informant came to her naihar and told that her
husband and his family members are asking for dowry. After one
year of marriage, the informant again said that she is being
tortured and beaten for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
This witness has stated that he is known to Sushil Yadav (PW-2)
on account of social contacts. The marriage had been solemnized
happily and there was no dispute. This witness has stated that after
two months of marriage he had met the informant in her naihar and
thereafter he met after one year. He has stated that Panchayati had
taken place in the house of Sushil Yadav. He has stated that Dr.
Bhaskar was not present in the Panchayati and no reading and
writing had taken place in the said Panchayati. The second
Panchayati had taken place after about a month in a hotel in Line
Bazar. In the said Panchayati, Ward Commissioner or Mukhiya
were not present. He did not know that who had booked the hotel,
he did not remember the room number. In this Panchayati also no
reading and writing had taken place.
28. Lakshmi Prasad Yadav (PW-4) is another witness
who has stated about the Panchayati having taken place but he has
also stated that no decision had taken place in the Panchayati. In
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
19/29
his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know when the
relationship between the informant and her husband became sour.
29. Ashok Yadav (PW-5) is another witness who has
also deposed generally on the point of Panchayati. Contrary to the
statement of PW-3, this witness has stated in paragraph ‘5’ of his
deposition that in the Panchayati which took place after two/four
months, the informant was not present but her husband was
present. This witness is mausera uncle of the informant and he was
suggested by defence that because of his relationship with the
informant he was falsely deposing.
30. Gopal Sah (PW-6) has claimed that he heard that the
accused was beating the informant and was demanding a sum of
Rs. 20 lakhs for which a Panchayati had also taken place. In his
cross-examination, he has stated that he is fighting a title suit in
which father of the informant is a witness. He has further stated
that the case under section 376(g) IPC is going on against him.
31. Sulochana Kumari (PW-7) is the victim and
informant of this case. In her examination-in-chief she has stated
that she was getting harassed, tortured and assaulted by her
husband and her in-laws for demand of dowry and on trivial
issues. Her husband tried to kill her several times and has fractured
her right palm by kitchen stone. She has stated that she is a doctor
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
20/29
and was posted at Kasba, her husband also got his posting there,
she was attending her duty from her paternal home, her husband
was also accompanying her and had tried to kill her by making her
fall from running motorcycle and by electrocuting her. On
24.05.2010, her husband came to her paternal home to request her
father to send her to matrimonial home and took her back, where
she was accompanied by her uncle Leela Kant Yadav, during the
travel just ½ km ahead she was pushed down from the car, her
uncle saved her somehow, she was misbehaved in the car, on
protest of her uncle he was rebuked. She has further deposed that
after reaching her matrimonial home, her husband along with the
help of other accused persons poured kerosene and tried to set her
on fire, on alarm raised by her uncle and herself, neighbours came
and she was escaped. In her cross-examination, she has stated that
first she lodged this case and then her husband has instituted a
Divorce case, she has denied that she was on duty on 24.05.2010
and 25.05.2010. She had not complained on way that she was tried
to be murdered for dowry. Her uncle Sadanand Yadav was posted
in police department at Madhepura itself, but he was not informed.
She directly reached to her parental home.
32. Leela Kant Yadav (PW-8) is the uncle of the
informant. He has deposed that on 24.05.2010, he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
21/29
accompanied the informant to her matrimonial home and on way,
the husband of the informant and his brother started abusing. Upon
resistance, this witness was also threatened. He stated that when
they reached Madhepura, the mother-in-law of the informant was
ready with kerosene oil in her hand. The oil was sprinkled on the
informant and they were talking of lighting the fire. This witness
raised alarm to which the neighbours came to the rescue.
Thereafter he and the informant came to the bus stand and came
back by bus. However, in the cross-examination he has mentioned
that he raised the alarm towards the neighbours when abuses were
hurled. PW-8 has further deposed that they went through Gulab
Bagh, Line Bazar and Madhubani and the road was quite busy
between Gulab Bagh to Madhubani but despite having twelve
police stations between Purnea and Murliganj, he could not do
anything as the glasses were closed. He had raised the alarm when
he reached house of accused. Mother-in-law had poured kerosene
oil on the informant inside the house. The informant came running
out asking for help. Her body was soaked in the oil and she was
burning. Her salwar and sameez were burnt. This witness put off
the fire with his own hand and sustained some burn injuries in his
hands. He had shown the burnt hand to the police and handed over
the burnt clothes of the informant to the police.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
22/29
33. Shekhar Kumar (PW-9) is uncle of the victim who
has stated in his examination-in-chief that after marriage, the
informant went to her matrimonial home, she remained well there
for a year, after a year approximately her husband along with in-
laws started harassing her for dowry, they were demanding 15-20
lakhs. His niece used to tell her everything. The informant was
injured by the accused husband by the kitchen stone roller,
thereafter, this case was lodged. In his cross-examination, the
witness states that he had no personal conversation with respect to
the occurrence; he talked to the informant on the phone.
34. Sadanand Yadav (PW-10) is another uncle of the
victim and has supported the prosecution case and has mentioned
that the father of the victim had called him regarding this
occurrence, later he had made call to the victim regarding pouring
of kerosene and attempt to burn her. Her father-in-law had
demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry. After two days of this incident,
victim was again taken to her matrimonial home. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that he went 3-4 times to the
matrimonial home of the victim after the reception, but had no
conversation with the informant. He had not informed the police,
nor had he got the informant medically treated, the parents of the
informant had taken her along to Jalalgarh on the same day.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
23/29
35. Ram Bilash Singh (PW-11) is the first I.O. of this
case, in cross-examination, he has stated that he had never visited
the matrimonial home of the informant, he had neither seized nor
the informant had produced anything during the investigation.
36. Bidya Nand Mandal (PW-12) is a formal witness to
the seziure-cum-production list, he identified his signature, in his
cross-examination he says that he has not read the documents
seized.
37. Dipankar Sri Gyan (PW-13) is the second I.O. of the
case. He has supported his investigation in chief. In cross-
examination, he said that he had not recorded the statements of
neighbours. The informant was posted as Medical Officer. He had
not investigated to ascertain as to where she was on the alleged
date of occurrence. He had no knowledge whether the accused was
on duty on that day or not.
38. Dr. D. K. Yadav (PW-14) said in his examination-in-
chief that the prescription dated 11.01.2010 marked as Exhibit ‘3’
is in his handwriting. The informant had been examined in his
clinic. She had said that she had sustained an injury while she was
coming out of the gate. He had advised X-ray. No external injury
was seen. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was earlier
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
24/29
Assistant Professor in Kishanganj and the informant was his
student there. She had not complained of any assault by someone.
39. In course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC,
the prosecution has not informed the respondent no.2 of all the
incriminating materials brought by the prosecution against him.
40. The defence filed some documentary evidences with
a petition to mark them exhibits. The application of the defence
was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned
trial court.
41. The accused-respondent no.2 came in the dock in his
defence and deposed. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated
that the informant-wife had always done inhuman behaviour
towards him since the very beginning of the conjugal life and it
continued despite the fact that he shifted from Delhi and joined the
hospital at Kasba, where his wife was posted. Then he resigned in
October, 2009 and came back to Madhepura. The informant had
also come to Madhepura in December 2009, where the inhuman
behaviour of the informant had become excessive, not only for
him, but for the entire family. In his cross-examination, he has
denied the suggestion that he and his family members used to
torture the informant for fulfilling the demand of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
25/29
42. On going through the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-
5 and PW-6 this Court finds that they have generally deposed on
the basis of what they heard. None of them has claimed that they
were present at the time of demand of dowry and they are not even
witnesses to the assault allegedly given to the informant. The
learned trial court has concluded that there is no evidence of any of
the witnesses from the neighbourhood of the matrimonial home.
The I.O. had not examined or recorded the statements of any such
witnesses. We find that the learned trial court has taken a correct
view of the matter.
43. The most important witness in this case is the
informant herself. She has stated that when she went to her
matrimonial home, the accused persons were torturing her, they
used to abuse and assault her on trivial issues. She has alleged that
her husband fractured her right palm by a kitchen stone roller. She
has stated that she was posted at Kasba, her husband had also got
the posting there itself. She has stated that she used to attend her
duties coming from her maika and her husband was also
accompanying her. She has stated about the misbehaviour of her
husband and her evidence in this regard have been discussed by
the learned trial court. In this regard, evidence of the doctor has
been discussed by the learned trial court and it has been held that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
26/29
the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. In
fact, evidence of the doctor (PW-14) falsifies the claim of the
prosecution. The finding of the learned trial court while examining
the charge under section 307 IPC is that the two eyewitnesses who
are PW-7 and PW-8 have made contradictory statements on
material points. In this regard, the findings in paragraph nos. ’34’,
’35’ and ’36’ of the impugned judgment are as under:-
“34. The evidence of two eye witness is contradictory on
material point. As per PW-7 and chief of PW-8, the victim
was only poured/sprinkled kerosene and there was no
litting of the fire. However, the cross of PW-8 shows that
fire was lit and the victim had started burning. Her clothes
had also burnt. Secondly, the allegation in the evidence of
PW-7 is on the accused husband, whereas PW-8
specifically attributes the act to mother-in-law. FIR says
that this act was done by Rita Devi, Krishna Kumar,
Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi and in that act the present
accused also helped. This assume very much importance
because the said mother-in-law is not facing trial now. If
others had done the act, the present accused cannot be held
liable in absence of any specific overt act. On the point of
place of occurrence too, there is contradiction between the
evidence of two eye witnesses. PW-7 said that it had
occurred at the Verandah of the house, whereas PW-8 says
that the kerosene was sprinkled on the person of the
informant in the courtyard of the house.
35. Other evidence on record also falsifies the allegations.
PW-2 said that his daughter / victim was wearing Saree,
Petticoat and blouse, but the eye witness PW-8 said that
she was wearing Salwar Kameez, which had burnt. PW-7
herself had produced the saree, petticoat and blouse vide
Seizure-cum-production list marked as Ext. 7 and not the
Salwar-kameez. PW-2, the father of the informant said that
clothes, his daughter was wearing was new, whereas Ext. 7
shows that those were old. Said clothes had not been
produced in trial as Material Exhibits for the physical
inspection of the court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
27/29
36. PW-7 herself said that she had not complained to any
police station on way that she was tried to be murdered for
dowry. She further said that her uncle Sadanand Yadav was
posted in police department at Madhepura itself, but he
was not informed and she came directly to her parental
home. In such a serious offence, this is quite unnatural
conduct and highly improbable. She should have informed
the local police, or the first police station, she crossed in
her way back. It was not that local police was in
connivance of the accused as the uncle of the informant
was himself the Reader in the office of SP, Madhepura. It
will not out of place to mention that post of Reader is very
important clerical position in the police department of the
district. She herself was a government officer.”
44. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of the learned
trial court, we have once again gone into the evidences of PW-7
and PW-8. We are of the view that the learned trial court has
properly appreciated the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 and from the
entire evidences on the record, the learned trial court has rightly
concluded that the charge under section 307 IPC could not be
established at all. In fact, the doctor (PW-14) who is the author of
the medical evidence was the teacher of the informant at the
medical college. PW-14 has stated that the informant had told him
that she had sustained injury while she was coming out of gate.
The learned trial court has rightly admitted this statement of
PW-14 under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as “res gestae”.
45. As regards the alleged occurrence of 24.05.2010, the
learned trial court has accepted the defence evidence Exhibit ‘C’
which is the leave certificate of the accused showing that he was on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
28/29
his duty in the government hospital. It has been recorded that the
certificate was challenged and the concerned registers were called
for at the request of the informant but no evidence has been led to
controvert it.
46. This Court has perused Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’
which have been brought by defence. It is evident that prior to
lodging of FIR, the accused-respondent no.2 had filed a divorce
case giving rise to Divorce Case No. 11 of 2010 in the court of
learned Family Judge, Madhepura. In the said case, summon was
issued to the informant on 20.05.2010. She had refused to receive
the summons. An endorsement to this effect has been made by the
Postal Peon and the fact that the informant had refused to receive
the notice has also come in the report of the process server (Exhibit
‘B’).
47. On perusal of the entire evidence on the record and
after once again going through the entire impugned judgment, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned
trial court.
48. An appeal against acquittal is governed by the
principles which have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on several occasions. In the case of H.D. Sundara (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025
29/29“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.”
49. In ultimate analysis, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
50. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 10.07.2025 Transmission Date 10.07.2025
[ad_1]
Source link