Jharkhand High Court
Bhuwan Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
1
2019:JHHC:40022
2019:JHHC:40022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2004 and order of sentence
dated 25.06.2004 passed by Sri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.17 of 1998 arising
out of Barharwa P.S. Case No.50 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case
No.192 of 1997]
--------------
Bhuwan Ghosh, Son of Matlu Ghosh, resident of Majurcola,
P.S.-Kotal Pokhar, District-Sahibganj... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--------------
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the State :Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P. P.
For the Informant :Mr. Sharukh Ansari, Adv.
--------------
Order No.12/ Dated 20th November, 2025
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P., appearing for the
State and Mr. Sharukh Ansari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 24.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 25.06.2004 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal
in Sessions Case No.17 of 1998 arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case
No.50 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case No.192 of 1997,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He has been further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under
Section 498A of IPC and he has been further sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
3. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R.
2019:JHHC:40022
being Barharwa P.S. Case No.50 of 1997 against the appellant and
others.
4. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report of the
informant. The brief fact of the case is that she was married to the
appellant for about 2 years ago and it is stated that her father-in-
law is an employee of Indian Railways and posted at Bonidanga
Railway Station and they are living in a Railway Quarter. It is also
stated that after 10 to 12 days of Holi, the appellant, husband of
the P.W.-6 (informant) had assaulted her saying that to bring ear-
ring, bangles, neckless etc. from her father and on expressing her
inability, in the morning when father-in-law of the informant (P.W.-
6) went to his duty, the appellant assaulted her by Lathi and also
poured kerosene oil on her and set fire as a result of which she
burnt. Seeing the fire on the person of P.W.-6, the lady neighbour
came there and extinguished the fire by the means of water but the
body of the P.W.-6 got burnt. Thereafter one Kapil and others came
and brought the P.W.-6 to the Railway Hospital, Maldah for
treatment and after recovery, she came to the police station and
submitted the written report.
5. On the basis of said allegation, the police after
investigation has submitted the charge-sheet for the offence under
Sections 498 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and accordingly cognizance has been taken and the
case has been committed to the Court of Sessions. On conclusion
of trial, the accused has convicted under Sections 498A and 307 of
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which
appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven
witnesses have been examined.
7. P.W.-1, Prasad Yadav, the brother of the informant, stated
in his evidence that his sister, Sumitra Devi, was married to the
accused, Bhuwan Ghosh, two years prior to the date of occurrence.
He further deposed that after the marriage, Sumitra Devi went to
her sasural, where she did not feel comfortable. Consequently, she
moved to her father-in-law's house at village Bonidanga. He added
that the father-in-law was employed in the Railways, and therefore
the family resided in a railway quarter.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
He further stated that while staying at the railway quarter,
2019:JHHC:40022
Bhuwan Ghosh, the husband of his sister Sumitra Devi, poured
kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, causing severe burn
injuries. In paragraph 2, he has mentioned that upon receiving the
information, they went to the Maldah Hospital where they found
his sister burnt and unconscious.
P.W.-2, Musani Devi, mother of the informant has stated
that her daughter Sumitra Devi lived with her in-laws at the
Bonidanga railway quarter after marriage. She learned from her
other son-in-law, Fulchand Yadav, that Sumitra had been burnt by
her husband, Bhuwan Ghosh, by pouring kerosene oil on her.
When she reached the Maldah Government Hospital, she found
Sumitra severely burnt and unconscious. Two days later, after
regaining consciousness, Sumitra told her that she was set on fire
because the demanded ornaments had not been given. In cross-
examination, she has admitted that her son-in-law had also been
demanding ornaments from them. She was cross-examined at
length.
P.W.-3 is Sabo Devi, she has stated in her evidence that on
the day of occurrence in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. while she
was in front of her quarter situated at Bonidanga, she saw that
Sumitra Devi, the victim lady came out of her quarter burning and
running towards them, crying to save her and thereafter Sumitra
became senseless and fell down. Thereafter, staffs of the locality
took her to the hospital. She has also deposed that Sumitra Devi is
the wife of the accused Bhuwan Ghosh.
At para-7, in her cross-examination, she has deposed that
at the time of occurrence she did not seen any Stove burning
inside or outside of the house of the victim lady. She has further
deposed that at the time of occurrence accused Bhuwan Ghosh
and his bhabhi came out of the quarter, just after the occurrence.
In para-8 she has further stated that she could not say as to how
the fire was set on the person of Sumitra Devi.
P.W.-4, Ashok Dom has deposed in his evidence that on
31.03.1997 at around 8:00 A.M., he saw Sumitra Devi running out
of her railway quarter while burning. Her husband and his bhabhi
tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water. Sumitra suffered
serious burn injuries and was taken to Maldah Hospital. He also
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
deposed that the incident took place at the railway quarter of
2019:JHHC:40022
Sumitra's father-in-law at Bonidanga. In cross-examination, he
added that when he reached the spot, Sumitra had already fallen
down and his wife and other people were present there.
P.W.-5, Sughan Yadav, father of the informant has stated
that his daughter Sumitra Devi was married to the accused
Bhuwan Ghosh, and at the time of marriage, ornaments, utensils,
and ₹60,000/- cash were given. After marriage, she lived with the
accused's family at the Bonidanga railway quarter. He stated that
Sumitra was assaulted by Bhuwan Ghosh for money, and when
the demand was not fulfilled, Bhuwan Ghosh poured kerosene oil
on her and set her on fire. Neighbours took her to the Maldah
railway hospital. Two days later, he visited the hospital and found
her in burnt condition and she informed him that her husband
had set her on fire with and intention to kill. She remained
hospitalized for about one and a half months, and after recovery,
the case was lodged on her statement.
P.W.-6, Sumitra Devi (informant) has stated that about
four years before her testimony, at around 8:00 A.M. in her
Bonidanga residence, her husband Bhuwan Ghosh quarreled with
her, demanded ornaments, poured kerosene oil on her, and set her
on fire. She suffered extensive burn injuries and remained
hospitalized for about one and a half months, with treatment
expenses paid by her father. After recovery, she returned to
Bonidanga with her family, but her husband refused to keep her,
leading her to lodge a written report at Barharwa P.S. She stated
that the burn marks were still visible on her body. In cross-
examination, she said that her husband behaved well for the first
year of marriage, but confirmed that he personally poured
kerosene and ignited her with a matchbox. She became
unconscious after running outside and did not know who took her
to the hospital, and upon regaining consciousness two days later,
only her parents and brother were present and none of her in-laws
were there.
P.W-7-Nibaran Chand Sah, an advocate clerk is a formal
witness and proved the F.I.R (Ext. 3), written report (Ext.4) and the
endorsement regarding institution of the case (Ext.4/1).
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
P.W.-8-Brahmdeo Singh, is the Investigating Officer of2019:JHHC:40022
this
case and he has deposed that on 13.05.1997 he was posted at
Barharwa P.S. On that day he received investigation of this case
and visited the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence lies in
quarter bearing No.7-a in which the victim lady was residing with
her husband. He has given the details of that quarter in his
evidence. He further deposed that he has recorded the evidence of
the witness and submitted that charge-sheet.
P.W.-9-Anil has said in his evidence that when he returned
from night duty on hearing halla in the morning at 7.00 P.M. woke
up and saw that the entire body of the victim lady is set on fire and
the accused Bhuwan Ghosh and wife of another one Ashok were
extinguishing the fire by pouring water on her person thereafter he
went inside of his house.
P.W.-10-Rabi-ul-Islam is a formal witness, who has proved
the Ext.-5
P.W.-11-Rinku Ghosh, who happens to be the Bhabhi of
the accused has deposed in her evidence that her gotani, the victim
lady, was going to her house with a burning stove and which
caused setting of fire in her cloths. She raised alarm and the
accused Bhuwan Ghosh and the other persons of the quarter came
and poured water and extinguished the fire.
8. The defense has also examined two witnesses i.e. D.W.1,
namely, Jai Kumar Ghosh and D.W.2, namely, Madho Rabidas but
they are not the eye-witness. They are witness of opinion having no
value.
D.W.-1-Jai Kumar Ghosh has deposed in his evidence that
the occurrence took place in the year 1997 at about 8.00 to 8.30
P.M. He further deposed that the victim lady wife of Bhuwan
Ghosh was taking burning stove to her house which caused
setting of fire in her cloths and she burnt.
The testimony of D.W.-2 is substantially similar and
supports the same version of events.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has based his argument
mainly upon the deposition of P.W.6, the victim lady, P.W.-9, who
is the independent witness and P.W.-11, who happens to be
bhabhi of the victim.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
Referring to the cross examination of P.W.-6 i.e. the victim,
2019:JHHC:40022
following submission has been made:
(i) The victim has admitted that there was no demand of
dowry and further she has shifted the stove from
outside to inside the house.
(ii) In the cross examination of P.W.-9 and P.W.-11, they
have clearly deposed that while shifting the stove
from inside to the house, accidentally fire has catch
up and that has been dozed up by putting water by
the husband and relatives and subsequently she was
shifted to the hospital.
(iii) It has been submitted that the alleged incident is
dated 31.03.1997 as disclosed by the P.W.-3 but
F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.05.1997 after much
delay with oblique purpose.
(iv) The treatment has been done in a private hospital
even the doctor has not been examined.
(v) The appellant has taken defense of the accidental
burning while shifting stove and this statement has
been made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and this fact
gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-6 i.e. the
victim lady herself and P.W.-9 as well as P.W.-11.
10. Since, the fire is accidental and no injury report has been
brought on record and as such conviction under Sections 307 IPC
is not sustainable as there is no material proving the crime itself
much less connecting this appellant with the alleged crime.
11. So far as conviction under Section 498A of IPC is
concerned, since the victim herself admitted that there was no
demand of dowry within one year. Thereafter also, there is no
specific allegation against the demand of article demanded or the
period that it was demanded and as such the conviction under
Section 498A IPC as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act is without any material on record.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as
learned counsel for the informant have supported the judgment of
conviction and following submission has been made:-
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
(i) There is no ocular evidence to suggest that the victim
2019:JHHC:40022
has been put on fire.
(ii) The victim although has went to her sasural after
getting treatment but she has been driven out from the
sasural.
(iii) The injury report has been marked as Ext.-5, thus,
there is injury and allegation of putting her on fire and as
such the conviction is fully justified.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of record, it appears that:
(i) The fire was accidental, as stated by P.W.-9 and
P.W.-11 in their cross-examination, wherein they deposed
that the incident occurred when the victim was shifting
the stove from outside the house, during which the fire
broke out.
(ii) The victim herself has admitted in her cross-
examination that she has shifted the stove. Further there
was quarrel between the parties and it was in a public
view where 10-15 persons were present and they have
separated the husband and wife.
(iii) The victim herself has admitted in her cross-
examination that there was no demand of dowry rather
there was cordial relationship between them.
(iv) The alleged injury has been treated in a private
hospital but even the doctor has not been examined.
14. Considering the above material, and the deposition of the
prosecution evidence itself, an arena of doubt has been created
and this benefit has to be extended to the appellant.
15. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the
judgment of conviction does not supported by any cogent material
and the material available on record. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction dated 24.06.2004 and order of sentence dated
25.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No.17 of 1998 arising out
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
2019:JHHC:40022
of Barharwa P.S. Case No.50 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case
2019:JHHC:40022
No.192 of 1997 is, hereby, set aside.
16. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from
the liability of the bail bonds.
17. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
18. 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 20th November, 2025
Shahid/N.A.F.R./
Uploaded on 25.11.2025
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1110 of 2004
