Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2151 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And Another on 13 March, 2026

                                                                        Page No.# 1/18

GAHC010045502023




                                                                   2026:GAU-AS:3804


                   IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                      Criminal Appeal No. 89/2023

          Alom Uddin Laskar
          S/o late Siddeque Ali Laskar,
          Village Purba Kittarbond
          Part II PS Lala,
          Dist Hailakandi, Assam-788163
                                                            ............... Appellant
           VERSUS
          The State of Assam and another.
                                                          ............ Respondents


                                   BEFORE
                HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

     Advocate for the Appellant   :       MR. A H Alamgir


     Advocate for the Respondents :       Mr. M. P. Goswami, PP.


     Date of hearing & judgment   :       13.03.2026
                                                                      Page No.# 2/18

                        JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. A. H. Algamgir, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Facts:-

2. The fact of the instant case starts with lodging of an Ejahar on 11.06.2012 by the father of the victim, wherein it is alleged inter alia that ten years back, his daughter was married of to one Nasiruddin, who died and from the said wedlock, the victim had two children. After the death of the husband of the victim, the victim stayed in the house of her parents for about 7 years and during the said period, the appellant gave marriage proposal to her, which initially was not accepted. But, on repeated request, the victim married the appellant. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born. However, it is alleged that the appellant and his family members harassed the victim physically and mentally and demanded dowry since some days of the marriage. It is also alleged that on 03.06.2012, the appellant with the aim of re-marrying, caused various injures on various parts of the victim's body. Seeing the appellant assaulting the mother, i.e. the victim, the son from her earlier marriage, came to rescue her, but the appellant assaulted him too. It is also alleged that appellant tried to kill the victim, but due to the hue and cry raised by the victim, the appellant fled away from the house and that the victim was admitted in the hospital and she breathed her last on 09.06.2012.

3. The police, on receipt of the Ejahar, registered the case under Section 304 Page No.# 3/18

B of the IPC.

4. The police, on conclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellant on 21.11.2016, arraying the appellant as the accused person. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the necessary requirement of law, framed charges against the appellant under Sections 323/302/304B of the IPC and the trial started.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses after which the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC., and on adducing defence witness, two in numbers, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above.

Evidence:-

6. PW-1 is the informant, i.e., the father of the victim and he stated before the learned Trial Court that he gave his daughter in marriage to the appellant and a child was born and after stating the statements already made in the FIR, he further stated that after 6/7 months of the marriage, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the informant, which the informant could not give the same due to his poor financial condition and that his daughter was tortured and that the same led to death of his daughter. He further stated that the daughter of the deceased as well as his daughter ran to the paddy field and reported him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by a knife blows and when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant running away from the house with a knife in his hand. He also stated that his wife Page No.# 4/18

reported him that on the day of the occurrence, the appellant came to her house and finding the victim in the courtyard, quarrelled with her and forced her to go with him and when she refused, the appellant inflicted a fist blow upon her at which the victim ran to the kitchen and the appellant chased her and finding a knife there, the appellant inflicted injuries on the victim. This witness was cross-examined at length and at no place, his statement recorded in the examination in chief was demolished. His statement to the effect that Rs.50,000/- was demanded and that the appellant assaulting the victim stands as it is in his cross-examination too.

7. PW-2, the mother of the victim, stated the same facts, corroborating the statement of her husband and further stated that the appellant demanded money and tortured her daughter and that the appellant on the day of the occurrence came to home to take her daughter but on the reluctance of victim to go, the appellant assaulted her and by taking out of a knife from inside his clothes, he inflicted blows upon the victim. In her cross-examination, she reiterated her statement.

8. PW-3 is the brother of the victim and he stated similar facts as was stated by his father and he further stated that the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/-, which his father could not pay due to poor financial condition and due to non- payment of the said amount, the appellant assaulted his sister and that 6/7 months before the death of his sister, the appellant brutally assaulted his sister and that when his sister came to their house, the appellant came to take her back and on refusal, the appellant assaulted her and on the next date, when all the male members went for work, the appellant came again and assaulted his Page No.# 5/18

sister with a knife, which was informed by the children of the victim. He also stated that when he and his father rushed to the house, they saw the appellant inflicting knife blows on his sister in her abdomen, forearm and the other parts of the body and seeing them, the appellant run away.

During the cross-examination, this witness has corroborated the statement made in examination in chief. However, he stated that he did not remember the exact date on which the appellant demanded money. He also had stated that it is a fact that he did not state before the police that the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/-. This shows that there is contradiction in the statement of PW-3 and the same is placed before him.

9. PW-4 is the daughter-in-law of the informant, who stated in similar terms that the appellant demanded money and for the non-fulfilment of the same, the appellant assaulted the victim and drove her out of his house. She also stated that at 7 a.m. on a Sunday, when she, her mother-in-law, her sister-in-law and the deceased were in the house, the appellant came to the house and inflicted knife blows on the victim and when she wanted to save the victim, the appellant had threatened all the female members by showing the knife and in this process, she also sustained cut injuries.

This witness was cross-examined and during the same, she had denied few suggestions made, but her statement to the effect of demanding money and assaulting the victim is established.

10. PW-5 is a neighbour and he stated before the learned Trial Court that he Page No.# 6/18

simply heard about killing of the deceased at her father's house.

In his cross-examination, he stated that the child of the victim was staying with the appellant.

11. PW-6 is the person, who wrote the FIR.

12. PW-7 is the grandson of the informant and rather the son of the deceased from her earlier marriage and he stated that after 7/8 months of her marriage with the appellant, the appellant brutally assaulted his mother and forced her to bring money from her father's house, which, however, could not be done by his grandfather, due to his financial hardship and that one fine day, the appellant brutally assaulted his mother and on the next day, while he was having food in the kitchen, the appellant came there and asked his mother to go with him, but his mother refused and then, the appellant dragged his mother outside of the kitchen and there was tussle between them. Thereafter, the appellant took up a knife and inflicted blows on his mother and on seeing the same, when he came to rescue his mother, the appellant inflicted blows on his hands too. He further stated that when he informed his grandfather, they came and the appellant fled away from the scene. This witness was 8 years at the time of the occurrence and during his cross-examination; he stated that the incident took place in the kitchen and at that time, his siblings were at the same house. He further stated that it is not a fact that he did not state before police that the accused appellant demanded money from his grandfather. The said contradiction has been placed during the cross-examination.

Page No.# 7/18

13. PW-8, who is the doctor working as Medical and Health Officer No. 1, Lala PHC, examined the victim and found clean cut injury over left iliac fosse of size 2x1 cm. Without however determining the depth of the injury as well as lacerated wound over the left arm, the patient was referred to SK Roy Civil Hospital, Hailakandi. The doctor opined that the lacerated wound was caused by

blunt weapon and injury was simple and fresh. She opined that the 1 st injury was a clear cut injury, which was caused by the sharp weapon. The doctor also examined son of the victim on the same day and found lacerated wound over the left hand and opined that the same was caused by blunt weapon and the injury was simple and fresh.

14. PW-9 is the Police Officer, who was attached to Ghungoor Police Outpost and on the day of the occurrence, he sent a requisition for conducting inquest and post-mortem on the body of the victim.

15. pw-10 is the Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery at SMCH, Silchar and he deposed before the learned Trial Court that the immediate cause of death of the deceased was cardio respiratory failure and the antecedent cause of death was post-operative case of perforation peritonitis following stab injury.

16. PW-11 was the Associate Professor at SMCH, Silchar, who carried out the post-mortem examination of the deceased and he found a surgical stitch above umbilicus and below the same and on removal of the stitches, the wound margin was found infected. He also found multiple adhesion of the intestine. He as such opined that the death was due to septic peritonitis. He further suggested that opinion of the treating surgeon would conclude the cause of the Page No.# 8/18

death.

17. PW-12 is the Investigating Officer, who stated before the learned Trial Court that he registered the Ejahar and investigated the case and finally submitted the charge sheet. As far as the contradiction in the present case is concerned, it is seen that the same was put to the Investigation Officer, wherein the I.O. stated that PW-1 reported that the appellant assaulted the victim because she could not fulfil the demand for dowry. This statement was stated before the previous I.O. Further, the I.O. stated that PW-3 did not state before the erstwhile I.O. that the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/-. It is also stated that PW-3 did not state that he and his father saw the appellant assaulting the victim.

18. Similarly, PW-7 had not stated before the I.O. that the appellant had demanded money from his mother. These are the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied demanding of money or assaulting the victim and then he was asked as to whether he would adduce evidence to which he replied in the affirmative.

19. Thereafter, two defence witnesses were examined, one was Mr. Sirajuddin Laskar, who stated before the learned Trial Court that when he heard about the quarrel between the victim and the appellant, he went and asked the victim, who replied that the appellant does not supply betel nut to her, for which she left her matrimonial house. He further stated that upon hearing the hue and cry when he went to the house of Farasuddin, he saw the appellant dragging the Page No.# 9/18

victim, which she resisted and fell down over the courtyard and that he did not witness the appellant assaulting the victim and he neither noticed any weapon in his hand and he does not know how the victim died.

During his cross-examination, this witness reiterated the statement made in his examination-in-chief.

20. DW-2 is Md. Akir Ali Laskar, who also stated similarly that the victim left the matrimonial house when the appellant did not give her betel nut and that on the next day, upon hearing the hue and cry, when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant pulling and dragging the victim and the victim falling down in the courtyard of the house. He as such submitted that he did not witness the appellant assaulting the victim or having any weapon in his hand.

These are the evidence set forth in the instant case.

Submission:-

21. Mr. A. Alamgir, learned counsel for the appellant raises the following 4 points in favour of the appellant:-

22. Section 304B of the IPC requires that one of the ingredients for attracting the said Section is demand for dowry in connection with the marriage of the parties. It is further provided under Section 304B that dowry should be considered as defined or known to be in connection with whatever has been explained under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Mr. Alamgir submits that in the instant case, there may be some demand for money, but the same is not Page No.# 10/18

demand for the dowry in connection with marriage. To substantiate his argument, he has placed three judgments of various Courts, one being Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2007) 9 SCC 721, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing anything cannot be termed as a demand for dowry and the same will not be applicable in attracting the essential ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC. Similarly, it has been held by the High Court of Orissa in Bhanu Charan Pradhan vs. State of Orissa , wherein it was held that in absence of any clinching evidence that the money was demanded as a dowry, Section 304 IPC will not be attracted. Similar conclusion has also been held in Naresh Pandit vs. State of Bihar by the High Court of Patna.

23. Mr. Alamgir further submits that there are no independent witnesses in the instant case and that all the relatives of the victim had given their evidences, baring one neighbour, who had no knowledge about the incident and that non-examination of the independent witness is fatal in the instant case.

24. Mr. Alamgir further submits that another ingredient to attract Section 304B of the IPC is that the victim has to be tortured soon before her death and in the facts of this case, it is seen that the victim was in her parent's house since a number of days and left her matrimonial house after a tussle with the appellant and, as such, she was not subjected to torture soon before her death.

25. Mr. Alamgir further submits that the appellant had four girl children and he Page No.# 11/18

has to take care of his daughters. On this count, Mr. Alamgir prays that the appellant be acquitted.

26. On the other hand, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, Assam submits that the demand for dowry is well proved in the instant case and he submits that the same is not demand for money for some other purposes. To substantiate the argument, he has placed the statement of PW1, who stated that after 6/7 months of the marriage, the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- from him and when the same demand was not fulfilled, the appellant tortured the victim for which she had to leave her matrimonial house. Although the said statement stands contradicted, when the same was placed before the I.O., the I.O. stated that PW-1 stated before the previous I.O. that 20 days before her death, the victim came to his house and reported him that the appellant assaulted her because she could not fulfilled the demand for dowry.

27. Mr. Goswami, for the sake of clarification has placed the statement of PW- 1 before the I.O. recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where he had stated that the appellant had demanded dowry from him. He further stated that as far as the ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC, which requires that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death, he stated that the victim was subjected to harassment few days before her death due to which the victim had to leave her matrimonial house and on the day of the occurrence, the appellant came to her parent's house and told her to go with him and when she refused, the appellant assaulted her with a knife. He, as such, submits that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, soon before the death may not be immediately before the death. It can be in the facts of the Page No.# 12/18

case stretch to a longer time. Mr. Goswami again submits that in the instant case, there are eye witnesses, who had seen the appellant assaulting the victim. The son of the victim and others had seen the appellant assaulting the victim near the kitchen of the victim's father's house. He also submits that the injuries of both the victim as well as the son of the victim were corroborated by the Medical Officer in his examination. He further submits that leaving the prosecution witnesses even the defence witnesses have stated in clear terms that the appellant was seen dragging and pulling the victim in the house of the father of the victim and quarrelling with her. He also submits that the son of the victim was the injured witness, who has deposed before the learned Trial Court about the appellant hitting the victim. An injured witness, being a higher witness in reliability than the eye witness, his evidence cannot be negated by any stretch.

28. To substantiate his argument, he has placed reliance in the case of Amar Singh vs. State reported in 2020 0Supreme (SC) 584. He also submits that the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. has simply denied the circumstances put forth in the evidence with the further argument that there are enough evidence in the case at hand along with the corroborative evidence of the doctor. It is well established that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 304B of the IPC due to which the victim met her death. He also relies on the presumptions provided in Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

Findings:-

29. Since this is a case under Section 304B of the IPC, Section 304B of the IPC Page No.# 13/18

is reproduced herein below as follows:-

"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."

30. The above Section provides that four ingredients need to be proved in order to bring a case within the fold of Section 304B of the IPC, they are:-

1. The death of the woman has to be caused in unnatural circumstances,

2. The death has to be caused within 7 years of marriage,

3. It has to be shown that soon before her death, the victim is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband,

4. The cruelty or the harassment should be in connection with demand for dowry and the death shall be called a dowry death.

Page No.# 14/18

31. It is further provided in the said Section that dowry should have the same

meaning as of Section 2 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As far as 1 st and

2nd ingredient is concerned, it is well established in the evidence that the victim died in unnatural circumstances and she died within a period of 7 years of marriage. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that death under Section 304B of the IPC includes homicidal, suicidal and accidental. In the instant case, it is seen that the death is homicidal, as per the reports of the doctor.

32. The first doctor, who had examined the victim, was examined as PW-8 and he found clean cut injury over the left iliac and said that the said injury was caused by sharp weapon. It is also stated that the injury was about 2x1 cm. The second doctor, who was examined as PW-10, has stated that the antecedent cause of death was post-operative case of perforation peritonitis following stab injury. The third doctor, who was examined as PW-11, stated that the real cause of death would be known only on the opinion of the treating surgeon.

33. In his examination, he also stated that the wound after the surgery was of length 15 cm in midline, 10 cm above umbilicus and 5 cm below the umbilicus and on removal of the stitches, the wound margins found infected, even infection was seen in the intestine.

34. These conclusions by the three doctors makes it clear that the victim died of the stab injury, which may have later got infected and it is beyond doubt from the evidences on records that the stab injury was inflicted by the appellant.

Page No.# 15/18

35. As far as the third ingredient is concerned that the victim has to be subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant soon before her death, this Court makes the following finding:-

36. PW-1 had stated that 20 days prior to her death, the victim came to his house and reported him that for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, the appellant had assaulted her and that on the next day, the appellant and his sister came to his house and requested the victim to go with them, but on refusal, the appellant and his sister, left his place and that in the next morning when this witness was at his workplace, his daughter and granddaughters ran to his paddy field and reported that the appellant came to his house and was assaulting the victim and when he came to his house, the appellant was seeing running away from the place. Similarly, PW-2, the mother of the victim stated similar facts as to PW-1 that on the previous day, the appellant came to take her daughter back, but on refusal, the appellant started quarrelling with her daughter and in the meantime, took out a knife from inside his clothes and hit her daughter. However, this witness did not state that on the previous day, the victim did not go with her husband and on the next day, the appellant again came and following the quarrel, the appellant had assaulted the victim.

37. PW-3, who is the brother of the victim, stated that the appellant had brutally assaulted his sister and on the next day, which was a Saturday, the victim came to his house and in the evening, the appellant had sent some person to take his sister back, but on refusal to go back, the appellant assaulted her brutally on many occasions and that on the next day, i.e., on Sunday, when the male members were at workplace, the appellant came and inflicted blows Page No.# 16/18

on his sister.

38. PW-4 had stated that the victim came to their house and that on the next day, the appellant came and assaulted the victim with a knife. The above statements show that there is a discrepancy in narrating the facts, inasmuch as, two of the witnesses have stated that on a particular day, the appellant came and wanted to take his wife back to his house, which she refused and that on the next day, he again came and by following a quarrel, the appellant, by entering into the kitchen, took a knife from his cloth and assaulted the victim and the other two witnesses have stated that the victim came to the parent's house and on the next day, the appellant assaulted her. However, the said discrepancy would not be fatal in the instant case and can be said that the torture and the harassment was soon before the death. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held time again that soon before the death may not be immediate before the death and if the harassment continues for quite some time, the same can be deduced as soon before. The fourth ingredient that the demand has to be in connection with the dowry, this Court finds the following fact:-

39. PW-1 had stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/- from him and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the victim was tortured and was made to go out of her matrimonial house to her parent's house. In his cross-examination, he however stated that it is not a fact that he had falsely stated that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, the appellant assaulted his daughter. In his statement, PW-1 had not stated that the same was in connection with dowry and he simply stated that the accused demanded money. Similarly, the mother of the victim had stated that the Page No.# 17/18

appellant had demanded money and due to non-fulfilment, the appellant had tortured her daughter. Similarly, the brother of the victim had also stated that the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/- and since it could not be paid due to financial hardship, his sister had brutally assaulted. He, in his cross-examination, also stated that he does not remember the exact date of demand of money made by the appellant. The sister-in-law of the victim had also made similar statement that the appellant had demanded money and for non-fulfilment of the same, the victim was tortured. Further, similar statement was made by PW-7, i.e., the son of the victim, who had stated that the appellant had asked his mother to bring money from her father's house and due to the financial condition, his grandfather could not give the money and the appellant had brutally assaulted his mother.

40. It is, as such, seen that it is nowhere in the evidence that the appellant had demanded dowry from the victim or her parents and it is only seen in the evidence that the appellant had demanded money from the victim's father and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the victim was tortured. The requirement for attracting an offence under Section 304B of the IPC is that the money has to be demanded in the form of a dowry, as provided in the Dowry Prohibition Act and as mentioned above, none of the witnesses have stated that the appellant has demanded dowry. So, one of the ingredients of 304B IPC is not meted out and as such, the conviction under Section 304B IPC is required to be interfered with. However, the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, which was provided by the learned Trial Court with the sentence of SI for a period of 6 months, is however upheld, but since he has been inside the jail for more than three years, the said sentence is also fulfilled. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted and be Page No.# 18/18

released from the jail, if not required in some other case.

41. Send back the LCR.

42. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant