Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:34545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1023 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2005 and order of sentence
dated 29.07.2005 passed by Sri Gautam Mahapatra, learned 7th Additional
Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No.286 of 2003]
--------------
Ashok Yadav, Son of Sarju Yadav, resident of Village
Chaukhara, Police Station -Chhatarpur, District-Latehar
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Amrik Yadav, aged about 48 years, Son of Balkeshwar Yadav,
Resident of Village Kumi Kala, P.O and P.S. Bisrampur, District
Palamau ... ... Respondents
--------------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Hadish Ansari, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Vandani Bharti, A.P. P.
--------------
Order No.19/ Dated 18th November, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 27.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 29.07.2005 passed
by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions
Trial No.286 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A/ 304B and 201
of the Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for eight years for the offence under Section 304(B) of
IPC, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence
under Section 498(A) of IPC and he has been further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 201 of IPC
and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R.
being Chhatarpur P.S. Case No.103 of 2001, corresponding to G.R
1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34545
Case No.1606 of 2001 under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 201 of
Indian Penal Code.
4. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of written report of
the informant, namely, Amrik Yadav (P.W.-4). The brief fact of the
case is that the deceased Fulmati Devi, who was the sister of the
informant was married with Ashok Yadav, S/o Sarju Yadav of
Village Chaukhara in the year 1996. In year 1998 bidai was
performed. Thereafter, the appellant and his family inmates used
to demand something which were fulfilled, according to their
capacity. The appellant used to demand a motorcycle but the
informant and his family members were not in a position to fulfill
his demand. Ten days prior to the lodging the written report the
informant had gone to the sasural of his sister where the appellant
demanded for a motorcycle. On 24.12.2001, Ashok Yadav and
uncle Rajdeo Yadav came to the house of the informant and told
that the deceased had died due to pain in her stomach. On such
information the informant along with his brother namely, Ganpat
Yadav and cousin, Raghunath Yadav rushed to the sasural of the
deceased. There the members of in-laws of the informant's younger
brother informed them that Ashok Yadav and his family members
had committed murder and cremated her dead body in the
previous night. The informant has also stated that whenever his
sister (deceased) used to come to her maike she used to narrate the
incidence of marpit.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/201/34 of IPC.
Accordingly, cognizance has been taken and the case has been
committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant has pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of trial, the appellant
has convicted under Sections 304(B)/ 201 and 498(A) of IPC.
6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six
witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Janki Devi, P.W.2 Ram
Sunder Yadav, P.W.3 Innar Yadav, P.W.4 Amrik Yadav, P.W.5
Ganpati Yadav, P.W.6 Ram Chandra Yadav. Among the six
witnesses, three witnesses i.e., P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are
2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34545
relevant and P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 are declared hostile. In
support of the defence case, three witnesses are examined.
7. P.W.-4-Amrik Yadav is the informant and brother of the
deceased. He has stated that the family members of his sister's in-
laws used to misbehave with her demanding a motorcycle. He also
stated that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the
deceased used to assault her. He also stated that there was a
panchayati on the matter of demand.
8. P.W.-5 Ganpati Yadav is the cousin brother of the deceased and
he has stated that on getting information, he rushed to the sasural
of his sister where he learnt that the deceased's husband, mother-
in-law and father-in-law committed the murder and cremated her
dead body in the night. He has also stated that he had given his
statement before the police that parents-in-law used to demand for
dowry.
9. P.W.-6-Ram Chandra Yadav is the relative of accused Sarju
Yadav. He has stated that the deceased has died of pain the in
stomach. He further stated that the marriage of the deceased was
solemnized five years back of her death.
10. D.W.-1-Lal Bihari Yadav, who is a co-villager of Ashok Yadav
and he has stated that marriage between the deceased and the
appellant was solemnized in the year 1989. He has further stated
that there was no demand of dowry and the deceased died due to
stomach ache. But he does not know about the doctor and the
medicine.
11. D.W.-2-Sarju Yadav has stated that the marriage between
the deceased and the appellant was solemnized in the year 1989.
He further stated that the accused persons have never demanded
any dowry and there was very cordial relationship. He has further
stated that the deceased died due to the abdominal pain.
12. D.W.-3-Lakhan Bhuian, who is the chaukidar of the village
has stated that the wife of the appellant died due to abdominal
pain. He has further stated that he had approached to the house
hearing the sound of crying after the death and came to know that
the deceased had died due to abdominal pain. He has further
stated that he informed the police about the death.
3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34545
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-
(i) There is no evidence on record to suggest that the death
is unnatural or what was the cause of death as no post mortem
is available on the record.
(ii) It is the duty of the prosecution to bring on record
enough material satisfying all the ingredients which is necessary
for the conviction under Section 304(B) of IPC.
(iii) There is no cogent material available on record
regarding demand of dowry or harassment for non-fulfillment of
the demand of dowry.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the
jurisprudence of 304(B) of IPC is otherwise normal in criminal law
but the Section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has
specifically be inserted in the Act available for drawing
presumption.
In the present case, the material available against the
appellant are as follows:-
(i) The death is within seven years of the marriage.
(ii) The cause of death has been deliberately suppressed
or has not been brought on record by the prosecution
otherwise onus lies upon them.
(iii) No defense whatsoever has been brought on record
except the bald statement that she has died due to
the stomach pain.
(iv) The dead body has been disposed of in clandestine
manner without involving even the neighbor of the
village in the same night when the death has
occurred.
Thus, there is specific statement by P.W.-4 and P.W.-5,
who are brothers that there was demand of dowry and harassment
and that has been reiterated even in their cross-examination.
Thus, referring to the jurisprudence of Section 304(B) of
IPC, it has been stated that in the case of dowry death, law has
been specifically designed where the prosecution has to prove only
4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34545
death within seven years and the demand of dowry and
harassment, then the onus shifts upon the accused to take his
defense and explain the death. In the present case, instead of
explaining reason of death which has occurred in the house of the
appellant itself, except that there is abdominal ache and his
conduct is also otherwise as the dead body has been disposed of in
clandestine manner without involving neighbor of the villagers.
Thus, as per the mandate of Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 is the onus upon the appellant and he has not
discharged his liability rather he has brought no material
whatsoever to prove that the death was natural. Thus, in view of
above material and evidence available on record, the judgment of
conviction is wholly justified and requires no interference.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that:-
(i) It is not a case of the defense that the death has
occurred after seven years of marriage rather they have accepted
the fact that the death has occurred within seven years of
marriage.
(ii) There is specific allegation in the F.I.R. and deposition
by P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 of demand of dowry and harassment. Even
in their cross- examination, they have supported the statement
made in the deposition regarding demand of dowry.
(iii) The disposal of the dead body was done in clandestine
manner as it has been taken place in dead hour of the same night
without involving any neighbors and villagers. Thus, the
ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC is very much present and as
such, this Court finds that the judgment is justified so far as
Section 304(B) IPC is concerned and it requires no interference.
So far as the conviction under Section 498(A) of IPC is
concerned, material is available as the demand of dowry and
harassment has been deposed by the witnesses and accordingly
the same is also upheld.
So far as Section 201 of IPC is concerned, admittedly, the
evidence has been destroyed as discussed above and as such the
conviction under Section 201 of IPC requires no interference.
5 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34545
In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction or even in the
sentencing part and as such, appeal fails. .
25. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bond is hereby,
cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender within six weeks
before the learned Trial Court to serve the remaining sentence.
26. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, alongwith the copy of this Judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated 18th November, 2025
Raja/ uploaded on 24.11.2025
6 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1023 of 2005
