[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Hargauri Mandal Son Of Bameshwar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 180 of 2003
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2003 and order of sentence
dated 28.01.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.I, Deoghar in Sessions Case No.182 of 1996/425 of 2002]
......
Hargauri Mandal Son of Bameshwar Mandal, resident of village
- Jagatpur, Post Office - Ghormara, P.S. Mohanpur, District -
Deoghar. .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Pratik Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
......
C.A.V. on 30.10.2025 Pronounced on 02.12.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra,
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by above named sole
appellant for setting aside the judgment of his conviction dated
27.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2003 passed by
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 1 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Deoghar in
Sessions Case No.182 of 1996 / 425 of 2002, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.01.1996 at
about 11:00 a.m., informant Rameshwar Mandal got information
that his daughter Anita Devi had fallen into a well and lying
unconscious at her matrimonial home situated at Village Jagatpur.
The informant along with his sons and other family members went
to the matrimonial home of his daughter and saw the dead body of
his daughter under suspicious circumstances. It is alleged that just
prior to the occurrence, on 12.01.1996, his deceased daughter was
brought by her husband, Hargauri Mandal, from her paternal
home to join the matrimonial home under threat. She was
frequently subjected to torture and harassment on account of
additional demand of ornaments and cash which could not be
fulfilled. It is further alleged that the deceased Anita Devi was
also pregnant at the time of occurrence having three years' old
child also. It is further alleged that the informant tried to inform
the matter to the police but he was locked in the room by the
appellant and his family members. Thereafter, he submitted a
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 2 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar on the basis of
which, the F.I.R. was lodged as Mohanpur P.S. Case No.14 of
1996 dated 15.01.1996 for the offences under Sections 304B,
120B and 201/34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the
case was committed to the Court of sessions, where Sessions Case
No.182 of 1996 / 425 of 2002 was registered. The
accused/appellant denied the charges levelled against him and
claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced :-
Exhibit 1 : Written report to S.P. Deoghar by
informant
Exhibit 2 : Post-mortem report of deceased Anita
Devi
Exhibit 3 : Certified copy of voter list of Village
Jagatpur P.S. No.921, P.S. Mohanpur
District Deoghar, Vidhan Sabha year
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 3 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence. The case of defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication. According to the accused, the
deceased had gone to fetch water from the well and she fell into
the well and died.
7. The learned trial court after examining the evidence available on
record found the appellant guilty for commission of offence under
Section 304B of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that out
of 12 witnesses examined in this case not even a single witness
has stated that the appellant had been seen assaulting the deceased
and most of the witnesses are interested witnesses. It is clear from
the evidence of P.W.8 that except an abrasion, no external injury
has been found on the body of deceased. No incriminating article
has been recovered from the place of occurrence. No independent
witnesses and Investigating Officer have been examined in this
case. The entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidence. The learned trial court has committed serious error of
law in convicting the appellant on uncorroborated testimony of
interested witnesses, whose evidences itself suffers from material
contradictions and discrepancies. Therefore, impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is not
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 4 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
sustainable under law and fit to be set aside. The appellant
deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him.
In the alternative, it is argued that the occurrence is of the
year 1996, the appellant was all along in custody and has
undergone more than 10 years substantive sentence of
imprisonment and including remission, he has suffered
imprisonment for 14 years 6 months and 7 days. The appellant
was released on bail on 22.08.2013 and thereafter has mend
himself and living a peaceful life without involving in any
criminal activities. It was not an exceptional case where the
appellant has to be awarded maximum sentence of life
imprisonment prescribed under law. Although, the offence under
Section 304B of the I.P.C. prescribes the punishment as under :-
"[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 purposes of this sub-section,
"dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961).
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 5 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
(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."
The learned trial court has not recorded any special reasons or
any extenuating circumstances aggravating the nature of offence
to impose the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed
under law. The imprisonment already undergone by the appellant
is sufficient punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case,
which is based upon only circumstantial evidence and
presumptions and assumptions. Therefore, maintaining the
conviction of the appellant, sentence is fit to be reduced to the
extent of imprisonment already undergone.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for
the State has defended the conviction of appellant on merits but so
far quantum of sentence is concerned, he could not satisfy the
conscience of the Court to award maximum sentence of life
imprisonment in this case and requested to pass appropriate order
of conviction.
10. We have gone through the evidence available on record, it appears
that altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution out
of them P.W.3 Jagdish Mandal and P.W.4 Ghanshyam Mandal
have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have not
supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 Sahdeo Mandal and P.W.11
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 6 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
Devendra Mandal are tendered witnesses. P.W.9 Biranchi Mandal
has identified the dead body of Anita. P.W.10 Dinesh Kumar
Mandal has informed the informant regarding death of Anita.
P.W.12 Md. Gafur is a witness of inquest.
P.W.8 Dr. P. Chandra who has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased Anita Devi on 16.01.1996 at about
10:40 a.m. had found following ante mortem injuries :-
(i) Abrasion on the right side of the chest 2/½" lateral to
the right nipple size 3/½" x 1/½".
(ii) Old infected wound over lower 3rd of the left leg.
On dissection :-
Skull - Blood came out from the anterior part of the forehead
as soon as scalp removed from the anterior part of skull. There
was fracture of frontal bone horizontal in direction 2" long (rib
fracture). There were blood and clots over meninges and brain
matter. Brain was pale.
Cause of death opined to be shock and haemorrhage due to
head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Time elapsed
within 48 hours. This witness has proved post-mortem report
marked as Ext.2.
P.W.7 Rameshwar Mandal is the informant-cum-father of
the deceased. According to him, his daughter was married with the
appellant on 25.05.1991 at Village Jagatpur. The informant stated
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 7 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
that after marriage, Anita (deceased) lived with her in-laws. A
dowry of Rs.10,000/- cash, four tola of silver and one tola of gold
was agreed upon, but remained unpaid. The informant has further
stated that his daughter had come to her parental home fifteen
days before the incident and three days before the incident, her
husband Hargauri (appellant) came, demanded the remaining
dowry, abused the informant and his wife and threatened them
with dire consequences, if their demand was not met. It is further
stated that the appellant then took Anita back to his house at
Jagatpur. It is further stated that three days later, two men from
Jagatpur came and informed him that Anita had died. When the
informant, his wife and sons reached Jagatpur, they found Anita
lying dead on a cot, covered with a bedsheet. On removing it, they
saw blood was oozing from her forehead and a fractured chest
bone. When they protested, Hargauri Mandal and his relatives
forcibly confined the informant and his family members in a room
till evening. After being released, the informant submitted a typed
written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar with
his signature, on the basis of which the case was registered.
On recall by defence, this witness has stated that there has
never been a quarrel between his daughter and her in-laws in front
of him and they never demanded dowry in front of him.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 8 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
P.W.5 Dewanti Devi is the mother of the deceased.
According to her evidence, Dinesh Mandal and Inder Mandal
came from Jagatpur and informed her that her daughter, Anita
Devi, had been killed by her husband and in-laws. It is further
stated that she along with her husband and two sons, Satyanarayan
and Kailash, went to Jagatpur where the accused locked them
inside a house. They saw Anita lying dead on a cot. She has
further stated that Anita was married to Hargauri Mandal
(appellant) about four and a half years before her death. In the
marriage, Rs.10,000/-, forty tolas of silver and one tola of gold
were promised, but some items remained unpaid. Because of this,
the accused used to harass Anita and threaten of dire
consequences, if not given, they would kill her. She has further
stated that three days prior to incident, Hargauri Mandal had come
and demanded the dowry again and threatened to kill Anita, if the
demand is not fulfilled and took her back to his home. Three days
later, the incident occurred.
Later, on recall by defence, she has also stated that accused
persons never quarreled with her daughter and never demanded
dowry and both lived in harmony.
P.W.2 Satyanarayan Mandal is the brother of the deceased.
According to him on 15.01.1996, around 10-11 a.m., while he
was at home, two persons came and informed him that his sister
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 9 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
Anita Devi had drowned in a well at her in-laws' house in
Jagatpur. He along with his father and brother Kailash Mandal
went to Jagatpur and saw Anita's body near the well, partially
covered with a cloth. When they tried to uncover her face,
appellant along with his family members locked them in a nearby
house until evening, after which they returned home. He has
further stated that three days before the incident, Anita's husband
had taken Anita from their house, demanding Rs.10,000/- and
jewelry that were still due as dowry and Anita was often quarreled
with and harassed by her in-laws over money and ornaments.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his sister had a
son of three years.
This witness was further recalled by the defence for cross-
examination then this witness has stated that there was no quarrel
or fight between Anita Devi and accused persons and the accused
persons never demanded dowry in front of him.
P.W.1 Takdhu Mandal is the uncle of the deceased.
According to his evidence, Anita married to Hargauri Mandal
(appellant) of Jagatpur according to Hindu rites and customs.
Some dowry was given at the time of marriage, but part of it
remained unpaid. It is further stated that about 8-9 days prior to
the incident, Anita had come to her father's house. Later on, her
husband Hargauri came there and demanded the remaining cash,
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 10 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
silver and gold. He stayed the night but did not eat and the next
morning, after arguing with Anita's parents, took her back to his
house. It is further stated that on Makar Sankranti (Monday), two
men from Jagatpur came and informed that Anita had been killed
and thrown away. It is further stated that his brother and sister-in-
law went to Jagatpur, and later on, he also went to Hargauri
Mandal's house, and saw Anita's body lying on a cot with an
injury on her head. They were only allowed to see her face. It is
further stated that Anita's marriage had taken place about six and
a half years earlier, she had a three years' old son and was
pregnant at the time of her death.
11. It appears that as per evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.7
corroborated by evidence of P.W.8 Dr. P. Chandra, there are ample
evidence on record to substantiate the charge under Section 304B
of the I.P.C. against the appellant. It is proved beyond doubt that
the deceased has been died otherwise than under normal
circumstances within 7 years of her marriage at her matrimonial
home. It is also proved that soon before her death, she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband (appellant) on
account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry.
Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant for
the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 11 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
So far quantum of sentence is concerned, a report was called
for from the concerned authority through learned A.P.P. Mr.
Manoj Kumar Mishra which goes to show that the appellant had
gone 10 years 7 months and 7 days imprisonment and also earned
the remission of 3 years 11 months, accordingly, the total period
of imprisonment comes to 14 years 6 months and 7 days. The
circumstances of the case do not disclose that there was any brutal
act of assault or physical assault to the deceased on the date of
occurrence or prior to the occurrence. The post-mortem report
shows only one injury that was abrasion on right side of chest
2/½" lateral to the right nipple size 3/½" x 1/½" and another injury
is old infected wound over lower third of the left leg. No history
of consistent demand of dowry and torture meted with the
deceased, has been brought on record. Therefore, we find no
justification for awarding maximum sentence prescribed for the
offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. by the learned trial court.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
offence committed by the appellant and the circumstances under
which the offence was committed, we are of firm view that the
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to
meet the ends of justice in this case. Accordingly, conviction of
the appellant for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. is
confirmed but sentence passed against him is reduced to the
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 12 |13
2025:JHHC:35962-DB
imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated
above.
13. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
14. . Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent
back to concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 02/12/2025
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded on: 03/12/2025
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.180 of 2003 P a g e 13 |13
