[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Saurabh Burnwal @ B. Saurabh @ Mama vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 December, 2025
Author: Rongong Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1237 of 2025
-----
Saurabh Burnwal @ B. Saurabh @ Mama, aged about 32 years,
son of Bijay Burnwal, resident of Near M. Prasad Clinic,
Laharkulhi, P.O. & P.S. - Seraidhela, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
------
nd
Order No. 06/Dated 22 December, 2025
I.A. No. 15362 of 2025
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
appellant for grant of bail to him during pendency of this appeal
after suspension of sentence.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section
304-B of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 04.09.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Dhanbad in S.T. No.
844 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along
with fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
conviction and sentence of the appellant have been based upon
non-consideration of substantial materials and the evidences
available on record in right perspective.
5. It is further submitted that admittedly there was love
relationship between the appellant and the deceased and they
were under live-in relationship for a considerable period of 6-7
years. Thereafter, with consent of family members of both the
parties, the marriage was solemnized on 17.02.2021 in
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.
6. It is further submitted that even prior to marriage, the deceased
was suffering from psychotic depression and undergoing
treatment at Ranchi, Dhanbad and Kolkata. This fact has also
been proved by D.W.-1 Dr. Umesh Narayan Choudhary and
D.W.-2 Dr. Md. Jalil along with other prescriptions and
medicines provided to the deceased. The symptoms of such
psychotic depression sometimes aggravated and sometimes
under control. The deceased was very sensitive and when the
psychotic depression was aggravated, she was unable to control
her emotions.
7. It is further submitted that the appellant's wife (deceased) used
to get angry and threatened that she would cut her veins and
commit suicide. On 24.02.2023, when appellant was at
Healmanx Eye Hospital, Govindpur of which he is owner, the
deceased committed suicide in her room, which was informed
by mother of the appellant, then he rushed to his home. All
these factors have not been properly considered by the learned
trial court while recording the findings of guilt of the appellant.
8. It is further submitted that the appellant was running a shop of
spectacles and thereafter opened an eye hospital at Govindpur
in the name of "Healmanx Eye Hospital". The deceased was
also working in Charted Accountant Company at Dhanbad. The
real fact is that the mother of the deceased had transferred Rs.
3,00,000/- to the bank account of the appellant without his
consent to become a partner in the said Hospital of the
appellant, but the said money was returned to the account of
informant with interest to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/-. The
transfer of such amount in legal parlance does not come within
the purview of demand of dowry.
9. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove
the foundational facts constituting the offence under Section
304-B of the I.P.C. There is absolutely no evidence at all that
there was any demand of dowry at the hands of the appellant at
any point of time, much less "soon before her death", and the
deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of or in
connection with any demand of dowry.
10.It is further submitted that commission of suicide does not
come within the ambit of offence under Section 304-B of the
I.P.C., rather if the deceased committed suicide, Section 306 of
the I.P.C. comes into play, if abetment to commit suicide is
proved against the accused persons. The appellant hopes that
this appeal will succeed on merits and the appellant is all along
in custody since 24.07.2023 and remained in custody for about
02 years and 05 months. Therefore, the appellant may be
released on bail during pendency of this appeal after suspending
the sentence.
11.On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has controverted the
aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the appellant and has
submitted that there is direct and specific evidence of P.W.-7,
who happens to be mother of the deceased, which finds
corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-8 (brother of the
deceased) and unnatural death within 07 years of marriage is
also proved from post-mortem report of the deceased. The
appellant since the very inception of the marriage was putting
pressure on the deceased and her mother, who was BCCL
employee, to bring Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lacs) for starting
business and on that account, deceased was continuously
subjected to cruelty and torture and within span of two years of
her marriage, the deceased died an unnatural death due to
aforesaid abnormal circumstances. In such type of heinous
offence, the appellant does deserve release on bail. Hence, his
prayer for bail after suspending the sentence is fit to be rejected.
12.We have considered the submissions raised on behalf of both
parties and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence of the appellant. It appears that the unrebutted
testimony of P.W.-7 (mother of the deceased) and P.W.-8
(brother of the deceased) clearly goes to show that although
there was love affairs between appellant and deceased since
prior to marriage, but it was a arrange marriage solemnized on
17.02.2021. These witnesses have categorically proved that at
the time of marriage, apart from gold and silver jewelries, Rs.
8,00,000/- (Eight Lacs only) cash and other items were given.
The parental home of the deceased is also situated at some
distance from the matrimonial home. It was frequently
complained by the deceased to them that her husband and in-
laws were asking for Rs. 15,00,000/- for starting a new business
and putting pressure upon her extending physical and mental
torture and harassment. P.W.-7 met with in-laws' family
members and also tried to convince them not to torture her
daughter and she will do best of her own level to satisfy their
demand. The appellant and his family members have also sold
all ornaments of the deceased against her will and realized
handsome amount. P.W.-7 has also stated that her daughter was
apprehensive of any untowards incident at the hands of the
husband and in-laws' family members. She was never under
treatment for any mental disorder or disease.
13.The post-mortem report of the deceased, proved by P.W.-4,
goes to show that there was ligature mark over upper part of
neck above thyroid cartilage running obliquely upwards and
backwards over right side of neck upto right mastoid and left
side running transversely upto left back of neck then extended
upto left side of the occiput. Mark is prominent and interrupted
over front and side of neck with 1/2" 3/4" wide and 2" guage
present over right back of neck - without pattern. Apart from
above, there was abrasion on chin and another linear abrasion
4" x 2" over upper part back of right leg, which was ante-
mortem. The cause of death is due to asphyxia, as a result of
hanging. This witness has not opined definitely as to the death
was homicidal or suicidal in nature, but it may be suicidal in
nature.
14.It is settled principle of law that in order to attract the offence
under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., it is not necessary to prove
the death to be homicidal or suicidal, rather it has to be seen
that the death has occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances. Therefore, plea of the learned counsel for the
appellant that only in case of homicidal death provision of
Section 304B of the I.P.C. would be attracted and in case of
suicidal death, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of
Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
15.We also do not find any merit in the argument of learned
counsel for the appellant that a demand of money for starting
business does not come under the definition of dowry and
admittedly Rs. 3,00,000/- were returned back in the account of
the informant. In the instant case, the appellant was running a
Spectacles Shop at the time of marriage and admittedly after
solemnization of marriage, he became owner of the eye hospital
and it is not rebutted that there was demand of Rs. 15,00,000/-
from informant, for which the deceased was frequently tortured
physically and mentally. The treatment of the deceased at the
hands of the appellant by mental doctors also not helpful to
draw an inference that the deceased has committed suicide
under depression and for no any other reason. The demand of
huge amount of money even for starting a business has direct
nexus with the marriage in this case. Therefore, certainly such
type of demand, if have nexus with the marriage comes within
the ambit of dowry.
16.Considering the overall aspects of the case particularly in view
of the fact that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
for a serious and heinous offence and out of sentence of
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, he has only undergone 02
years and 05 months approximately, we are not inclined to
release the appellant on bail after suspending his sentence.
Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is rejected at
this stage.
17. It is however made clear that aforesaid observations are made
only to decide the interim application for grant of bail and shall
not affect the merits of the case while final hearing of the
appeal.
(Rongong Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
December 22, 2025
Sunil/
