Birendra Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3854 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Birendra Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                              Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )




                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 2000(R)
         (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
         dated 15.09.2000 passed by Sri Ghanshayam Prasad, learned
         Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in S.T. No. 229/1999.)

         Birendra Choubey, S/o Somnath Choubey, R/o Sulsulia,
         P.S.- Nagar Utari, Dist.- Garhwa
                                          ...        Appellant

                                    Versus

         The State of Jharkhand               ...            Respondent
                                  ----
                               PRESENT
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                  ----
         For the Appellant  : Mr. Anurag Prasad, Adv.
         For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
                                  ----
     CAV on : 27/03/2025            Pronounced on : 12/06/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2000 passed by Sri Ghanshayam Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 229/1999 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Ramjee Dubey, in which it has been stated that the sister of the informant, namely, Gayatri Devi, was married to Birendra Choubey (appellant) in the year 1995. Despite being given dowry at the time of the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the sister of the informant made a demand of further dowry of T.V., chain, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

etc. It has been alleged that after a week of the marriage, when the sister of the informant returned to her parental house, she complained of not being properly treated and made a request not to send her back. However, after much persuasion and by fulfilling a part of the demand, the sister of the informant returned back to her matrimonial house, but the torture upon her continued unabated. It has further been alleged that on 25.07.1998, the informant had gone to Garhwa Market for some personal work when he came to know about the death of his sister in the hospital. The informant suspected that due to the non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, his sister has been burned to death by her husband and in-laws.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 74/98 was instituted under Section 304B IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 229/1999. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304B IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Alakh Narain Choubey has stated that the incident is of 2 years back. He had come to know that the son and daughter-in-law of his brother-in-law have suffered burn injuries. On the next day, he had gone to Garhwa Hospital, where he had seen Birendra Choubey being treated for burn injuries while Gayatri Devi was taken to Ranchi Hospital where, in course of treatment, she died. The in-laws of Gayatri Devi never demanded any dowry.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was a cordial relationship between Gayatri Devi and Birendra Choubey.

2|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

Birendra had never demanded any dowry and Gayatri Devi was never tortured. He had heard that Gayatri had caught fire from a 'dhibri' and Birendra sustained burn injuries while trying to save her.

P.W.2 Ramjee Dubey is the informant and the brother of the deceased, who has stated that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Birendra Choubey in the year 1995 as per Hindu rites and customs. The incident is of 2 years back. He had gone to Garhwa Market when he came to know that a dead body has come to the hospital from village Sinsulia. When he went to the hospital, he found the dead body to be that of his sister. He has stated that about a week back he had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister, but his sister had not complained of any demand of dowry. Earlier, his sister had complained to her mother about the demand of a ring and other articles and the demand of a ring was fulfilled. When his younger brother had gone to meet his sister, she had made a complaint about the demand of dowry. He had made a request to the in-laws of his sister that he will not be able to fulfil any further demands. His sister had died due to burn injuries. The in-laws of his sister had not given the information about the death. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has come to know about the disclosures made by his sister to his mother and brother, from his mother. He had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister after three years of such demand. He had not come to know that his brother-in-law also suffered burn injuries and was referred to R.M.C.H., Ranchi.

P.W.3 Ram Rati Kuar is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Birendra Choubey about five years back. Her daughter used to come to her house frequently. Before the death of her daughter,

3|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

her son Ramjee Dubey had met her, but she had not disclosed anything to him. Ramjee Dubey had told her that her daughter has died due to burn injuries.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that there was a cordial relationship between her daughter and her son-in-law. After a ring was given, there was no further demand from the side of the accused.

P.W.4 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa and on 26.07.1998, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gayatri Devi and had found the following:

(i) There was whole body burnt except part of the lower abdomen left side, left leg middle portion, right leg lower portion and dorson of the right hand.

There were seiugul of scalp hairs.

(ii) On dissection:- Brain was congested, larynges and trachea contain soot, lungs were congested, blackish discharge on section. Heart chambers were full, stomach contained 250 ml of fluid, rectum was full. Spleen and kidneys were congested. Uterus was small.

The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and asphyxia due to the above-noted burn injuries.

The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not very much confirmed about the cause of death and, therefore, the viscera was preserved for chemical examination.

P.W.5 Rajendra Singh was posted at Nagar Untari P.S. and

4|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

on 27.07.1998, he had instituted a case based on the written report of Ramjee Dubey. He had taken over the investigation after which he had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Sinsuliya in the mud-tiled house of Birendra Choubey. He did not find any substance of note at the place of occurrence. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He had sent the body for autopsy to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that there were signs of burn injury on the person of the deceased. The accused was earlier admitted in the hospital. He had not obtained the injury report of the accused. He had not found any dhibri at the place of occurrence.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence.

6. Mr. Anurag Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased had suffered accidental burn injuries and the appellant also suffered injuries in order to save her. The evidence of the witnesses reveals that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was cordial. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, the same was not in close proximity to the death of the sister of the informant. The ingredients for bringing home a charge under Section 304B IPC having not been fulfilled, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. has submitted that several of the witnesses have stated about the consistent demand of dowry made from the sister of the informant. It has been stated that the deceased died of burn injuries at her matrimonial house and it is for the appellant to discharge his burden in terms of Section 106 Evidence Act.

5|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

9. The sister of the informant died in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial house which had resulted in the submission of a written report. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the material witnesses of the prosecution and all are related to the deceased. That by itself would not discredit their testimony if the features of their evidence reveal consistency, reliability and trustworthiness. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated about the existence of a cordial relationship between the appellant and the deceased. P.W.2 is the informant, who has categorically stated that despite the fact that he visited the matrimonial house of his sister a week prior to the incident, but she had not made any complaints to him about any demand of dowry or torture. P.W.2 seems to have based his allegation on what has been stated by his mother and brother, though as per the mother of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.2, no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons once the demand of a ring was fulfilled. The brother of the informant has not been examined by the prosecution. So far as the burn injuries are concerned, P.W.5 who is the Investigating Officer has stated that the appellant had suffered burn injuries and was admitted to a hospital, though he had not obtained the injury report of the appellant. The only demand seems to be of a ring which was fulfilled and no demand of dowry was made immediately preceding the unnatural death of the wife of the appellant. Though it is said that the deceased had suffered burn injuries, the post-mortem report reveal that the cause of death could not be confirmed and the viscera was sent for forensic examination. Although it is stated by P.W.5 that no dhibri was found inside the house, but at the same time, he has also noted that nothing of substance or any incriminating

6|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15210-DB )

materials were detected at the place of occurrence.

10. The entire scenario depicted above would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and consequently, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2000 passed by Sri Ghanshayam Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 229/1999.

11. This appeal is allowed.

12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 12th Day of June, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

7|Page