[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Sarswati Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 April, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.955 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2009 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Son of Late Shiv Shankar Paswan, R/o Village-
Chhapragarh, P.S.- Akorhigola, District- Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 779 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2009 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Sarswati Devi W/o Late Shiv Shankar Paswan, Resident of Village-
Chhapragarh, P.S.- Akorigola, District- Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 955 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 779 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 19-04-2025
The present appeals have been filed under Section-
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
2/39
referred as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the common judgment of
conviction dated 30.05.2017 and order of sentence dated
01.06.2017
, passed in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2010, arising out
of Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 117 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.
No. 2674 of 2009, by the Court of learned P.O., F.T.C.-1,
Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby the appellants/convicts have been
convicted for commission of the offences punishable under
Section-304B/34 of I.P.C. and appellant Rajeev Ranjan Kumar
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and appellant
Sarswati Devi has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven
years.
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
for the appellants assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Mr.
Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State and
Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh and Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, learned
counsels for the informant.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present
appeal are as under:
“The informant Anita Devi, mother of the deceased
gave her fardbeyan on 11.11.2009 at 22:00 hours at the in-laws’
house of her daughter stating that the marriage of her daughter
was solemnized on 28.02.2008 according to Hindu Rites and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
3/39Rituals. After the marriage, Priyanka (deceased) started to live
in her matrimonial house and she visited her parental house in
December, 2008. Taking the excuse of an accident, the husband
of the deceased took her to Rohtas. Thereafter, Priyanka, her
father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband
started to live at Dihri in the rental accommodation of Dr.
Surendra Gupta. The husband of Priyanka compelled her to
demand Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle from her parents on
mobile phone so that the same can be given at the time of his
sister’s marriage. When the informant side tried to take her back
to their house, the father-in-law and mother-in-law told in
specific terms that they would not permit Priyanka to go until
the aforesaid demand is fulfilled. Sunita, the sister-in-law of
Priyanka treated her as a maid servant and did not permit her to
watch T.V. From time to time, Priyanka used to inform the
informant and her mother (Nani) about the ill-treatment meted
to her and expressed apprehension of being killed. On
30.10.2009, when father of Priyanka went to take her back,
Priyanka’s husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-
law insulted him and put the same condition. It is further alleged
in the fardbeyan that before they could resolve the issue, on
11.11.2009, at about 04:00 p.m., a call from the Priyanka’s
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
4/39husband was received informing that Priyanka is ill. She is
fainting off and on. On this information, the informant, son of
her sister-in-law namely Sikandar Paswan, elder brother of her
husband, namely Vikrama Paswan and her son Gaurav Kumar
Nirala went to the in-laws’ house of her daughter and found her
daughter dead with a black mark around her neck, which clearly
indicated that her daughter was murdered by her husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law by pressing her
neck and the accused persons fled away after the local people
gathered around the place.”
4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency
carried out the investigation and, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of
the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and
thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2010.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Ajay
Kumar Thakur mainly submitted that appellant Rajeev Ranjan
Kumar is the husband of the deceased whereas appellant
Sarswati Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
5/39
submitted that the trial court has acquitted two other accused of
all the charges. It is further submitted that, in the present case,
though the charge was framed under Section-302 of I.P.C., the
trial court has acquitted the appellants qua the said offence. It is
further submitted that the appellants have been convicted for
committing the offence punishable under Section-304B read
with 34 of I.P.C. However, the prosecution has failed to prove
the ingredients of Section-304B of I.P.C. Learned counsel
referred the deposition of the prosecution-witnesses and
thereafter contended that the prosecution-witnesses did not give
any date on which the demand of dowry was made. It is also
submitted that general allegations are levelled against all the
four accused that they have demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a
motorcycle. At this stage, learned counsel referred the
deposition given by P.W. 4 Sitaram Paswan, the grandfather of
the deceased. It is submitted that the said witness has
specifically stated in para-11 that no dowry in cash was given at
the time of marriage as there was no such demand from the
accused side. Learned counsel further submits that the said
witness has once again said that no dowry was demanded at the
time of marriage. Learned advocate Mr. Thakur further submits
that from the deposition of the prosecution-witnesses, it would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
6/39
reveal that the deceased was a student of B.A. Part-I at the time
of her marriage and by the time of the incident she had passed
her graduation. It is further submitted that P.W. 4 has admitted
during cross-examination that at the time of marriage, deceased
was in B.A. Part-II and her in-laws had continued her studies
upto B.A. Final and for the said purpose they had taken a house
on rent at Dehri. It is also submitted by Mr. Thakur that
appellant Rajeev Ranjan is a teacher in his village and his father
teaches in an adjacent village. Both of them regularly go to
school on their motorcycle. Learned counsel, therefore,
contended that when the appellant/accused Rajeev Ranjan and
even his father were having motorcycles and were teachers
working in the school, there was no question of demanding
motorcycle, as alleged. Learned counsel has also contended that,
in fact, the appellants have taken a house on rent near the
college in which deceased was studying and she pursued her
B.A. Part-II and cleared it. Learned counsel thereafter referred
the deposition given by P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer. It is
submitted that the I.O. has specifically stated that he had
recorded the statement of witness Sushma Devi who stated that
the door was locked from the inside. She also stated before him
that mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and sister-in-law of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
7/39
the deceased came afterwards and the husband of the deceased
entered the room through the upper side grill and opened the
door. Learned counsel further submits that P.W. 7, I.O., has also
stated that the house owner and co-renter said that they never
saw any quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons.
Mr. Thakur, therefore, contended that there was no demand of
dowry and no cruelty was meted out by the appellants to the
deceased, as alleged by the prosecution and even there was no
cruelty for demand of dowry soon before the death. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove all the ingredients of Section-304B of I.P.C. and
even presumption under Section-113B of Evidence Act would
not be attracted in the facts of the present case.
6. Learned counsel thereafter referred the
deposition of P.W. 6, the doctor who had conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of the deceased. It is submitted that
during cross-examination the said witness has stated that
asphyxia can be caused even in the case of suicide by hanging
and strangulation is also possible in the case of hanging.
Learned counsel, therefore, contended that even if the present
can be considered as a case of unnatural death at the
matrimonial home of the deceased, factum of such unnatural
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
8/39
death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not
by itself sufficient to hold accused persons guilty of offence
under Section-304B of I.P.C. In support of this contention,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath V. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2016 SC 5313. Learned
counsel has also placed reliance upon the following decisions:-
(i) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in AIR 2023 SC 2095;
(ii) Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214;
(iii) Shoor Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 815;
(iv) Chabi Karmakar & Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 398;
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. and learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the present appeals.
Learned advocates for the respondents would mainly submit that
from the deposition given by the prosecution-witnesses, it
transpires that specific allegations are levelled against the
appellants herein that they have demanded Rs. 50,000/- cash as
well as a motorcycle. It is further submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
9/39
prosecution-witnesses have also alleged that the cruelty was
meted out to the deceased. At this stage, it has been submitted
that span of married life of the deceased with the appellant
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar was less than two years. Thus, the
deceased had died at her matrimonial home within seven years
of her marriage. It is further submitted that from the deposition
of the doctor, it can be said that the death of the deceased was
unnatural. Learned advocates, therefore, urged that presumption
under Section-113B of Evidence Act would be attracted and
when the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section-304B of I.P.C., no error has
been committed by the trial court while convicting the
appellants for the said offences. Learned advocates, therefore,
urged that both these appeals be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also perused the
evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses
and also perused the documentary evidence exhibited.
9. At this stage, we would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution as well
as defence before the Trial Court.
10. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined 7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
10/39
witnesses.
11. P.W. 1 Gaurav Kumar Nirala is the brother of
the deceased. He has stated that the incident is of 11.11.2009. At
about 09:00 p.m., he was at his house. At 04:00 p.m. the groom
made a call and informed that Priyanka has fallen ill and is
fainting time and again. His mother advised him to get her
treated, but the call was disconnected which made them
suspicious. Thereafter he, his mother, his uncle and the son of
his uncle hired a vehicle and went to Akorhigola, Chapra to
verify the actual cause. When they went inside the room, he
found the dead body of his sister lying in the room. When they
asked as to how all this happened, the accused persons did not
give any reply. There was a black mark around the neck of his
sister from which they came to the conclusion that she has been
killed by strangulating her neck. He has further stated that
whenever he visited the in-laws’ house of his sister, the in-laws,
namely Sheo Shankar Paswan, Rajeev Kumar, Sarswati Devi
and his (groom’s) sister, used to demand Rs. 50,000/- and a
bicycle and used to beat his sister. He identifies Sheo Shankar
Paswan, Rajeev Ranjan and Sarswati Devi, present in Court.
11.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
the husband of Priyanka had informed about her illness on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
11/39
11.11.2009 at 04:00 p.m. Priyanka was living at Dehri at that
time as there was no proper arrangement for studies in her in-
laws’ house, which was situated in a village. The husband and
the father-in-law of Priyanka were both in government job and
were getting remuneration of Rs.5000/- each. Priyanka had two
unmarried sisters-in-law. Matrimonial relation of his sister was
not cordial even before her death. The informant side seldom
visited Priyanka at her rented house at Dehri. Name of the house
owner was Dr. Surendra Gupta. The in-laws’ village was at a
distance of 6-7 kilometres from Dehri. He had last gone to Dehri
on 30.10.2009 to take her to his house on the occasion of
Chhath, but she was sent back and a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and
a motorcycle was made as a pre-condition for sending her with
him. They could not fulfil the aforesaid demand. He has,
however, admitted that the accused used to go on duty on
motorcycle which was not given by them. He has stated that the
accused persons had no piece of land. He has further stated that
his sister stayed at her in-laws’ house for a period of 10-15 days
in all. After the marriage, Priyanka stayed at her parental house
for only 25 days and she resided in the house of her maternal
grandfather and studied there. She was doing Graduation there.
He has further admitted that the expenses over her education
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
12/39
were borne by her in-laws and they had themselves got her
enrolled in Part-3. In his further cross-examination, he has
stated that he had not visited the house of Surendra Gupta,
where the accused persons were residing, either on the date of
incident or the following day. He never visited the said place till
date. Priyanka died at Dehri in the house of Surendra Gupta. He
used to go there before the incident. After the death, the dead
body was taken to her Sasural at Chapra. However, they took
back the dead body to Dehri and performed her funeral.
Priyanka’s husband was also with them. When they were on the
way, the husband of Priyanka was arrested by the Police. He
further adds that he was arrested at his house itself in their
presence at 09:30 p.m. Before his arrest, no F.I.R. was lodged.
When the husband of Priyanka was arrested, they accompanied
him to the police station along with the dead body and stayed
there for the whole night. Next morning, an F.I.R. was lodged
upon which he, his mother, his uncle Vikrama Paswan and the
son of his uncle, namely Sikandar Paswan put their signatures.
Darogaji wrote in the F.I.R. that the incident took place at 04:00
p.m. on 11.11.2009 at Dehri. He also detailed the manner of
occurrence. He has further stated that he himself performed the
funeral. After giving written information at the police station, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
13/39
never came across Darogaji. He has further stated that he did not
get any information at Chapra about the death of Priyanka. The
distance of the house of Surendra Gupta from the house of his
maternal grandfather is about 1 to 1/5 kilometres. She had
visited her maternal grandfather’s house only once after her
marriage. Deceased Priyanka was very beautiful and Rajeev
Ranjan is of very dark complexion. Relation between the two
was cordial. He has denied the suggestion of giving false
deposition and that no such incident had taken place.
12. P.W. 2 Vikrama Paswan has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 11.11.2009.
Priyanka was married to Rajeev Ranjan in Akhorigola, Chapra
in 2008. He had attended the same. He has briefly stated the
sequence of events and supported the deposition of P.W. 1,
including the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle. He has
identified accused Sheo Shankar Paswan and Rajeev Ranjan,
present in Court.
12.1. He has stated that in his cross-examination
he is the uncle of Priyanka. At the time of incident, he was at
Haider Nagar with his nephew Sikandar Paswan, Anita Devi and
Gaurav Kumar. He has also stated that he is not educated,
however, he can write his name. He had received the call at
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
14/39
04:00 p.m. of the groom. At that time Priyanka resided at Dehri,
but they did not go to Dehri as Priyanka’s husband had informed
that he is taking her to Chapra. He could not know as to what
happened with Priyanka as he resides at Hazaribagh. He has
further stated that he has visited Chapra, where the accused
persons reside. It is 5-6 kilometres away from Dehri. He is not
acquainted with anybody of that village. When he saw the dead
body of Priyanka, none else was there. On 11th police took the
dead body and record was maintained. He again stated that no
document was prepared. He had last visited the house of
Priyanka at Dehri on 28.04.2009 to take her back, but she was
not allowed to come with him. In his further cross-examination,
he has stated that Priyanka’s husband and his father both are
teachers and they go to the school on motorcycle. He has first
stated that police had interrogated him and then denies his
version. He has stated that he had gone upto Sasaram with the
dead body. He has further stated that he was informed by the
wife of Shankar Paswan about the illness of Priyanka.
13. P.W. 3 Sikandar Paswan has stated in his
examination-in-chief that Priyanka Kumari was his cousin sister.
She was married on 28.02.2008 with Rajeev Ranjan whereafter
she went to her Sasural. On the date of incident, i.e. on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
15/39
11.11.2009 Rajeev Ranjan had informed his aunt Anita Devi on
phone that Priyanka was ill. Upon such information, Anita Devi,
Vikrama Ram, Gaurav Kumar Nirala and he himself went to the
Sasural of Priyanka at Akhorigola, Chapra where they saw that
Priyanka was lying dead and there was a black mark around her
neck. His aunt enquired of the accused persons that when
Priyanka was ill, why did they not get her treated. The accused
persons did not reply to her. Priyanka was kept with dignity for
5-6 months. Thereafter accused Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Sunita
Kumari, Sarswati Devi and Sheo Shankar Paswan started
demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle which the informant
side could not fulfil. Accused then began to ill-treat her and
threaten her to kill. Anita Devi informed Akhorigola P.S. on
phone upon which police force chased the accused persons and
arrested accused Rajeev Ranjan. He has claimed to identify all
the accused persons and identifies accused Sheo Shankar
Paswan and Sarswati Devi, present in Court.
13.1. In his cross-examination, he has further stated
that Priyanka was a student of B.A. Part-I of Mahila College,
Dalmia Nagar at the time of her marriage and on the date of
incident she had done her Graduation. He has further stated that
he is not acquainted with anybody in Chapra, except his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
16/39
relatives. He had visited Chapra 2-3 time in February, 2008. He
has also stated that when he got information about the incident,
he informed his maternal grandfather about the same on
11.11.2009 in the night. Police had prepared the paper of the
dead body upon which he had put his signature as a witness. The
dead body was kept at the police station during night. Next day
it was taken for post mortem. He had also gone with the dead
body. In his further cross-examination, he has stated F.I.R. was
drafted in the night itself upon which he, Vikrama Paswan,
Gaurav Kumar and Anita Devi had put their signatures. There
was none from the village present at Akhorigola P.S. He had
talked to the accused persons, but when they did not give any
reply regarding the incident, he and others concluded that the
accused persons had killed Priyanka for dowry. He has denied
the suggestion of falsely implicating the accused persons.
14. P.W. 4 Sitaram Paswan has stated in his
examination-in-chief that Deceased Priyanka was his
granddaughter (Natini). She was married to Rajeev Ranjan
Kumar on 28.02.2008. On the date of incident i.e. 11.11.2009 at
09:30 p.m. he got information through Anita on mobile that
Sheo Shankar Paswan, Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Sarswati Devi
and Sunita Kumari had killed Priyanka. Accused demanded Rs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
17/39
50,000/- and a motorcycle and due to non-fulfilment of the same
they used to torture her and killed her.
14.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
his granddaughter had passed B.A. At the time of marriage she
was in BA-Part II. Her in-laws had continued her studies upto
BA Final and for the said purpose they had taken a house on
rent at Dehri. Rajeev Ranjan is a teacher in his village and his
father teaches in an adjacent village. Both of them regularly go
to school on their motorcycle. They cover a distance of 10 kms.
to attend their duties from Dehri. He has further stated that his
house is 1.5 kms. away from Dehri where he used to go to see
his granddaughter. He has also stated in para-11 that no dowry
in cash was given at the time of marriage, as there was no such
demand from the accused side. However, certain articles were
given. It was he who had given all the articles at the time of
marriage. He has further stated that Priyanka never wrote any
letter to him. Priyanka died at Dehri. He had not lodged any
case regarding the death of Priyanka at Dehri. Priyanka’s family
members had also not lodged any case at Dehri. The owner of
the house at Dehri where Priyanka resided with the in-laws was
Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta. He has further deposed that initially
Priyanka was kept properly in his Sasural. When the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
18/39
started demanding dowry, the relation became strained. He has
reiterated that no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage.
The motorcycle was demanded for being given in the marriage
of the sister of Rajeev Ranjan Kumar. He has denied the
suggestion that out of anger he has falsely implicated the
accused persons.
15. P.W. 5 Anita Devi has stated in her
examination-in-chief that Priyanka was her daughter. She was
married to Rajeev Ranjan on 28.02.2008. On 30.12.2008
Priyanka had come to her house when she had fallen ill, but on
25.01.2009 her son-in-law took her back. When her daughter
went back to her Sasural, her husband Rajeev Ranjan, father-in-
law Sheo Shankar Paswan, mother-in-law Sarswati Devi and
sister-in-law Sunita Devi started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and a
motorcycle. When she expressed inability, they started to beat
her and stopped offering food. She had gone to her daughter’s
Sasural 3-4 times when the accused persons said that until the
demand is fulfilled, they would not permit Priyanka to go to her
parental house. On 11.12.2009, her son-in-law dialed to her and
informed that her daughter is severally ill and has developed
fainting tendency. Upon such information, she, her sister-in-
law’s son and her own son went to Chapra. When no
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
19/39
satisfactory reply was given about the illness, they went inside
the house and saw Priyanka lying dead with black mark around
her neck. None in the locality revealed the truth from which she
suspected that all the four accused persons had killed her
daughter by strangulating her neck. When she informed her
father about the incident, he informed Akhorigola P.A. Police
came and recorded her statement. She put her signature on the
statement which she identifies. Vikrama Ram, Sikandar Paswan,
Gaurav Kumar Nirala had also put their signatures on the same
which she identifies (Exts. 1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3). She has identified
accused Rajeev Ranjan and Sheo Shankar Paswan, present in
court and claims to identify other accused by face.
15.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that
the marriage of her daughter was organized at her parental
house at Dehri. By that time, her daughter had completed her
B.A. Part I. Further, she had completed her B.A. Final from her
Sasural. Her deceased daughter, son-in-law and other family
members resided at Dehri in the rented house and her daughter
attended the college from there and had appeared at the
examination also from there. She has further stated that she had
not visited the house of Dr. Surendra Gupta where her son-in-
law resided on rent. When she had gone to Chapra, police was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
20/39
not there, rather it came after an hour. She went to the police
station with the police. The police did not take her to Dr.
Gupta’s house. Though the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a
motorcycle was made before the incident, but she had not
disclosed about the same. She has denied the suggestion that in
absence of the accused persons her daughter had committed
suicide by hanging herself and that she had falsely implicated
the accused persons.
16. P.W. 6 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh has stated in his
deposition that he was posted as M.O. at Sadar Hospital,
Sasaram on 12.11.2009. He conducted the post mortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased Priyanka Kumari
on 12.11.2009 at 02:15 p.m. and noted the following:-
“External Exam:-
1. Rigor Mortis -present in all four limbs.
2. Face- Gyanosed.
3. Lips- livid.
4. A ligature (depressed) over front and right side of neck and
discontinuous on left side laterally. The depressed ligature mark was 1/4″
wide.
On dissection:-
Skull bones intact meninges and brain substance intact and
congested neck. Haematoma under the ligature mark and below.
Muscles- Torn.
Thyroid cartiledge fractured blood found in trachea. Mucosa red
and congested.
Chest- Lungs congested.
Heart- Right side full of blood left side contain little blood.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
21/39Stomach- Contain 100 ml liquid.
Abdomen- Liver, spleen, kidney found congested.
Small intestine contain fluid and gas.
Large intestine faecal matter and gas.
Uterus- Non-gravit.
3. Time elapsed since death- 12 to 24 hours.
Cause of death- Asphyxia due to strangulation.
16.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
the post-mortem report is written by him with the assistance of
others. He has further stated that ligature mark is possible even
in case of hanging. Asphyxia can be caused even in the case of
suicide by hanging. Strangulation is also possible in case of
hanging.
17. P.W. 7 Dayanath Jha is the Investigating
Officer of the present case. He has stated that on 11.11.2009 he
was posted as S.H.O., Akhorigola P.S. On that date he recorded
the fardbeyan of Anita Devi at 10:00 hours in the night. The
fardbeyan is in his pen and signature, which he identifies. Anita
Devi, finding the contents of the fardbeyan to be true, put her
signature on the same. Sikandar Paswan, Vikrama Ram, Gaurav
Kumar Nirala also put their signatures as witnesses in his
presence (Ext-3). The formal F.I.R. is in the pen and signature of
S.I. Arvind Kumar Jha (Ext-4). He himself took the charge of
investigation and recorded the re-statement of the informant as
also the statements of witnesses Gaurav Kumar Nirala, Vikrama
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
22/39Paswan and Sikandar Paswan. He also arrested accused Rajeev
Ranjan Kumar. Next morning, he prepared the inquest report of
the deceased. He sent the dead body of the deceased Priyanka
Kumari @ Guria for post mortem. Based on the statement of the
accused, he went to the Dehri house of the accused and took the
statement of local residents there. He, thereafter, inspected the
place of occurrence. The incident is alleged to have taken place
in the room in which father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
deceased resided.
17.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
received the information about the occurrence on 11.11.2009 at
21:30 in the night. He recorded the fardbeyan at 22:00 hours by
the side of the deceased. He was, first of all, informed by Ram
Chandar Paswan. The mother of the deceased was informed
about the incident by the husband of the deceased, as recorded
in the re-statement. He had taken the statements of the local
residents, but the same is not mentioned in the case diary. He
recorded the statement of the wife of a co-renter in para-20. He
also recorded the statement of the land lady in para-19 of the
case diary. Witness Sushma Devi stated that the gate was locked
from inside. Her statement is recorded in the case diary. She did
not tell about the presence of accused at the relevant point of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
23/39
time. She further stated that mother-in-law, father-in-law,
husband and sister-in-law of the deceased came afterwards. She
also stated that the husband of the deceased entered the room
through the upper side grill and opened the door. The house
owner and a co-renter disclosed that they never saw any quarrel
between the accused persons and the deceased. Nothing
incriminating was found in the room in which deceased is stated
to have hanged herself. He has denied the suggestion that he has
conducted a faulty investigation and submitted a false charge-
sheet against the accused persons, without any cogent material
or evidence against them.
18. Defence has also examined 6 witnesses, namely
D.W. 1, Mahendra Sharma, D.W. 2 Jagarnath Sharma, D.W. 3,
Sushma Devi, D.W. 4 Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, D.W. 5 Ramadhar
Ram and D.W. 6 Surendra Kumar Sinha.
19. We have considered the arguments canvassed
by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, re-appreciated
the entire evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence and
perused the paper-book and trial court record.
20. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it
would reveal that marriage of the deceased with the appellant
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar was solemnized on 28.02.2008 and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
24/39
deceased died on 11.11.2009 at her matrimonial house. Thus,
within a period of seven years, the deceased died at her
matrimonial home. Now, informant Anita Devi is the mother of
the deceased who has lodged the First Information Report in
which mainly it has been alleged that after the marriage there
was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle by the accused.
In the F.I.R. it has been alleged that accused Sunita Devi, sister-
in-law of the deceased, was misbehaving with the deceased and
she was not allowed to watch television. Thereafter, there is a
reference of the incident of 30th October, 2009 in the F.I.R. that
father of the deceased, i.e. husband of the informant, had visited
the matrimonial house of the deceased when all the in-laws
misbehaved with him and at that time also they demanded a
motorcycle. It is alleged that on 11.11.2009, the deceased died.
20.1. However, it is pertinent to note that the
prosecution has failed to examine the father of the deceased and
thereby failed to prove the so-called incident which took place
on 30th October, 2009. It is also required to be observed that
none of the prosecution-witnesses have deposed before the
Court with regard to the so-called incident which took place on
30th October, 2009.
21. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, if the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
25/39
deposition of P.W. 1 is examined, it is revealed that he has
alleged in para-2 that whenever he was visiting the house of his
sister, the accused were demanding Rs.50,000/- and a bicycle.
Thus, the said witness has stated about the demand of a bicycle
and not motorcycle. Further, the said witness has not given the
specific date with regard to the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a
bicycle. Further, during cross-examination the said witness has
admitted that his deceased sister was residing at Dehri because
in the village in which her matrimonial house is situated, there
was no arrangement/facility for studies of the deceased. He has
also said that husband and father-in-law of the deceased are in
Government job. It is further revealed that the said witness has
also admitted that accused were using their motorcycles.
Further, the said witness has also admitted that after the
marriage, the deceased continued her studies and for that
purpose expenses of which were borne by the in-laws. P.W. 1
further stated that deceased Priyanka Kumari was very
beautiful, however, her husband Rajeev Ranjan Kumar is of
very dark complexion. P.W. 1 has further admitted that relation
between the two was cordial. Thus, from the aforesaid
deposition of P.W. 1 it can be said that the relation between
husband and wife was cordial and, in fact, after the marriage the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
26/39
expenses of studies of the deceased was borne by her in-laws
and the accused were using their own motorcycles. The said
motorcycles were not given by the informant side.
22. P.W. 4 Sitaram Paswan is the grandfather of
the deceased. The said witness has, in fact, admitted during his
cross-examination that at the time of marriage the deceased was
in B.A. Part-II and her in-laws had continued her studies upto
B.A. Final and for the said purpose they had taken a house on
rent at Dehri. The said witness has also stated that accused
Rajeev Ranjan is a teacher in his village and his father teaches
in an adjacent village. Both of them regularly go to their schools
on motorcycles. The said witness has also admitted in para-11
that no dowry in cash was given at the time of marriage as there
was no such demand from the accused side. Once again the said
witness has admitted that no dowry was demanded at the time of
marriage.
22.1. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition given by
P.W. 4, grandfather of the deceased, it can be said that there was
no demand of cash or dowry at the time of marriage and, in fact,
appellant Rajeev Ranjan Kumar and his father were having their
own motorcycle and they were serving in school and were doing
government job. Further, with a view to see that the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
27/39
pursues her studies, they had taken a house on rent at Dehri near
the college and after marriage the deceased studied upto B.A.
Final.
23. Informant is P.W. 5, who is mother of the
deceased. The said witness has also admitted during cross-
examination that her daughter had completed B.A. Part-I and
thereafter completed her B.A. Final from her matrimonial home.
She has also admitted that her deceased daughter, son-in-law
and other family members resided at Dehri in the rented house
and her daughter attended the college from there and had also
appeared at the examination from there. She has also admitted
that she has not visited the house of Dr. Surendra Gupta where
her son-in-law resided on rent. She has also admitted that
though demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made, she
had not disclosed about the same.
24. At this stage, we would like to examine the
deposition given by P.W. 7, I.O. The said witness has stated in
his cross-examination that he had recorded the statement of
witness Sushma Devi who stated before him that the gate was
locked from inside. Statement of the said witness was recorded
in the case diary, however, the said witness did not tell about the
presence of the accused at the relevant point of time. P.W. 7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
28/39
further stated that Sushma Devi also stated that mother-in-law,
father-in-law, husband and sister-in-law of the deceased came
afterwards and the husband of the deceased entered the room
through the upper side grill and opened the door. P.W. 7 has
further stated that the house owner and the co-renter disclosed
that they never saw any quarrel between the accused persons
and the deceased. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of P.W. 7,
it can be said that the independent witness Sushma Devi, whose
statement was recorded in the case diary, stated that the accused
were not present in the house when the incident took place and
the room was locked from inside. However, it is relevant to note
that prosecution has failed to examine the independent witness
Sushma Devi.
25. P.W. 6, the doctor who had conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has admitted during
cross-examination that ligature mark is possible even in case of
hanging. Asphyxia can be caused even in the case of suicide by
hanging. Further, strangulation is also possible in the case of
hanging. From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it
can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand
of dowry, i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle soon before the
death of the deceased. No specific date and time has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
29/39
mentioned by the prosecution with regard to such demand.
Further, cash and/or motorcycle was not demanded at the time
of marriage. In fact, appellant Rajeev Ranjan Kumar and his
father both were having their own motorcycle which they were
using. Further, there was cordial relationship between husband
and wife and, as per the statement given by the neighbours
before the police, i.e. P.W. 7, there was no quarrel between the
deceased and her in-laws. It would further reveal that the
appellant Rajeev Ranjan Kumar and his family members have
taken a house on rent at Dehri near the college in which the
deceased was staying so that she could pursue her studies and it
is also revealed from the evidence that expenses of her studies
were borne by the accused persons. If that is the case, then we
are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that there
was a cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her death in
connection with demand of dowry. Merely because deceased
died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home, that by itself is
not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of offence
punishable under Section-304B of I.P.C. as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath (supra). The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed in para-38 of the said judgment as
under:-
“38. A cumulative consideration of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
30/39the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us
unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge
qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our
estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable
component of the two offences beyond reasonable
doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the
matrimonial home and that too within seven years of
marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to
bring home the charge under Sections 304B and
498A of the Code against them.”
26. At this stage, we would like to refer the
decisions upon which reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel for the appellants.
27. In the case of Charan Singh (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 12, 13, 21 and 23 as
under:-
12. As the aforesaid case was also
pertaining to dowry death, presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was also
discussed in detail in paras 29 to 31 of the aforesaid
judgment. The same are extracted below:-
“29. 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
that the deceased lady had been subjected to
cruelty or harassment for or in connection
with any demand for dowry by the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
31/39and that too in the reasonable contiguity of
death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively
mandated pre-requisite to invoke the
otherwise statutorily ordained presumption
of commission of the offence of dowry death
by the person charged therewith.
30. A conjoint reading of these three
provisions, thus predicate the burden of the
prosecution to unassailably substantiate the
ingredients of the two offences by direct and
convincing evidence so as to avail the
presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of
the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty
or harassment by the husband or his relative
or the person charged is thus the sine qua
non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to
draw the person charged within the coils
thereof. If the prosecution fails to
demonstrate by cogent, coherent and
persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the
person accused of either of the above
referred offences cannot be held guilty by
taking refuge only of the presumption to
cover up the shortfall in proof.
31. The legislative primature of
relieving the prosecution of the rigour of the
proof of the often practically inaccessible
recesses of life within the guarded confines
of a matrimonial home and of replenishing
the consequential void, by according a
presumption against the person charged,
cannot be overeased to gloss over and
condone its failure to prove credibly, the
basic facts enumerated in the sections
involved, lest justice is the casualty”.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
32/39
13. A conjoint reading of Section
304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act with reference to the presumption raised was
discussed in para 32 of the aforesaid judgment,
which is extracted below:-
“32. This Court while often dwelling
on the scope and purport of Section 304-B of
the Code and Section 113-B of the Act have
propounded that the presumption is
contingent on the fact that the prosecution
first spell out the ingredients of the offence
of Section 304-B as in Shindo v. State of
Punjab [Shindo v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11
SCC 517: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 394: (2011
AIR SCW 6556)] and echoed in Rajeev
Kumar v. State of Haryana [Fajeev Kumar v.
State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 640: (2014)
6 SCC (Cri) 346]: (AIR 2014 SC 227). In the
latter pronouncement, this Court propounded
that one of the essential ingredients of dowry
death under Section 304-B of the Code is
that 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 113-B of the Act. It
referred to with approval, the earlier decision
of this Court in K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao [K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla
Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2003 SCC
(Cri) 271]: (AIR 2003 SC 11) to the effect
that to attract the provision of Section 304-B
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
33/39of the Code, one of the main ingredients of
the offence which is required to be
established is that “soon before her death”
she was subjected to cruelty and harassment
“in connection with the demand for dowry”.
21. In the aforesaid evidence led by
the prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about
the cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the
appellant or any of his family members on account
of demand of dowry soon before the death or
otherwise. Rather harassment has not been narrated
by anyone. It is only certain oral averments
regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is
also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid
evidence led by the prosecution does not fulfil the
pre-requisites to invoke presumption under Section
304B IPC ofr Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are
not made out for the same reason as there is no
evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased
soon before her death.
23. On a collective appreciation of
the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the
considered view that the pre-requisites to raise
presumption under Section 304B IPC and Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act having not been
fulfilled, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
justified. 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 304B and 498A IPC. The cause of
death as such is not known.”
28. In the case of Karan Singh (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 14, 16 and 17 as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
34/39
under:-
“14. There is something fundamental
which goes to the root of the matter. While deposing
about the demand of dowry, she has not deposed to
any particular act of cruelty or harassment by the
appellant. This is an essential ingredient of Section
304-B. It is not made out from the evidence of PW-6.
16. In the cross-examination, PW-7
stated that police had recorded his statements on 3rd
April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which were marked
as exhibits DG and DH, respectively. He accepted
that the allegation that the accused used to maltreat
his sister on account of insufficient dowry given in
the marriage and having brought broken furniture is
not found in both the police statements. He also
stated that the demand for a refrigerator, a
motorcycle, and a mixi does not find place in both
statements. Therefore, the version of PW-7 in his
examination-in-chief about the demands of dowry is
a significant and relevant omission. Hence, this
amounts to a contradiction. The public prosecutor
claimed that the demand for a refrigerator, a
motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned in his thirdstatement, which was recorded on 23rd June 1998.
The third statement, recorded belatedly, obviously
appears to be an afterthought. As regards his
statement that the accused used to give a beating to
his sister, it seems that he got this information when
he visited the matrimonial home of his sister three
months after the marriage. It is a very vague
allegation. Moreover, the witness has not stated that
this was disclosed to him by his deceased sister.
Assuming that what he has said is correct, this
incident of beating must have taken place between
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
35/3925th June 1996 till end of September 1996.
Therefore, this incident did not happen soon before
the death. It is not his case that when the deceased
allegedly visited his house nine to ten days before
the incident, she complained about any cruelty or
any harassment. Thus, none of the three statements
of the witnesses contain any specific instances of
cruelty or harassment.
17. Now, coming to evidence of PW-
8, Ram Singh. PW-6 has not deposed that any
demand of dowry was made to PW-8 or in his
presence. She claimed in the cross-examination that
PW-8 had told her about the maltreatment and the
demand of dowry by the accused three to four
months after the marriage. She stated that before23rd June 1998, the police did not record the
statement of PW- 8. She stated that PW-8 had come
to her house after the death of the deceased but she
did not tell her brother to make a statement before
the police. The statement of PW-8 was recorded
more than two and half months from the date of the
incident. Moreover, he had no personal knowledge
whether the appellant had subjected the deceased to
cruelty or harassment. Therefore, the prosecution
did not prove the material ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 304-B. Not a single
incident of cruelty covered by Section 498-A was
proved by the prosecution. Section 304-B of the IPC
was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court
has repeatedly laid down and explained the
ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But,
the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes
repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to
step in. Perhaps this is a case of moral conviction.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
36/39
29. In the case of Shoor Singh (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 18 and 23 as under:-
“18. The testimonies of PW 1, PW 2
and PW 3 do not indicate that any demand for dowry
was made by the appellant-accused either before or
at the time of marriage of the deceased with their
son. Further, there is no evidence that the appellant-
accused directly demanded a motorcycle or cash
from any of the above witnesses. In fact, evidence is
to the effect that the deceased had informed PW 1
and PW 2 on 4-1-2007 and 11-1-2007 about the
demand for a motorcycle and cash. Further, from the
deposition of PW 1 and PW 2, it appears that the
aforesaid demand was not in connection with
marriage but as a mark of celebration on birth of a
male child.
23. Indisputably, the accused have
not been convicted for murder, and rightly so,
because there was no worthwhile evidence to show
that except for the burn injuries, which could be self-
inflicted, the accused suffered any other ante-
mortem injury. Moreover, the presence of the
accused in the house at the time of occurrence is not
proved. In such circumstances, the death was most
probably suicidal though this would not make a
difference for commission of an offence punishable
under Section 304-BIPC if all the other ingredients
of dowry death stand proved. But, as noted above,
here harassment/cruelty at the instance of the
appellants in connection with any demand for dowry
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
30. From the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
37/39
Supreme Court, it can be said that in the offence of dowry
demand defined under Section-304B of I.P.C., the following
ingredients are required to be proved by the prosecution:-
(i) death of the woman concerned is
by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other
than in normal circumstances and
(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.
31. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the evidence led by
the prosecution, as discussed hereinabove, is carefully
examined, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to
prove the crucial ingredient of cruelty and harassment by direct
and cogent evidence, thereby disentitling itself to the benefit of
the statutory presumption available under Section- 113B of
Evidence Act. At this stage, it is also required to be observed
that the trial court has committed serious error by recording the
finding in para-23 of the impugned judgment that there is a
cogent and clear evidence that deceased was subjected to
harassment and torture soon before her death, i.e. in between
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
38/39
January, 2009 and 11.11.2009 for bringing Rs. 50,000/- cash and
motorcycle in dowry. In fact, there is no evidence led by the
prosecution to suggest that there was harassment and torture
soon before the death of the deceased for bringing Rs. 50,000/-
cash and motorcycle in dowry. We are, therefore, of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the
alleged offence, despite which the trial court has recorded the
order of conviction. Hence, when the prosecution has failed to
prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is
required to be quashed and set aside.
32. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 30.05.2017 and order of sentence dated
01.06.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2010, arising out
of Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 117 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.
No. 2674 of 2009 by the Court of learned P.O., F.T.C.-1, Rohtas
at Sasaram, are quashed and set aside. The appellants are
acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the learned
Trial Court.
32.1. Appellant Rajeev Ranjan Kumar (in Cr.
Appeal (D.B.) No. 955 of 2017) is in custody. He is directed
to be released from jail custody forthwith, if his custody is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.955 of 2017 dt.19-04-2025
39/39
required in any other case.
32.2. Appellant Sarswati Devi (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.)
No. 779 of 2017) is on bail. She is discharged from the
liabilities of her bail-bonds.
33. Both the appeals stand allowed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 29.04.2025 Transmission Date 29.04.2025
[ad_2]
Source link