Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:34239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 23.07.2005
passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Session Trial No.202 of 1999]
----
1. Lakhan Ram, Son of Late Tilak Ram
2. Umiya Devi @ Mosomat Umiya, wife of Late Tilak Ram
Both Resident of Village-Bindomoh, Police Station-Markachho, District-
Koderma .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Babun Ram, s/o Late Sona Dusadh, R/o Village-Parsabad, P.O.+P.S.-
Jainagar, District-Koderma. .... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for
the State.
2. From perusal of the office note dated 09.07.2025, it appears that the
Respondent No.2 namely Babun Ram has died.
3. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 21.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 23.07.2005 passed by
the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Session Trial No.202 of
1999 arising out of G.R. Case No.491 of 1998 (Markacho P.S. Case No.43 of
1998) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 498(A),
304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section
304(B)/34 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
4. It appears that the criminal case has been put into motion by lodging an
FIR being Markacho P.S. Case No.43 of 1998 dated 01.09.1998 registered
under Sections 498(A) & 304(B) IPC.
2025:JHHC:34239
5. As per the prosecution story it appears that Sundwa Devi, the daughter
of the informant, was married to one Kailash Ram, son of Late Tilak Ram four
years back. After marriage, the deceased used to complain often regarding
being assaulted by her in-laws and husband relating to which several times
panchayati was held and for some time the matter was pacified. But the
accused Kailash Ram did not stop to torture her and used to demand gold ring.
On 24.08.1998 the mother of the informant came to take back her daughter but
she had to return alone as the accused did not allow the deceased to go. After
departure of her mother the deceased was subjected to assault. On 01.09.1998
two villagers namely Dineshwar Ram and Mahendra Singh came to the
informant and intimated that his daughter has died on account of drowning into
a well whereupon the informant rushed to the matrimonial house of his
daughter and saw the dead body of his daughter lying on a cot. The informant
noticed mark of blood on the deceased and injuries on her head, mouth and
nose. The informant as such suspected that his daughter had been murdered by
the accused persons and her dead body was thrown into the well.
6. The police after investigation had submitted the charge-sheet under
Section 498(A), 304(B), 201/34 IPC on 01.10.1998 against three persons who
are Kailash Ram (husband of the deceased), Lakhan Ram (Elder brother of the
deceased's husband) and Umiya Devi (Mother-in-law of the deceased) and the
charge has been framed on 07.08.1999 under Sections 304(B), 498(A), 201, 34
of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the case has been committed to the court
of sessions and the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether fourteen witnesses have
been examined which is as follows:-
P.W.-1 is Dalo Ram and P.W.2 is Abbas Khan and both have been declared
hostile.
P.W.-3 is Arjun Sao who has stated in his deposition that in his presence the
dead body of Sundwa Devi was pulled out from the well. In his presence the
inquest report has been prepared and he has put his signature upon it which
is marked as Ext.-1. During cross-examination he has stated that he has no
knowledge about the incident. He is an illiterate person.
P.W.-4 is Mahendra Singh who has stated in his deposition that he has no
knowledge about the death of Sundwa Devi. The dead body was pulled out
from the well before him. In cross-examination he has admitted that there
was no quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws.
P.W.-5 is Dinesh Paswan who has been declared hostile.
Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34239
P.W.-6 is Kaushlya Devi who is the mother of the deceased. She had
deposed that her daughter was married six years ago with the accused and
the occurrence has taken place before two years. She went to her
matrimonial house to take her but her daughter has shown her inability to go
alonwith her After eight days she was informed that her daughter fell down
in a well and died. She approached the house and saw the dead body lying
on the cot in an injured condition. She alleged that her in-laws have
murdered her daughter. She also stated about the demand of gold ring. In
cross-examination, she has stated that she visited her daughter's in-laws
house once till the occurrence. She visited again after the incident. Her son-
in-law used to come her house to take away his wife as well as his mother
and brother also used to come there some time. She has not given any
information regarding assault to her daughter. She has not stated the name
of the person who has given information of assault.
P.W.-7 is Shanker Paswan who is the brother of the deceased and he has
deposed that the occurrence is of before two years. Two persons came
before his and informed about his sister's death. He visited there and found
the body of his sister lying on a cot in a decomposed condition. He has
deposed the demand of golden ring. In cross-examination he has stated that
he has not seen the incident. There is no letter of his sister.
P.W.-8 is Basanti Devi who is the aunt (mausi) of the deceased and she has
deposed that before death Sundwa came to her house and started weeping.
She told about the assault upon her. Mark of assault was present on her
body. Thereafter her dead body was found in a well. She didn't not know
the cause of death. In her cross-examination, she has stated that there was no
issue. She has not seen the occurrence of assault.
P.W.-9 is Parwati Devi and she has deposed that the deceased was killed by
her in-laws. She has always been assaulted by her in-laws. Her husband
made demand of gold ring and on issue panchaiyti was held two to three
times. In cross-examination, she has stated that she had not seen the accused
person assaulting Sundwa. Police have recorded her statement after four
days of the incident. Demand of dowry has not been taken place in her
presence.
P.W.-10 is Babun Ram is the informant of this case and father of the
deceased and he had deposed that his daughter was married to the accused
four years ago and she was treated well. Thereafter his son-in-law started
demand of dowry to which he has sown his inability. He has informed by
someone that his daughter was assaulted and thrown in well. He visited his
daughter's matrimonial house and saw the dead body of his daughter lying
on a cot. He also saw head injury on the body. In cross-examination he has
stated that his daughter was twenty-year-old at the time of marriage and
after four years she died. He denied any panchayati in the matter of assault
and demand. He stated that his wife did not meet with the accused and she
met with gotani. He has not seen the murder.
P.W.-11 is Ramesh Prasad Singh who is the investigating officer of this
case and has deposed that he has initiated FIR on the basis of fardbeyan of
informant Babun Ram and proved it (Ext.-2). He visited the place of
occurrence and recovered the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that
there were steps to enter in well. He is in conclusion that the deceased can
save her. But she was murdered and put in the well. He proved inquest
report. After obtaining post-mortem report and after supervision he
submitted the final form. In cross-examination he has stated that he was
informed after the incident and not inspected the house of the accused. He
had not registered any complain before occurrence. He has stated that none
of the witnesses has accepted that the accused have committed murder.
Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34239
P.W.-12 is Dr. Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh who has conducted post-mortem
of the dead body. He found no external injury or mark of violence on the
body. He opined that the death occurred due to asphyxia caused by
smothering. He proved post-mortem he has stated that such type of death
can be caused due to lack of oxygen.
P.W.-13 is Bindeshwari Prasad Bihari is a formal witness. He has proved
the fardbeyan.
P.W.-14 is Bhuneshwari Pasawan who has deposed that he knew Sundwa
Devi who died four years ago. He had seen that the dead body was pulling
out of the well. When he reached there the dead body was in the well. The
relation between the deceased and her in-laws was good. He has been
declared hostile.
8. After evaluating the evidence, the appellants had been convicted for the
charges under Sections 498(A)/34, 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for
the offence under Section 201/34 IPC.
9. By referring to the depositions of the witnesses, attention of the Court
has been drawn to the evidence of P.W.-6, 7, 9 & 10 and it has been argued by
the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.-6 (the mother of the deceased)
and P.W.-7 (the brother of the deceased) had made general allegations with
regard to the demand of golden ring and harassment while P.W.-10 (the father
of the deceased) and P.W.-9 had made specific allegation against the husband
of the deceased for demand of golden ring and harassment.
10. On the strength of above material available on record, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that:
(i) One of the ingredients for the conviction under Section 304(B)
IPC is missing, so far as the appellants i.e. brother-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased is concerned as there is no material
to suggest that they have ever demanded dowry or has harassed
the deceased in any manner.
(ii) So far as allegation made by P.W.-10 (father of the deceased) and
P.W.-9 is concerned, there is specific allegation against the
husband who has accepted the punishment and remained in
custody and has served the sentence awarded to him and
thereafter, he has been discharged after serving out the sentence
awarded by the Court in the present proceeding.
Page | 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34239
(iii) So far as conviction under Section 201 IPC is concerned, there
cannot be any presumption rather the positive material has to be
brought on record by the prosecution and in the present case there
is neither any oral evidence nor any circumstantial evidence
making out ingredients for conviction under Section 201 IPC.
(iv) So far as conviction under Section 498(A) IPC is concerned, again
there is neither any allegation of demand of dowry and harassment
against the present appellants rather the specific allegation has
been made against the husband by the father of the deceased and
by P.W.-9.
11. In view of above submission, it has been submitted that the conviction of
the appellants is totally bad in law as there is no sufficient evidence available
on record for conviction either under Section 304(B) IPC or under Section 201
IPC or under Section 498(A) IPC.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction but could not point out any material, so far as allegation
of demand of dowry against the present appellants is concerned. Further, the
learned APP has also failed to point out any material brought on record by the
prosecution, so far as the conviction under Section 201 IPC or under Section
498(A) IPC is concerned.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
record, it appears that:
(i) There is unnatural death in the present case and it is within seven
years of marriage.
(ii) The appellants are close relative of the husband of the deceased
i.e. mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
(iii) But one of the basic ingredients i.e. with regard to the allegation
of demand of dowry is missing, so far as the present appellants are
concerned, as clearly deposed by P.W.10 and P.W.9 that the
demand has been specifically alleged to the husband who has
already served out the sentence.
(iv) So far as conviction under Section 201 IPC is concerned, there is
no material evidence brought on record by the prosecution rather
Page | 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34239
the conviction is only on the basis of presumption and surmises
which cannot be ground for conviction under Section 201 IPC.
The presumption is only available in case of Section 304(B) IPC.
(v) So far as conviction under Section 498(A) IPC is concerned, again
there is specific allegation against the husband by the father and
P.W.9 and the husband have already served out the sentence.
14. In the view of above discussion and considering the material available
on record, this Court finds that there is no sufficient material available on
record for the conviction under Sections 498(A)/34, 304(B)/34 IPC and 201/34
IPC.
15. In that view of the matter, judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2005 and
order of sentence dated 23.07.2005 passed by the learned Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Koderma in Session Trial No.202 of 1999 arising out of G.R.
Case No.491 of 1998 (Markacho P.S. Case No.43 of 1998), is hereby quashed
and set aside. As the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from
the liability of their bail bonds.
16. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and disposed
of.
17. Let the trial Court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith,
along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated: 17th November, 2025
Amar/NAFR
Uploaded on 21.11.2025
Page | 6 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.973 of 2005
