Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 782 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2003 and Order of
sentence dated 31.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1996 ]
1. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Kedar Ram.
2. Smt. Kalawati Devi, W/o Kedar Ram.
Both resident of Village - Karkend, P.S. - Putki,
Dist. - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
WITH
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 747 of 2003
1. Mohan Ram @ Narayan Ram, S/o Shiwan Ram.
2. Geeta Devi, W/o Mohan Ram @ Narayan Ram.
Both resident of Village - Karkend, P.S. - Putki,
Dist. - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Amicus.
Mr. A.N. Deo, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 782/2003]
For the Appellants : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 747/2003]
.....
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 16.10.2025
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned Amicus for
the appellants assisted by Mr. A.N. Deo, learned
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Santosh Kumar
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
Shukla, learned A.P.P. in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 782/2003
and Mr. Vikram Sinha and Mr. Santosh Kumar
Shukla, learned A.P.P. in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 747/2003.
2. Both the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants
against their judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2003
and order of sentence dated 31.05.2003 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in
Sessions Trial No. 225 of 1996, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty and
convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that
informant Tilak Dhari Ram (P.W.-6) solemnized
marriage of his daughter Nilam Devi (deceased) with
Sanjay Ram in the year 1992. After marriage,
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started
demanded Sofa Set, Bed and Wrist Watch from the
deceased. Due to non-fulfillment of which, Nilam Devi
subjected to cruelty by abusing, assaulting and not
providing proper food. It is alleged that after marriage,
deceased came to her parental home and complained
about the aforesaid demand and torture meted with
her and she was not willing to return to her
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
matrimonial home. Anyhow she was convinced to join
her matrimonial home. Thereafter, informant's
nephew Hira Lal Ram, brother Nand Kishore Ram and
his son Manoj Kumar went to the matrimonial home
of Nilam Devi, but they were not allowed to enter into
the house by her husband and mother-in-law and it
was categorically stated that unless and until Sofa
Set, Bed and Wrist Watch were not delivered, they will
not be allowed to meet their sister. The informant's
son accepted to give the above articles, then they were
allowed to meet with Nilam Devi and at that time also
the deceased told weepingly to her brothers that she
might be killed at any time and requested to take her
back to her parental home. It is alleged that
informant's son after pacifying the matter with
mother-in-law and husband of the deceased returned
to Calcutta. The informant was managing to give the
demanded articles, but within 15 days of the above
meeting of his son with his daughter, the informant
received a message that his daughter has been set
ablaze and admitted at the Central Hospital, Dhanbad
for treatment. On receiving aforesaid message, the
informant went to said Hospital and found that his
daughter Nilam Devi was lying in injured condition on
bed, although conscious, but not able to speak. She
told by sign language about involvement of her
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other
accused persons, who have set her on fire by
sprinkling kerosene oil. The informant also smelt the
odour of Kerosene oil on her body. It is claimed by the
informant that the accused persons have killed his
daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry in
the shape of Bed, Sofa Set and Wrist Watch.
4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, FIR
being Putki P.S. Case No. 21/1994 was registered for
the offence under Sections 498 (A), 307, 34 of the
I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After registration of FIR, the deceased died, hence,
Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. was also added against
all the named accused persons.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted for the offence under Section 304B of the
I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking
cognizance committed the case to the court of
Sessions, where S.T. No. 225/1996 was registered.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
6. In course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 : Rajendra Singh Chawla;
P.W.-2 : Dilip Kumar Sen;
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
P.W.-3 : Arbind Kumar Sahu;
P.W.-4 : Sanju Devi;
P.W.-5 : Leela Devi;
P.W.-6 : Tilak Dhari Ram (Informant);
P.W.-7 : S.K. Mandal;
P.W.-8 : Vidya Devi (wife of informant);
P.W.-9 : Dr. Shailendra Kumar;
P.W.-10 : Manoj Kumar Ram (son of informant).
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidences have been adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Tilak Dhari Ram on
the fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Bijay Kumar on the
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of Sita Ram on the
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/3 : Signature of Bidya Devi on the
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3 : P.M. Report.
7. 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 false
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
implication due to accidental burn injuries and death
of the deceased while cooking.
8. 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 the charges under Section 304B of
I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt against all the
accused persons and sentenced them as stated above.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae 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
double bed, sofa set and wrist watch. 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 has been explained in the evidence
of witnesses. It is further submitted that there is no
doubt that the deceased died within seven years of
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
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
witnesses including the informant and his sons and
nephews. The informant has attempted to project a
story of dying declaration made to him by deceased
through sign language and bodily gesture by pointing
towards the appellants that they have set her on
ablaze, but there is no evidence on record that the
deceased was able to speak and under conscious state
to understand or even indicate by gestures and signs
anything. No such certificate was provided by
concerned Medical Officer. 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 towards accepting the dying
declaration of the deceased 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.-6, P.W.-8 and P.W.-
10, informant, his wife and son respectively, which
cannot be get explained by the Investigating Officer,
due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is
absolutely perverse, illegal and based beyond the
weight of evidence available on record. No
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
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 against them and
this appeal has merits and fit be allowed.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised
on behalf of the appellants and defending the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
submitted that the learned trial court has properly
scanned the evidences of witnesses particularly, P.W.-
6, P.W.-8 and P.W.-10, who are father, mother and
brother of the deceased. They have categorically
proved the incident of demand of dowry by the
deceased soon before her death and due to non-
fulfillment of the same consequent torture and
harassment meted with the deceased. It has also
proved that just 15 days prior to the occurrence, the
brother and cousin of the deceased went to meet the
deceased at her matrimonial home, where they were
not allowed to meet her by her husband and mother-
in-law and only when they undertake to give the
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
demanded articles then they were allowed and the
deceased told about her agony to them and was
insisting to take her back to parental home, otherwise
she might be killed. The deceased was mercilessly set
at ablaze and story of accidental burn is absolutely
false and fabricated and concocted by the defence.
She was burned through dried fire, which is also
corroborated from her post-mortem report. The
learned trial court has committed no error of law
calling for any interference in the impugned judgment
and order by way of this appeal, which is fit to be
dismissed.
11. The relevant provisions of law applicable in this case
are reproduced hereinbelow:
"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
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).
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
(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
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)."
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
12. In view of the above provisions, in order to convict an
accused for the offence punishable under Section
304(B) of the IPC, the following essentials must be
satisfied:-
(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.
13. From bare perusal of provision of Section 304B of the
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
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
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 a "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.
14. 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
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
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
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.
15. 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
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
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.
16. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down
rebuttable presumption of law in respect of dowry. 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
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
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
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.
17. 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.
18. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution in order to substantiate
the charges levelled against the appellants.
19. P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh Chawla is the neighbour of
the deceased. According to his evidence, on
10.03.1994 at about 3:00 PM, he was taking lunch,
meanwhile, he heard hulla bacho-bacho from the
house of Sanjay. He went to the house of Sanjay and
saw that his wife has caught fire, then he wrapped
her by a quilt. Several other villagers assembled and
wife of Sanjay brought to Hospital, where she died.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
went to the house of Sanjay, at that time, wife of
Arbind and other female in-mates were also present.
Nilam Devi did not disclose the name of any person,
who set her on fire or how she caught fire.
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
20. P.W.-2 Dilip Kumar Sen is also neighbour of the
deceased. On 10.03.1994, he was present at his home
and heard hulla from the house of Sanjay at about
2:30 - 3:00 PM, then he went to the house of Sanjay
and saw that wife of Sanjay has caught fire and
Rajendra Singh Chawla (P.W.-1) was wrapping wife of
Sanjay with quilt.
21. P.W.-3 Arbind Kumar Sahu has learnt about the
occurrence in the evening of 10.03.1994 that Nilam
Devi has died due to burn injuries.
22. P.W.-4 Sanju Devi has also deposed that she heard
the hulla screaming coming from the house of Nilam
then went and saw that Nilam has caught fire.
Rajendra Singh Chawla wrapped her by a quilt.
Meanwhile, several other persons assembled there
and Nilam Devi was brought to Hospital by tempo.
She has stated nothing else about the occurrence.
23. P.W.-5 Lila Devi is the gotni of the deceased. At the
time of occurrence, she was not present and had gone
to her parental house. Later on, she came to know
that her gotni caught fire and admitted in hospital for
treatment and after 3-4 days, Nilam Devi died in
hospital.
24. P.W.-6 Tilakdhari Ram is the informant. According to
him, on 11.03.1994 at about 9:30 AM, his brother
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
Nand Kishore Ram came to his house and informed
that Nilam Devi has caught fire and her treatment is
going on at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. Then, this
witness along with his brother Nand Kishore Ram
went to Dhanbad by boarding on train, where he saw
that his daughter was lying unconscious on the bed of
hospital. She was badly burnt. Her father-in-law
Kedar Ram, husband Sanjay Ram, mother-in-law
Kalawati Devi were present in the hospital, but they
disclosed nothing about reason of burn injuries
sustained by his daughter. He also felt odour of
Kerosene oil coming from the body of his daughter.
His fardbeyan was recorded by police in the hospital
and he has proved his signature as Exhibit-1 and also
signature of other witnesses on fardbeyan as Exhibit-
1/1, 1/2 & 1/3. He has further deposed that within
two days of the occurrence, his daughter died in the
hospital. She was conscious, but unable to speak,
hence, by gestures, she disclosed that her husband,
mother-in-law, Gita Devi and Mohan Ram have set
her on ablaze. He has also deposed that the marriage
of his daughter with Sanjay Ram was solemnized in
the year 1992 and since after solemnization of
marriage, his daughter returned to her parental home
thrice, but she was not desiring to go back to her
sasural and disclosed that her husband Sanjay Ram,
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
mother-in-law Kalawati Devi, Geeta Devi and Mohan
Ram were demanding Sofa Set, Palang and wrist
watch and she was frequently assaulted and abused
in connection with above demand. She was not
properly supplied food. Hence, she was not desiring to
go her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she went to her
sasural. After some days, son of this witness Manoj
Ram along with his cousin Hira Lal and uncle Nand
Kishore Ram went to matrimonial home of Nilam Devi,
but her mother-in-law and husband did not allow
them to meet with the Nilam Devi unless and until the
demand of Palang, Sofa Set and Wrist Watch is not
fulfilled. He has further deposed that his son Manoj
Ram accepted to give the aforesaid articles, then they
were allowed to meet with the Nilam Devi. On that
occasion also, Nilam Devi weepingly told to her
brother to take her to parental home, otherwise, she
will be killed by the accused persons. Thereafter,
Manoj Kumar convinced the mother-in-law and
husband of deceased that he will give the aforesaid
articles within 15 days after returning to Calcutta, but
in the meantime, his daughter was set on ablaze by
the accused persons.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that prior to the occurrence, he has nowhere
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
complained about the demand of dowry and torture
meted with his daughter, rather he was managing to
give these articles to the accused persons.
Attention of this witness has been drawn
towards some omissions of fact, which has not been
mentioned in the FIR. He further admits that Mohan
Ram and Geeta Devi are mousa and mausi of his son-
in-law Sanjay Ram, who are resident of Village -
Chakai. There is nothing else in his cross-examination
to discredit his testimony.
25. P.W.-7 S.K. Mandal is the Advocate Clerk and formal
witness, who has proved the fardbeyan of the
informant recorded by ASI as Exhibit-2.
26. P.W.-8 Vidya Devi is the mother of the deceased.
According to her evidence, the marriage of daughter
Nilam Devi was solemnized with Sanjay Kumar about
4 ½ years ago and just after the marriage, the
accused persons, mother-in-law Kalawati Devi,
husband Sanjay Kumar, Geeta Devi mauseri mother-
in-law and Mohan Ram, mausa father-in-law started
demanding additional dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to physical
and mental cruelty. His daughter was not desiring to
go back to her sasural due to demand of dowry and
torture meted with her. Her son also went to the
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
sasural of her daughter, but he was not allowed to
enter into the house unless and until the demand is
fulfilled. Then her son took one week's time to give the
articles. Meanwhile, her daughter was set on ablaze
due to non-fulfillment of dowry. She went to hospital
and saw that her daughter was conscious, but unable
to speak and by gesture, she pointed the accused
persons, who have set her on ablaze.
She has denied the suggestion of defence that
while cooking her daughter caught fire and sustained
burn injuries and due to that, she died.
27. P.W.-9 Dr. Shailendra Kumar is the Doctor, who has
conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased
Nilam Devi, W/o Sanjay Kumar Ram on 15.03.1994
and found following:-
Dermo epidermal ante mortem burn injuries were
found all over the body, only her head with scalp
hairs were spared. Puss was found on the injuries of
back, injuries were 3/5 days old, no smell of kerosene
oil was perceived.
On Dissection
Heart contained blood on both sides. Stomach
contained about 30 cc of brownish fluid with no
particular smell. Uterus was normal, bladder was
empty and all internal organs were pale.
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
Time elapsed since death 12 to 24 hours.
Cause of death - Death was due to shock as a
result of intensive burn injuries.
He has proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit-
3.
In his cross-examination, this witness has stated
that if there is burn injury by kerosene oil there will
be smell of kerosene oil, but this witness volunteered
that this is a case after 5 days so there cannot be
smell of kerosene oil. Thus, there is nothing else in
the evidence of this witness to disbelieve.
28. P.W.-10 Manoj Kumar Ram is the brother of the
deceased. In his evidence, he has stated that on
11.03.1994 at about 8:30 AM, his uncle Nand Kishore
Ram came and informed me that Nilam Devi has
caught fire and she was admitted in Jagjivan Nagar
Central Hospital, Dhanbad. Then, this witness along
with his father and uncle went to Dhanbad Central
Hospital, where he saw his sister in burnt condition.
She is unable to speak. He also felt odour of Kerosene
oil coming from the body of his sister. Nilam Devi by
gesture indicated that her mother-in-law, sister of her
mother-in-law Gita Devi, her husband Sanjay Ram
and husband of Gita Devi namely, Mohan Ram have
sprinkled kerosene oil and set her on fire. On
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
13/14.03.194, Nilam Devi died. Mother-
in-law Kalawati Devi were present in the hospital, but
they disclosed nothing about reason of burn injuries
sustained by his daughter. This witness has also
stated that two months prior to the occurrence, when
he along with his brother Hira Lal and uncle Nand
Kishore Ram had gone to meet his sister, then it was
categorically stated that unless and until the demand
of Sofa Set, Wrist Watch and Palang were not
delivered, they were not allowed to meet Nilam Devi.
Thereafter, this witness has accepted to give the above
articles, then they were allowed to meet with Nilam
Devi and at that time, her sister weepingly stated that
she has been tortured due to demand of dowry.
29. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall
facts and circumstances of the case and the 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.
30. So far first two ingredients are concerned, it is
undisputed that the deceased was married with
Sanjay Kumar (appellant no. 1 in Cr. A. (SJ) No.
782/2003) in the month of May, 1992 and she died
on 13.03.1994, as such within seven years of her
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
marriage. It is also well-proved through testimony of
ocular witnesses that the deceased was burnt in her
matrimonial home. The post-mortem report of the
deceased (Exhibit-3) conducted by Doctor Shailendra
Kumar (P.W.-9) shows that the post-mortem was
conducted on 15.03.1994 at 4:00 PM at that time
since death about 12 to 24 hours was elapsed. The
dermo epidermal ante mortem burn injuries were
found all over the body, only head with scalp hairs
were spared. Puss was found on injuries of back,
injuries were 3/5 days old, no smell of kerosene oil
was perceived, but the overall circumstances, as
discussed above, clearly shows that the death of
deceased has occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances.
31. In view of the above discussion, ingredient nos. (i) &
(ii) of Section 304B of the I.P.C. is well-proved by the
prosecution.
32. 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.-6, P.W.-8 and P.W.-10,
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
informant, his wife and son have categorically proved
that the deceased was married with appellant no. 1
Sanjay Kumar (Cr.A. (SJ) No. 782/2003) about two
years prior to occurrence. It is also proved that the
appellant no. 1 Sanjay Kumar (Cr.A. (SJ) No.
782/2003) started demanding Sofa Set, Bed and
Wrist Watch from his wife and father-in-law and
brother-in-law. It has also proved that just 15 days
prior to the occurrence, the brother and cousin of the
deceased want to meet the deceased at her
matrimonial home, where they were not allowed to
meet her by her husband and mother-in-law and only
when they undertake to give the demanded articles
then they were allowed and the deceased told about
her agony to them and was insisting to take her to her
parental home, otherwise she might be killed.
Therefore, demand of Sofa Set, Bed and Wrist Watch
as well as cruel treatment with the deceased due to
non-fulfillment of the said demand is also well-proved
by the prosecution.
33. 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.
34. In the instant case, the prosecution witness P.W.-6
Tilakdhari Ram (informant) itself stated that Mohan
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
Ram and Geeta Devi are mousa and mausi of his son-
in-law Sanjay Ram and they are residing in another
Village - Chakai and not frequent visitor at the place
of occurrence. They are remote relative having no
concern with the family affairs between the appellant
and his wife. Their implication in this case appears to
be only on the basis of anguish.
35. So far Smt. Kalawati Devi, who is mother-in-law of the
deceased is concerned, there is general and omnibus
allegation of demand of dowry and torture. No specific
overt act has been attributed against her. No specific
demand and how the deceased was treated with
cruelty at the hands of her mother-in-law has not
been specifically stated and proved. Moreover, the
only thing against her is simply as an instigator. The
things which have been demanded is in need and
utility of the husband of the deceased and it was of no
use for the old mother-in-law or relatives. Therefore,
the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence
Act can be raised only against the appellant no. 1
Sanjay Kumar (appellant no. 1 in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 782 of
2003) and not against the Smt. Kalawati Devi
(appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 782 of 2003) and
Mohan Ram and Geeta Devi (appellants in Cr.A. (SJ)
No. 747 of 2003).
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
36. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we are of
the definite opinion that the learned trial court has
failed to segregate the genuine case of Smt. Kalawati
Devi (appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 782/2003) and
Mohan Ram and Geeta Devi (appellants in Cr.A. (SJ)
No. 747/2003), who are mother, mousa and mousi
respectively of Sanjay Kumar from the case of
appellant no. 1, namely, Sanjay Kumar, who was sole
responsible for the overall affairs and the tragic end of
deceased. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of
the Smt. Kalawati Devi (appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ)
No. 782/2003) and Mohan Ram and Geeta Devi
(appellants in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 747/2003), is hereby set
aside and the conviction of appellant no. 1 Sanjay
Kumar is upheld and confirmed.
37. In the result, the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 782 of
2003 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence
of appellant no. 1 namely, Sanjay Kumar 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 arrest and
detention of the appellant no. 1 Sanjay Kumar for the
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
purpose of undergoing the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him.
38. So far the conviction and sentence of the Smt.
Kalawati Devi (appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ) No.
782/2003) passed by learned trial court is concerned,
the same is hereby set aside.
39. Further, Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 747 of 2003 is allowed. The
conviction and sentence of Mohan Ram and Geeta
Devi (appellants in Cr.A. (S.J.) No. 747/2003) passed
by learned trial court is hereby set aside.
40. Smt. Kalawati Devi (appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ) No.
782/2003) and Mohan Ram and Geeta Devi
(appellants in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 747/2003) are acquitted
from the charges leveled against them.
41. Smt. Kalawati Devi (appellant no. 2 in Cr.A. (SJ) No.
782/2003) and Mohan Ram and Geeta Devi
(appellants in Cr.A. (SJ) No. 747/2003) are on bail.
They are discharged from the liability of bail bond and
sureties shall also be discharged.
42. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
43. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance
rendered by Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned
Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High
Court Legal Services Committee to process the
2025:JHHC:32161-DB
fees of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt /
production of a copy of this order.
44. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is
served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee.
45. 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 16 t h October, 2025.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
