Patna High Court
Rakesh Sah And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.41 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2007 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Rakesh Sah, Son of Binda Sah.
2. Binda Sah, Son of Late Aklu Sah.
Both resident of Village- Lakhaura Bichala Tola, Police Station- Lakhaura
Mufassil, District- East Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 06-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that appellant no. 2, namely, Binda Sah has already died during
the pendency of this appeal vide Letter No. 224 / vidhi of
Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari, so the
appeal against the above named appellant no. 2, namely, Binda
Sah stands abated and the sole appellant no. 1, namely, Rakesh
Sah shall continue.
3. The present appeal has been filed under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C') against the Judgment of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
2/23
conviction dated 19.12.2013 and order of sentence dated
23.12.2013
in Sessions Trial No. 700 of 2009, G.R. Case No.
131A of 2007 arising out of Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007
passed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Motihari, East Champaran, whereby and where-under the
appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 304 (B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘) to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and further he has convicted under
Sections 201 read with 34 of the IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.
3,000/-. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 the case was registered
against the accused persons. The Police took up investigation
and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted before the Trial Court. After cognizance and
commitment, the Sessions trial was transferred to the Court of
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan for disposal.
5. On behalf of prosecution total 9 witnesses
were examined. Out of them, PW-1 Yogendra Sah, PW-2 Rohit
Sahani, PW-3 Bishwanath Sah, PW-4 Moti Lal Sah, PW-5
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
3/23
Lagandeo Sah, PW-6 Usha Devi (mother of the deceased), PW-
7 Bhikhari Sah (informant and father of the deceased), PW-8
Ram Ayodhya Das (IO) and PW-9 Dr. A.A. Lari. PWs-1 to 5 has
been declared hostile by the prosecution. Documentary
evidences exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, Ext-1
Signature of the informant on the written petition, Ext-2
Endorsement on the written petition, Ext-3 Inquest report and
Ext-4 Postmortem Report.
6. PW-6 in his examination-in-chief stated that
the deceased Anita Devi was her daughter. She was married to
the accused Rakesh Shah, six years prior to her death. Anita
died four years ago in her matrimonial home. Her in-laws had
been demanding a gold chain and a buffalo as dowry. When the
demands were not fulfilled, they started assaulting her.
Thereafter, when her husband went to bring her back, but the
accused refused to send her daughter. Later, Rakesh’s brother
informed them that Anita eloped. While searching for her, her
body was found in a pond located behind the accused’s house.
She further stated that she went to the police station and her
statement was recorded.
6.i. In her cross-examination, she stated that her
statement was recorded by the police during supervision,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
4/23
approximately a month after her daughter’s death, and it was
taken at her doorstep. She further stated that her daughter had
told her that the accused used to beat her for dowry. She further
stated that she does not know how Anita died, and she has not
seen the pond from where the body was recovered.
7. PW-7 in his examination-in-chief, stated that
the deceased, Anita Devi, was his daughter. She was married to
the accused Rakesh Shah in the year 2005 and died in the year
2007 in her matrimonial house. On the day of Khichdi, he went
to his daughter’s matrimonial home, where Anita informed him
that her in-laws were assaulting her for not bringing a buffalo
and a gold chain. He asked her father-in-law Binda Shah for her
bidai upon which her in-laws stated that her husband knows
about it and who refused to send her back without receiving the
buffalo and chain. Four to five days later, Jagmohan informed
him that Anita had gone out in the morning and had not came
back yet. A search was initiated and about 4-5 days later, her
body was found by fisherman in a pond near the accused’s
house. People gathered at the scene and the police arrived and
took the body into custody. He then went to the police station
and filed a case. The Sub-Inspector wrote down the complaint
and took his signature, which is marked as Exhibit A.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
5/23
7.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that his
statement was recorded before the police for the first time. At
the time of lodging of the FIR it was not recorded again. After
Anita’s marriage, he visited her matrimonial home three times.
Each time, he stayed for only about ten minutes. On one
occasion, Binda Shah refused to call his son in front of him and
said his son (Rakesh) knew everything and he (Binda) did not
know anything. He first received news of Anita’s disappearance
on Saturday and first saw her dead body in a pond on the
following Monday, where it was entangled in water hyacinth.
He informed his wife and children about the dowry demands.
The body was handed over to him after postmortem, and he
performed the cremation on Tuesday. None of Anita’s in-laws
attended the cremation despite being informed.
7.ii. He further stated that Anita had come to his
house twice after marriage once 10-12 days after marriage, and
once 10-15 days after the ceremony of donga. When she came
after donga for the first time she told him about dowry demands
and assault. However, she did not mention that her husband had
threatened to kill her. He did not see any cut marks on her body
but said Anita told him she was hurt. He never took her to a
doctor nor made any complaint against her in-laws at that time.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
6/23
Anita had no children. He denied the suggestion that his
daughter was mentally unsound. He stated he was unaware of
any incident in which she slipped into the pond while
defecating. He denied that he falsely implicated the accused to
extort money.
8. PW-8 in his examination-in-chief stated that
on 22.01.2007, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector (SI) at
Lakhaura Police Station. On that day, Bhikhari Sah submitted a
written application, which he forwarded to Mufassil Police
Station for registration of the FIR. The forwarding note from
Lakhaura P.S. SHO was marked as Exhibit 2. Based on this,
Mufassil (Lakhaura) P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 was registered
and he was assigned the investigation. During the investigation,
he first visited the place of occurrence along with the police
force and the informant. They searched the pond, and the dead
body of Anita Devi was recovered near the roots of a bamboo
grove on the south side of the pond. The body was identified by
the informant’s and thereafter he prepared the inquest report,
which bears the signatures of the informant, Vishwanath Shah,
and himself which was marked as Exhibit 3. Thereafter, the
body was sent for postmortem and the place was inspected.
8.i. He further stated that the first place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
7/23
occurrence was the house of accused Binda Shah, facing west
and constructed with tiles. As the house was locked from
outside, the rooms could not be inspected. There are six ponds
along the boundary of the house, one of which is where the
body was found. He recorded the statements of Bhikhari Sah,
Usha Devi, Vishwanath Shah, Lagandev Shah, Yogendra, Rohit
Sahni, Motilal Shah, Rajeshwar, among others. In their
statements, Yogendra Shah and others said the accused
murdered Anita Devi a day or two earlier and concealed her
body in the pond. They also stated that she was being harassed
for dowry. He further stated that the second place of occurrence
was beneath a bamboo grove on the eastern bank of the pond
from where the body was recovered. The postmortem report was
later obtained. After supervision by the Deputy SP and SP, the
investigation was handed over to Madan Mohan Prasad (SHO)
on 30.12.2007 due to the witness’s suspension for other reasons.
8.ii. In his cross-examination, he stated that
about 10-12 local fishermen were sent into the pond to recover
the body and thereafter he recorded the statements of all persons
who went along for the search of the deceased. Although some
of them were involved in retrieving the body, it was not
mentioned in their statements that they assisted in the recovery.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
8/23
He was present at the place from 1:30 PM to 6:00 PM and first
went to the house of the accused. He could not recall the
duration spent at each location (house and pond). He did not
enter the pond himself. He confirmed that no witness statement
mentioned the body being buried under soil at the bamboo
grove. The depth of the location was not mentioned in the case
diary. The bamboo grove was located east of the pond, and
contained about 50-60 bamboo stakes, owned by Ganesh Sah.
The Khata-Khasra details of the bamboo grove were not
verified. Witnesses Vishwanath, Lagan Dev, Rohit Sahni,
Motilal Shah, Rajeshwar Sahni, Manoj Sahni were from the
informant’s village and considered independent witnesses. No
witness from the accused’s village was examined.
8.iii. He further stated that no witness claimed to
have seen the accused killing the deceased or throwing her body
into the pond. He confirmed that no bleeding wounds or injury
marks were initially observed on the body. Later, he noticed a
grazed wound on the left side of the neck and a wound-like
mark near the right side of the mouth. He could not measure the
wounds or determine if they were fresh or old. There was no
record of whether the clothes were muddy or torn. His opinion
on the cause of death was based on witness statements. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
9/23
recorded all the witness statements at the pond between 2:00
PM and 6:00 PM. He tried to examine other villagers of the
deceased’s village, but this was not noted in the case diary. He
could not recall who told him that the body was buried in mud.
He later stated that the body was sent for postmortem by tractor,
as recorded in the diary. He was not present at the postmortem.
He reached the scene on foot, accompanied by the informant.
He denied the suggestion that he recorded the informant’s
statement while sitting at the police station or that the accused
was falsely implicated for unlawful gain.
9. PW-9 in his examination-in-chief stated that
on 23.01.2007 he was posted at Sadar Hospital Motihari as D.S
Sadar Hospital Motihari. On that day at 7:11 am he conducted
the postmortem examination of the dead body of Anita Devi,
w/o Rakesh Sah at village Bichala tola Lakhaura P.S Lakhaura
District East Champaran and found the following antemortem
injuries on her dead body:
i. both eye congested
ii. Serosangeos coming out from the Nostril
iii. Abrasion ½ cm x ½ cm present at right
angle of mouth.
iv. A ligature mark width about ½ cm found
high up in neck up to 1m angle at mandible
but absent in back.
9.i. On dissection skull NAD, Brain congested,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
10/23Neck trachea congested and petechial hemorrhage, found benith
the skin at neck. Thorax NAD but both limbs congested. Heart
right chamber contains dark fluid blood, left chamber was
empty. Abdomen- Abdominal viscera congested. Stomach
contains semi-digested juice about 4 ounce. Urinary bladder
empty. Cause of death- In his opinion it is asphyxia caused by
smothering as well as strangulation. Time elapse since death- 36
to 42 hrs. The said postmortem report is in his pen and
signature, which is marked as Ext. 4.
9.ii. In his cross-examination, he stated that the
dead body was produced by police. At the time postmortem,
there was no relative of deceased present. He has not written the
time in which postmortem was conducted. He did not find blood
clot. in the mouth or in nostril. On the basis of rigor mortis he
has written the time of death. He has not written the colour of
the injury. Colour of the injury is the basis of fixing the time of
injury. Arisen of this case had not been caused by lathi. There
was no sign of finger on neck. It is not a fact that this
postmortem is false.
10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C where
they claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and they are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
11/23innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that the impugned judgement of
conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in the eye
of law or on facts. Learned trial Court has not applied its
judicial mind and erroneously passed the judgement of
conviction and order of sentence. He further submits that from
perusal of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution it
is crystal clear that on 20.01.2007 brother-in-law of the
deceased went to the informant’s house and informed that
deceased was not at her matrimonial home. He submits that how
it is possible that the family who killed informants daughter
went to inform them about missing of the deceased. It is alleged
by the informant that sasural party was demanding golden chain
and a buffalo since year 2006 but prior to the alleged occurrence
neither FIR nor any complaint was lodged by the informant
against the appellants in regard to torture, harassment and
demand of dowry.
11.i. He further submits that body of the
deceased was found in the pond behind the appellant’s premises.
If appellants would have killed the deceased then why would
they throw the body of the deceased behind their house as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
12/23
everyone knows that the dead body smells foul. He stated that
without the prove of cruelty or harassment being perpetrated by
husband or any relative soon before the death of wife and the
only circumstances of death due to burn injuries within the
seven year of marriage is not enough to attract the ingredients of
Section 304B of the IPC. In the present case the demand of
dowry and cruelty both were the self imagination and
assumption of the informant and without any corroboration.
11.ii. Learned counsel further submitted that the
instance case was based on circumstantial evidence there was no
direct evidence or ocular witnesses were available. In
circumstantial evidence the chain of guilt should clearly
established the guilt of accused and no other probability, which
is not established in the instant case. There must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused. The Learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence it’s right perspective and impugned
judgement of conviction is bad in law as well as on fact and
such to set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that
appellant no.1 has spend almost seven years in judicial custody,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
13/23
where, the appellants have suffered and undergone persistent
agony on the account of the same and are struggling for the
defence since last 16-17 years. So, the appellants should have
been acquitted from the conviction as sentenced against them or
period undergone.
11.iii. Learned counsel further relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 SCC online SC
452 has laid down that:
wherein a woman died an unnatural death
in her matrimonial home, held that mere
death of the deceased being unnatural in
the matrimonial home within seven years of
marriage will not be sufficient to convict
the accused under Section 304-B and 498-A
IPC if the cruelty or harassment has not
been proved to be soon before the death.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these appeals and submits
that there is direct allegation against the present appellants, for
committing an offence under Sections 304B of the IPC. He
submitted that death has been occurred in matrimonial house
within the seven years of her marriage. The alleged incident
took place within one week after she returned from her parental
home and the death of victim was clearly and evidently
unnatural. Further it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
14/23statements and the evidence on record, learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellants and the present appeals should
not be entertained.
13. At this stage, I would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution and
defence before the Trial Court.
14. On deeply studied and scrutinized all
evidences, it is evident to note that the prosecution alleged that
the deceased was murdered by the accused persons for demand
of dowry. The father of the deceased (PW-7) in his deposition
stated that on the day of Khichdi, he went to his daughter’s
matrimonial home, where she informed him that her in-laws
were assaulting her for not bringing a buffalo and a gold chain.
Which has been also corroborated by PW-1. So, this established
the fact that soon before her death she was subjected to the
cruelty and assault on demand of dowry. There is no earlier
complaint regarding the demand of dowry from the family
members of the deceased due to the just and natural fact that on
the occasion of first or second demand the family members try
to compromise and settling the demand within the family and
want to save the matrimonial life of his daughter. The brother in
law went to inform the family members of the deceased but did
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
15/23
not inform the police at first instant which reasonably required
from a prudent men to act in particular circumstances and also
no justification has been provided for the said act by the
appellant.
15. Further the injury report of the deceased
shows that she died not because of drowning but because of
asphyxia caused by smothering as well as strangulation.
Moreover deceased died within seven years of her marriage and
also due to unnatural death. Dead body is recovered near the
house of the accused and soon before her death, she was
subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry is
established. Accordingly it has been concluded that the
prosecution has established its case beyond shadow of all
reasonable doubts and now the burden shifted on the appellant
to discharge this burden. Considering all the above facts and
circumstances the presumption against the accused which has
been provided under Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act
(herein after referred as ‘IEA’) has been raised and now the
burden has been shifted on the appellant to rebut the
presumption elevated against him. At this point of time it is
imperative to observe Section 106 of IEA as it is within the
special knowledge of the appellant to explain the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
16/23
occurrence and the cause of death of the deceased. Section 106
of the IEA read as follow:
“106. Burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge. When any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) (57)
ACC 938 SC held that:
“12. If an offence takes place
inside the privacy of a house and in such
circumstances where the assailants have all
the opportunity to plan and commit the
offence at the time and in circumstances of
their choice, it will be extremely difficult for
the prosecution to lead evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused if the strict principle
of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above,
is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does
not preside over a criminal trial merely to
see that no innocent man is punished. A
Judge also presides to see that a guilty man
does not escape. Both are public duties. (See
Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution
1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit
Pasayat, J. In State of Punjab vs. Karnail
Singh(2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not
enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead
evidence of such character which is almost
impossible to be led or at any rate extremely
difficult to be led. The duty on the
prosecution is to lead such evidence which it
is capable of leading, having regard to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
17/23facts and circumstances of the case. Here it
is necessary to keep in mind section 106 of
the Evidence Act which says that when any
fact is especially within the knowledge of
any person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this
section throws some light on the content and
scope of this provision and it reads:
(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway
without ticket. The burden of proving that he
had a ticket is on him.”
Where an offence like murder is committed
in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden
to establish the case would undoubtedly be
upon the prosecution, but the nature and
amount of evidence to be led by it to
establish the charge cannot be of the same
degree as is required in other cases of
circumstantial evidence. The burden would
be of a comparatively lighter character. In
view of section 106 of the Evidence Act there
will be a corresponding burden on the
inmates of the house to give a cogent
explanation as to how the crime was
committed. The inmates of the house cannot
get away by simply keeping quiet and
offering no explanation on the supposed
premise that the burden to establish its case
lies entirely upon the prosecution and there
is no duty at all on an accused to offer any
explanation.”
17. In the present case the prosecution has
discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to
establish the offence. To the satisfaction of this court the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
18/23
prosecution have succeeded in proving facts from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the
accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Nagendra
Shah v. State of Bihar (2021) the it has been reinforced that, in
cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused’s failure to
provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of
IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of
circumstances. In the instant case there is no direct or ocular
witness is present in the case so the case is completely based on
circumstantial evidence. In the present case as no justification
has been provided by the accused regarding the circumstances
which led the death of deceased add an additional link to the
circumstantial evidence which established the guilt of accused.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of
Dinesh vs State Of Haryana on 25 April, 2014
“17. Prima facie we are of the view that
neither definite period has been indicted in
the aforementioned section nor the
expression “soon before” has been defined.
In the case of Dhian Singh & Anr. vs. State
of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 759, this Court
held that:- “The contention of the
appellant’s counsel is that even if it is
proved that there was cruelty on account of
demand of dowry, such cruelty shall be
soon before the death and there must be
proximate connection between the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
19/23
cruelty and the death of the deceased. It is
true that the prosecution has to establish
that there must be nexus between the cruelty
and the suicide and the cruelty meted out
must have induced the victim to commit
suicide. The appellant has no case that
there was any other reason for her to
commit suicide. The evidence shows that
the first appellant had demanded dowry
and he had sent her away from his house
and only after mediation she was taken
back to the appellant’s house and death
happened within a period of two months
thereafter. These facts clearly show that the
suicide was the result of the harassment or
cruelty meted out to the deceased. The
presumption under Section 113-B of the
Indian Evidence Act could be invoked
against the appellant and the Sessions
Court rightly found the appellant guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 304B
IPC and Section 201 IPC.”
19. In the present case also the death of deceased
is because of asphyxia caused by smothering as well as
strangulation and the same is confirmed by the injury report of
the deceased which also shows that she died not because of
drowning. The prosecution has proved its case to the satisfaction
of the court so as per law the presumption of section 113B of the
IEA will raised against the accused.
20. To attract the provision of Section 304-B of
the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is
required to be established is that “soon before her death” she
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
20/23
was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in connection with the
demand for dowry”. To appreciate the arguments raised by the
learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 304B of the
IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would
be required. The same are extracted herein below:-
Section 304B of the IPC read as follow:
“304B. Dowry death.– (1) Where the death
of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called “dowry death”,
and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation-For the purpose of this sub-
section, “dowry” shall have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2)
Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life.
21. The essential ingredients of dowry death
under Section 304-B of the IPC are as follow:
(i) death of the woman concerned is by any
burns or bodily injury or by any cause
other than in normal circumstances, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
21/23
(ii) is within seven years of her marriage,
and
(iii) that soon before her death, she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of the husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for
dowry.
22. The accused must have subjected the woman
to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her
death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court
will presume that the accused has committed the offence of
dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act read as:
“Section113B: Presumption as to dowry
death- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or
in connection with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death.”
23. Noticeably this presumption as well is
founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman
dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the
person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry
death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
22/23
that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by
the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death.
Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to
invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of
commission of the offence of dowry death by the person
charged therewith.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State
of U.P vs Tribhuwan, (2018) 1 SCC 90 has laid down that, time
spent in custody by a convicted persons, both as an under-trial
and as a convicted person, may be considered as jail sentence
awarded to him and he may get the advantage of set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
25. Hence, keeping in view all the material on
record and the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is
observed that the appellants have been in judicial custody for
approx six years five months and the Judgment of conviction
dated 19.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2013 in
Sessions Trial No. 700 of 2009, G.R. Case No. 131 A of 2007
arising out of Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007 passed by the
learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari,
East Champaran, is hereby upheld and sustained. As there is no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.41 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
23/23
adverse report against the appellant about his conduct otherwise
the same would have been brought to our notice by learned
counsel for the State and the sentence of the appellant is reduced
to period undergone and the appellant stands discharged of the
liabilities of his bail bonds, if any.
26. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
27. Office is directed to send back the trial Court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial Court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 15.07.2025 Uploading Date 06.08.2025 Transmission Date 06.08.2025