Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 74 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2002 and Order of
sentence dated 05.12.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 236 of 2000 ]
1. Rohit Pandit, Son of Nandlal Pandit.
2. Nandlal Pandit, Son of Shalja Pandit.
3. Bhotho Devi, wife of Nandlal Pandit.
All resident of Village - Satar, P.S. - Jasidih
(Kunda), District - Deoghar.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
WITH
Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2003
Laxman Pandit, S/o Moni Pandit, resident of Village -
Sarmool, P.S. - Jasidih, District - Deoghar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Rohit Pandit, S/o Nandlal Pandit.
2. Nandlal Pandit, S/o Shalja Pandit.
3. Bhotho Devi, W/o Nandlal Pandit.
All resident of Village - Saatar, P.S. - Kunda,
District - Deoghar.
4. The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opp. Parties.
.....
For the Appellants : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, Amicus.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 74/2003]
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate.
For the O.P. Nos. 1-3 : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, Amicus.
For O.P. No. 4-State : Mr. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
[In Cr. Revision No. 206/2003]
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 15.09.2025 Pronounced on 15.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Amicus for the
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
appellants in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 74/2003 and Mr. Pankaj
Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.
74/2003 and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned
Amicus appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1
to 3 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. in Cr.
Revision No. 206/2003.
2. Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 74/2003 has been preferred by the
appellants against judgment of conviction dated
04.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 05.12.2002
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in
Sessions Case No. 236/2000 (G.R. No. 350/2000),
arising out of Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79 of
2000, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have
been held guilty and convicted for the offence under
Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
3. Cr. Revision No. 206/2003 has been preferred by the
informant of Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79/2000
for enhancement of sentence of opposite party nos. 1
to 3 / appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 74/2003.
4. Both criminal appeal as well as criminal revision are
arising out of same impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence, hence taken together for hearing and
disposal.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that
informant Laxman Pandit (P.W.-11) has solemnized
marriage of his daughter Sabita Devi (deceased) with
Rohit Pandit, son of Nandlal Pandit about 3 years ago
according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage,
husband (appellant no. 1), father-in-law (Nandlal
Pandit) (appellant no. 2) and mother-in-law (Bhotho
Devi) (appellant no. 3) started demanding motorcycle
in dowry and due to non-fulfillment of above demand
by informant, started subjecting Sabita Devi to
physical and mental cruelty for the said demand. The
informant requested for some time to arrange money
for purchasing motorcycle, but they did not accept his
request and continued their cruel treatment with
Sabita Devi on account of non-fulfillment of the said
demand. It is alleged that one month prior to the
occurrence, the informant had gone to bring his
daughter, but the accused persons did not allow her
to come with the informant to her parents' home,
rather ordered that unless and until their demand is
fulfilled, they will not allow the informant to take his
daughter and also threatened to kill his daughter. The
informant returned back for arranging money, but in
the meantime, on 08.05.2000, in the evening, the
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
informant was informed by one Sukhdeo Pandit that
the dead body of his daughter is lying in the well of
village-Satar, whereupon the informant along with his
other family members, went there and pulled out the
dead body of Sabita Devi from the well. It has been
claimed by the informant that husband Rohit Pandit,
father-in-law Nandlal pandit and mother-in-law
Bhotho Devi have committed "dowry death" of his
daughter Sabita Devi due to non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry in the shape of motorcycle and
threw the dead body into well.
6. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, FIR
being Jasidih (Kunda) P.S. Case No. 79/2000 was
registered for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of
the I.P.C.
7. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted for the aforesaid offences. The learned
Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of offence,
committed the case to the court of Sessions, where
Sessions Case No. 236/2000 was registered. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
8. In course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 : Madan Pandit.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
P.W.-2 : Khublal Pandit.
P.W.-3 : Suresh Pandit.
P.W.-4 : Sukhdeo Pandit.
P.W.-5 : Suresh Rout.
P.W.-6 : Ramlal Pandit.
P.W.-7 : Siddheswar Prasad Yadav.
P.W.-8 : Parmanand Pandit.
P.W.-9 : Bhole Nath Pandit.
P.W.-10 : Ashok Kumar Chaterjee.
P.W.-11 : Laxman Pandit (Informant).
P.W.-12 : Janandan Kumar Singh (I.O.)
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidences have been adduced by
prosecution:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Khublal Pandit on
the inquest report of deceased
Sabita Devi.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Parmanand Pandit
on carbon copy of inquest report.
Exhibit-2 : Post-mortem Report.
Exhibit-3 : Photograph of deceased.
Exhibit-4 : Signature of informant on
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-5 : Fardbeyan of Lakshman Pandit.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
Exhibit-6 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-7 : Inquest Report.
Positive Photograph of Sabita Devi has been
marked 'X' for identification.
9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case
of defence is denial from the occurrence and the
deceased herself fell into the well accidently.
10. The trial court after appreciating the evidence
available on record and hearing the arguments of the
parties, arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has
been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the
foundational facts constituting the offence of dowry
death under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. against all
the accused persons and sentenced them as stated
above.
11. Learned Amicus as well as learned counsel for the
appellants assailing the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellants have
submitted that there are general and omnibus
allegation about demand of dowry in the shape of
motorcycle. No specific day, date and time of alleged
demand and from whom the demand were made and
what type of harassment or cruelty was meted by the
deceased at the hands of the accused persons is
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
totally lacking in the evidence of witnesses. It is
further submitted that there is no doubt that the
deceased died within seven years of her marriage,
otherwise than under normal circumstances, but so
far other ingredients as to cruelty and torture of the
deceased soon before her death on account of or in
connection with any demand of dowry has not been
proved by any of the witnesses including the
informant. The learned trial court has miserably failed
to consider the above aspect of the matter and lack of
evidence regarding Ingredient Nos. (iii) & (iv) of offence
under Section 304B of the I.P.C., mis-directed himself
and committed serious error of law while recording
the guilt of the appellants. There are material
contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the
evidence of informant and other witnesses of facts
namely, P.W.-5 and P.W.-7. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order is absolutely perverse, illegal and
based beyond the weight of evidence available on
record. No presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act can be raised against the appellants in
absence of proof of foundational facts constituting
offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants is liable to be set aside and appellants
deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
against them. This appeal has merits and fit to be
allowed.
12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised
on behalf of the appellants and defended the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and has submitted that the learned trial
court has properly analyzed and appreciated the
evidence of witnesses, particularly, brothers and
father of the deceased. They have categorically proved
the demand of dowry from the deceased from the
deceased and her father and brother just after some
days of marriage and due to non-fulfillment of the
same, consequent torture and harassment meted with
the deceased. It is also proved that one month prior to
the occurrence, the informant had gone to bring his
daughter, but the accused persons did not allow the
informant to take back his daughter unless and until
the demand of motorcycle is fulfilled and the accused
persons threatened to kill the daughter of the
informant. Post-mortem report of deceased goes to
show her un-natural death within seven years of her
marriage. The impugned judgment suffers from no
error of law calling for any interference by way of this
appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
13. The learned counsel for the informant Mr. A.K.
Choudhary, pressing the Criminal Revision filed by
informant, has submitted that the learned trial court
has not awarded adequate sentence to appellants,
which is disproportionate to their guilt and fit to be
enhanced to the extent of maximum sentence
prescribed under law.
14. On the basis of points of arguments of the respective
parties, following points emerges for consideration in
this appeal:-
(I) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence of appellants suffers from serious
error of law and liable to be set aside?
(II) Whether the sentence awarded to the appellants
are inadequate?
15. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant
provisions of law applicable in this case, which are
reproduced as under:
"304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such
death shall be called "dowry death", and such
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-
section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life."
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty. [Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty means"--
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.]
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When
the question is whether a person has committed
the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that
soon before her death such woman had been
subjected by such person to cruelty or
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,
dowry death shall have the same meaning as in
section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860)."
16. In order to convict an accused for the offence
punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the
following essentials must be satisfied by prosecution:-
(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by
burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have occurred within seven
years of her marriage;
(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have
been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relatives of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in
connection with, demand for dowry.
When the above ingredients are established
by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death
shall be called dowry death and such husband or
his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her
death.
17. From bare perusal of provision of Section 304B of the
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
IPC, it is evident that it does not categorize death as
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. This is because
death caused by burns can, in a given case, be
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Similarly, death
caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death
occurring "otherwise than under normal
circumstances" can, in a given case, be homicidal or
suicidal or accidental. Therefore, if all the other
ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any
death (homicidal or suicidal or accidental) whether
caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring
otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as
per the legislative mandate, be called as "dowry death"
and the woman's husband or his relative "shall be
deemed to have caused her death". The section clearly
specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death
and also identifies the single offender or multiple
offenders who has or have caused the dowry death.
18. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B
IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which
is required to be established is that "soon before her
death" she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
"for, or in connection with the demand for dowry". The
expression "soon before her death" used in Section
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
304-B IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act has
been explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of
judgments, Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11
SCC 359; Mustafa Shahadat Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 397; Ramesh Vithal
Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 516,
Maya Devi & Anr. V. State of Haryana, (2015) 17
SCC 405. Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana
(2021) 6 SCC 1. It has been observed that though the
language used is "soon before her death", no definite
period has been enacted and the expression "soon
before her death" has not been defined in both the
enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the
period which can come within the term "soon before
her death" is to be determined by the courts,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. However, the said expression would normally
imply that the interval should not be much between
the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in
question. In other words, there must be existence of
a proximate and live link between the effect of
cruelty based on dowry demand and the death
concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote
in time and has become stale enough not to disturb
the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it
would be of no consequence.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh &
Anr. v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1 has held
that the phrase "soon before" in section 304B IPC is a
relative term which is required to be considered under
specific circumstances of each case and no
straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any
time limit. In relation to dowry deaths, the
circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or
harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a
particular instance but normally refer to a course of
conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of
time. Thus, a proximate and live link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
consequential death is required to be proved by the
prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or
harassment based upon such demand and the date of
death should not be too remote in time which, under
the circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.
20. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down
rebuttable presumption of law in respect of dowry
death. If the ingredients under Section 304-B IPC are
attracted, the court shall presume and it shall record
such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by
the accused. However, it is open to the accused to
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
adduce such evidence for disproving such conclusive
presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to
do so and he can discharge such burden by getting an
answer through cross- examination of the prosecution
witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side
as such putting reverse onus of proving on the
accused.
21. In the background of aforesaid jurisprudence of dowry
death, we have to appreciate the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties apprising ourselves with the
evidence adduced in this case by the respective
parties.
22. We have to consider as to whether the ingredients of
Section 304B IPC as discussed above has been
established by the prosecution through cogent and
reliable evidence?
23. It appears that altogether 12 witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate
the charges levelled against the appellants.
24. P.W.-11 Laxman Pandit is prime witness and father
of the deceased and informant of this case. This
witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that he
has got the marriage of his daughter about 2½ - 3
years ago and after the marriage, she was residing at
her in-laws house along with her husband Rohit
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
Pandit, father-in-law Nandlal Pandit and mother-in-
law Bhothwa Devi. This witness has further stated
that his daughter was subjected to torture for non-
fulfillment of demand of motorcycle. The accused
persons have threatened that if the demand of
motorcycle is not fulfilled, they will kill his daughter.
This witness requested for sometime, as he was
unable to fulfill the demand at that time. This witness
has further stated that he had also gone to the
matrimonial house of the victim to bring her back on
the occasion of marriage of his son Anil Pandit, but
accused persons did not allow and again extended
threatening of killing his daughter, if the motorcycle
was not given. Thereafter, he came back to his home
and sent his elder son Madan Pandit (P.W.-1) to his
another son-in-law's house for arranging money, but
the money could not be arranged. This witness has
also stated that he got information of killing of his
daughter from the co-villager Sukhdeo Pandit and
following up the information, they went to Kunda
Police Station and thereafter, they along with Police
went to Village - Satar, where they found the dead
body of the victim floating in a well. The Police
personnel pulled out the dead body from the well in
his presence. He has also recognized the photograph
of the victim, taken at that time and marked the same
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
as Exhbiit-3 and his signature on the fardbeyan was
marked as Exhibit-4.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that the demand of motorcycle was not from the
beginning, rather the same was erupted after the
marriage of his another daughter. He further stated
that his statement was firstly recorded at the police
station and he has also signed over it. At that time,
Kameshwar Pandit and Sarpanch Upendra Pandit was
present and their statements were also recorded at
police station. Thereafter, his statement was also
recorded by the police at the well of Satar Village. His
son-in-law used to ill-treat with his daughter.
However, in para-23, this witness has stated that he
had not given any statement before the police
regarding threatening extended by the accused
persons for killing his daughter, if the demand of
motorcycle could not be fulfilled.
25. P.W.-1 Madan Pandit is the brother of the deceased.
According to his evidence, the occurrence is of
08.05.2000. On that date, at about 8:00 PM, he learnt
that the dead body of his sister Sabita Devi was
thrown into the well, whereupon this witness along
with his father Laxman Pandit (P.W.-11), Khublal
Pandit (P.W.-2) and Parmanand Pandit went to Village
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
- Satar and found the dead body of Sabita Devi into a
well. The dead body was brought out from the well.
Her eye-balls were burst and the tongue was
protruded. There was a black mark on the neck. They
have gone to village - Satar along with the police. It is
further stated that the Sabita Devi was married to
Rohit Pandit three years ago from the date of death.
Sabita used to live with her husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law. Accused Rohit Pandit, Nandlal
Pandit and Bhotho Devi used to torture Sabita Devi
for demand of motorcycle. One month's prior to the
occurrence, the family members of the deceased
Sabita had gone to bring Sabita from her in-laws
house, but the accused persons refused to send her
and told that she would be allowed to go only after the
demand of dowry is fulfilled, otherwise she would be
killed.
In his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted that they have not promised at the time of
marriage to give motorcycle to the accused and the
demand of motorcycle was made after the marriage
only. This witness has also admitted that he has not
complained either to the police or before any
competent authority about the demand of motorcycle
or about the threat being given.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
26. P.W.-2 Khublal Pandit and P.W.-8 Parmanand
Pandit are the witnesses to the inquest report. They
have stated that inquest report of the dead body was
prepared in their presence by carbon copy process.
They have identified their respective signatures on the
inquest report, which are marked as Exhibit-1 & 1/1.
27. P.W.-3 Suresh Pandit is the elder brother of the
deceased. He has also reiterated the evidence of
Madan Pandit (P.W.-1).
28. P.W.-4 Sukhdeo Pandit has informed about the
occurrence to the informant. He has stated that on
08.05.2000, he had gone to village - Satar to invite his
niece and when returning from the village, he saw
that several persons have assembled near the well, he
also went there and saw the dead body of Sabita Devi
floating in the well. Thereafter, he came to his village
and informed the informant about the occurrence.
29. P.W.-5 Suresh Raut is resident of Village - Satar.
This witness has stated that on 08.05.2000, he came
to know that a dead body is lying in the well. He went
there and saw the dead body of Sabita Devi, wife of
Rohit Pandit. The deceased died in her in-laws village.
This witness has stated that about 3-4 years prior to
that the deceased was married to the accused Rohit
Pandit.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that the accused persons used to keep the deceased
properly and he had never seen the accused persons
subjecting her to cruelty for the demand of dowry, nor
had he heard about it. This witness has stated that
Rohit Pandit was living separately from his father and
mother. The deceased was of eccentric nature and
prior to the occurrence also she had fled away from
the house.
30. P.W.-6 Ramlal Pandit and P.W.-7 Siddheshwar
Prasad Yadav are the co-villagers of the accused and
were tendered by the prosecution.
In their cross-examination, these witnesses have
stated that the deceased was living quite well at her
in-laws' house and she had cordial relationship with
her in-laws and they never used to torture her and
the deceased was of eccentric nature.
31. P.W.-9 Bhola Nath Pandit. This witness has stated
that he is also called as Bhullu Pandit and Sabita
Devi (deceased) was his sister-in-law, who died about
one year ago. He had seen the dead body in the well at
village Satar and there was a red mark on the neck.
He has further stated that the deceased was married
to Rohit Pandit of Village - Satar about three years
ago and she used to live in her Sasural along with her
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that his brother-in-law Madan Pandit had come to
him about 2 years ago and had demanded Rs.
10,000/- in the year 1999, but he could not tell the
date when the money was demanded. This witness
has stated that he had not given the money to his
brother-in-law.
32. P.W.-10 Ashok Kumar Chaterjee has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the Sabita Devi aged
about 18 years, wife of Rohit Pandit along with Board
of Doctors consisting of Dr. J.K. Choudhary, Dr.
R.Mahto under the order of Deputy Superintendent,
Sadar Hospital, Deoghar on 09.05.2000 at about
12:45 P.M. The body of the deceased was brought and
identified by Havaldar Chandra Deo Singh and
Choukidar 5/3 Dharu Mirdha. The doctors have
found following after the post-mortem examination of
the dead body:-
Externally the whole body was swollen foul
smelling and blood all over the body. Scalp hairs were
easily separable. Tongue was protruded between
teeth.
One lacerated wound 1" x ½" x skin deep below
right eye.
Skin Mangins were retracted and ante-mortem in
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
nature.
On dissection of Head and Neck-hematoma
present below scalp on right parietal region. Brain
and meninges were soft.
On opening of chest-both lungs were congested.
Heart-right chamber was having small quantity of red
fluid. Left chamber was empty.
On opening of abdomen - Liver, spleen and
kidneys were congested. Stomach - small quantity of
semi liquid was present. Uterus was small and non-
gravid. Intestine was having gas and feacus. Bladder
was empty. Time elapsed since death was about 72
hours.
Opinion:
The cause of death could not be ascertained from
the above findings and the following viscera were
preserved for chemical examination, if needed:-
(i) Part of lungs.
(ii) A part of heart.
(iii) A part of liver.
(iv) A part of spleen.
(v) One kidney.
(vi) Stomach with its contents.
(vii) A part of intestine with its contents.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
The external injury no. 1 was caused by hard
and blunt substance.
This witness has identified the Post-mortem
report which was prepared after mutual consultation
and it was written by Dr. J.K. Choudhary in his pen
and it bears the signatures of all the three Doctors
including this witness, whereupon the post-mortem
report was marked as Exhibit-2.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that in case of death due to asphyxia as a result of
drowning, tongue of the deceased is protruded between
the teeth. He has also stated that the injury near the
right eye of the deceased was possible, if she had fallen
down into the well with her head downwards and the
head might have dashed against the wall of the bed of
the well. This witness has also stated that in a case of
death due to fall into a well, with the head of the
deceased downwards, the victim may die to vasovagal
shock (due to fear) either before the body touched wall
water and in that case there would be no water into
the stomach.
33. P.W.-12 Janandan Kumar Singh is the Investigating
Officer of this case, who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that while he was posted as
Officer-in-Charge, Kunda Police Station heard
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
through rumour that a dead body of a woman is lying
in a well at Village - Satar. After recording Sanha, he
along with other police officials proceeded to Village -
Satar and found that public were gathered near the
well situated towards east side of the Village - Satar,
where some people were weeping and wailing. Father
of the victim (informant) was also present there and
after recording his statement, the same was read over
to him, upon which, he put his signature. Fardbeyan
is marked as Exhibit-5. This witness has further
deposed that formal FIR was recorded by the then
Officer-in-Charge of Jasidih Police Station, which was
also identified by him and marked as Exhibit-6. This
witness has further stated that Inquest Report was
prepared in the handwriting of Madan Prasad Singh,
ASI and he had put his signature upon it. He also
identified his signature and handwriting of ASI on the
carbon copy of the Inquest Report which has been
marked as Exhibit-7. He inspected the place of
occurrence and sent the dead body for post-mortem
examination and also received the post-mortem
report. He has also sent the Viscera preserved by the
Medical Officer during post-mortem examination to
the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of
Investigation, he has submitted charge-sheet against
the accused persons.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
34. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall
facts and circumstances of the case and the material
ocular testimony of the witnesses. We have quoted
above four ingredients of the offence under Section
304B of the I.P.C. as foundational facts to be proved
by the prosecution through cogent and reliable
evidence.
35. So far first two ingredients are concerned, it is
undisputed that the deceased was married with the
appellant no. 1 prior to three years of occurrence i.e.
in the year 1997 and she died on 08.05.2000, as such
within seven years of her marriage. It is also well-
proved through testimony of ocular witnesses that the
dead body was pulled out from the well situated at the
matrimonial village of the deceased. The post-mortem
report of the deceased (Exhibit-2) conducted by
Doctor Ashok Kumar Chatterjee (P.W.-10) shows that
the post-mortem was conducted on 09.05.2000
at 12:45 PM at that time since death about 72 hours
was elapsed. The whole body was swollen and foul
smelling was coming, tongue was also protruded
between teeth. There was lacerated wound caused by
hard blunt object, although no exact cause of death
could be ascertained and viscera were preserved for
chemical examination, but it is admitted in the cross-
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
examination by P.W.-10 that in case of death due to
asphysia as a result of drowning, tongue of the
deceased is protruded between the teeth and this
symptom is also mentioned in the post-mortem
report. The viscera report has not been proved in this
case, but the overall circumstances, as discussed
above, clearly shows that the death of deceased has
occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.
36. In view of the above discussion, ingredient nos. (i) &
(ii) of Section 304B of the I.P.C. is well-proved by the
prosecution.
37. So far ingredient nos. (iii) & (iv) i.e. soon before her
death, the woman must have been subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relatives of her husband and such cruelty or
harassment must be for, or in connection with,
demand for dowry is concerned, in this regard, there
is clear cut evidence of P.W.-11, informant-cum-father
of the deceased, P.W.-3 Suresh Pandit, brother of the
deceased have categorically proved that the deceased
was married with appellant no. 1 about three years
prior to occurrence. It is also proved that at the time
of marriage, there was no demand of motorcycle, but
just after the marriage and after solemnization of
marriage of second daughter of the informant, the
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit started demanding
motorcycle from his wife and father-in-law (P.W.-11)
and brother-in-law. It is also proved that the
informant and brothers of the deceased were
managing money and also searching for some loan
from other persons and relatives as is apparent from
the evidence of Bhola Nath Pandit (P.W.-9), who
happens to be son-in-law of the informant that Madan
Pandit (P.W.-1) asked from him Rs. 10,000/- for
purchasing a motorcycle to give Rohit Pandit because
he is raising demand of motorcycle as dowry and due
to non-fulfillment of which, he is subjecting Sabita
Devi to cruelty and harassment and threatening to kill
her. There is unrebutted testimony of the aforesaid
witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-11 that they have
gone to the matrimonial home of deceased 20-22 days
prior to the occurrence and they were not allowed to
enter into the house unless motorcycle is given to
Rohit Pandit (appellant no. 1). It is also stated that on
the occasion of marriage of informant's son scheduled
to be held in the month of Baishkh before 08.05.2000,
the deceased was not sent to her parental house to
attend the marriage ceremony of her own brother.
Therefore, prosecution has succeeded in proving the
ingredient nos. (iii) & (iv) of Section 304B of the I.P.C.
also.
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
38. Now the question arises as to against whom the
presumption of dowry death as per provisions of
Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be raised.
39. In the instant case, the prosecution witness itself
P.W.-5 Suresh Rout, who is local villager of the place
of occurrence has been cross-examined by the
prosecution and categorically stated that Rohit Pandit
resides along with his wife separately with his mother
and father. The prosecution itself has elicited this fact
and there is no specific evidence against the appellant
nos. 2 and 3 about any demand of motorcycle from
the deceased or her parents and brother or any ill-
treatment meted with the deceased at their instance.
Moreover, the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit was the
young boy and in need and utility of the motorcycle
and it was of no use for the old parents. Therefore, the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act
can be raised only against the appellant no. 1 Rohit
Pandit and not against the appellant nos. 2 & 3, who
were admittedly residing separately, having no
concern with the matrimonial affairs between
husband and wife.
40. In view of above discussion and reasons, we are of the
definite view that the learned trial court has failed to
segregate the genuine case of appellant nos. 2 & 3
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
from the case of appellant no. 1, who was sole
responsible for the overall affairs and the tragic end of
deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 is hereby set aside and
the conviction of appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit is
upheld and confirmed. Accordingly, point no. (I) is
decided.
41. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the
appellant Rohit Pandit has been awarded R.I. for 10
years and revision against the impugned judgment
has also been filed by the informant Laxman Pandit
for enhancement of sentence. In this connection, we
have to go through the impugned judgment, wherein
both parties were heard on the question of quantum
of sentence awarded to the accused and the learned
trial court has recorded finding that the prosecution
case is resting only on the circumstantial evidence. In
that view of the matter, the maximum punishment
prescribed by law is not warranted in this case and
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years will meet the ends
of justice. No aggravating circumstance has been
brought on record by the prosecution and the
informant for enhancement of sentence in this case.
Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the
quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant no. 1
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
Rohit Pandit. In this view of the matter, Criminal
Revision No. 206 of 2003 is hereby dismissed.
42. In the result, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 74 of
2003 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence
of appellant no. 1 namely, Rohit Pandit is upheld and
confirmed. Appellant no. 1 is directed to surrender
before the concerned trial court to serve the remaining
period of sentence awarded to him by learned trial
court within two months from the date of this
judgment, failing which the learned trial court shall
take all coercive steps to secure the arrest and
detention of the appellant no. 1 Rohit Pandit for the
purpose of undergoing the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him.
43. So far the conviction and sentence of the appellant
nos. 2 & 3 namely, Nandlal Pandit and Bhotho Devi
passed by learned trial court is concerned, the same
is hereby set aside. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are acquitted
from the charges leveled against them.
44. Appellant nos. 2 & 3 are on bail. They are discharged
from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also
be discharged.
45. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
46. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance
rendered by Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Amicus
2025:JHHC:31925-DB
Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court
Legal Services Committee to process the fees of Rs.
7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only)
to Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this
order.
47. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is
served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee.
48. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 15 t h October, 2025.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
