Jharkhand High Court
Julekha Bibi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.671 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence both dated
24.04.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in SC Case No.04 of
2002/5 of 2002 arising out of Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.91 of 2001]
------
1. Julekha Bibi, wife of Ahed Ali,
2. Akhthar Sheikh, son of Ahed Ali,
Both residents of village Manika Para, P.S.-Pakur (M), Dist.-
Pakur .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 08/10/2025 Pronounce On 16 /10/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named
appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment
of conviction and Order of sentence both dated 24.04.2003
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in SC Case No.04 of
2002/5 of 2002 arising out of Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.91 of
2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held
guilty for the offence under sections 304 B of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
2. We have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Nitu Sinha,
learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi,
learned A.P.P. for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Rehana
Bibi (since deceased) was married with Akhtar Sheikh
(appellant) about three years ago. It is alleged by informant
Hamphool Bibi (mother of the deceased) that her daughter was
living happily with her husband for some time but thereafter
her husband started demanding Rs. 5,000/- from Rehana Bibi
on instigation of his mother and brother. Due to non-fulfilment
of which Rehana Bibi was subjected to cruelty, harassment and
torture in various ways. It is further alleged that the informant
called her son-in-law Akhtar Sheikh and assured him to fulfil
his demand and she also arranged Rs. 3000/- about twenty
days prior to the occurrence and sent her daughter with him
and also assured to pay the remaining amount within few
days. It is alleged that in the meantime, on 29.04.2001, the
informant got information that her daughter Rehana Bibi has
been throttled by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-
law namely Babbar Sheikh.
On the basis of above information, FIR was registered
for the offence under section 304B/34 of IPC against the above-
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
named accused persons. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted.
The case was committed to the Court of sessions where
S.C. No.04 of 2002/5 of 2002 was registered . The accused
persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. After
conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and
order sentence of the appellants was passed as stated above.
4. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined
by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 Abdul Subhan (Father of the deceased)
P.W.-2 Asgar Ali
P.W.-3 Dr. Lalit Kumar
P.W.-4 Mamlat Sheikh
P.W.-5 Manirul Sheikh
P.W.-6 Naresh Sheikh
P.W.-7 Kalu Sheikh
P.W.-8 Ekmal Haque
P.W.-9 Hamphool Bibi (Informant)
P.W.-10 Santosh Kr. Suman (I.O. of this case)
5. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced by the
prosecution: -
Ext.1- Post-Mortem Report
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
Ext.2- Signature of P.W.-4 Mamlat Sheikh on
Carbon Copy of Inquest report
Ext.2/1- Signature of Saidur Rahman on the
Carbon Copy of Inquest Report
Ext.3-Inquest Report
Ext.4-Fardbeyan
6. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication due to unnatural death of the
daughter of the informant at her matrimonial home. One
witness namely Saidur Rahaman has also been examined on
behalf of defence.
7. The learned trial Court after examining the evidence available
on record, oral as well as documentary arrived at definite
finding about guilt of the appellants for the offence under
Section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellants:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the specific date, day
and time of demand of money by the appellants as dowry
from the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased was due
to hanging and all symptoms of hanging has been found but
the Doctor conducting the autopsy on the deceased has
wrongly opined the cause of death throttling. It is further
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
submitted that the appellant No. 1 is an old lady who happens
to be mother-in-law of the deceased who were never involved
in asking any demand of dowry by torturing the deceased at
any point of time and there are general and omnibus
allegations against her. Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses
have stated about demand of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant No. 1
and out of which Rs. 3000/- was paid by the mother of the
Rehana Bibi (informant). It is further submitted that even it
may be considered that the deceased died an unnatural death
within seven years of her marriage on her matrimonial home
but the main ingredient for commission of offence under
Section 304-B of the IPC that soon before her death, such
woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for/or in
connection with demand of dowry has not been proved by the
prosecution. Therefore, the very important ingredient of
evidence is lacking in this case. It is further submitted that the
learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not
considering the ingredient of offence under Section 304B IPC
in right perspective in the light of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and moved on wrong conclusion. Therefore, the
order of conviction and sentence of appellants is fit to be set
aside and they deserve acquittal from the charges levelled
against them.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
In the alternative, it is submitted that appellant No. 2 has
remained in custody for four and half years out of 10 years
imprisonment awarded to him and has sufficiently been
punished for his guilt. The appellant No. 2 was granted bail
vide order dated 27.07.2005 and settled a normal life. More
than two decades have been elapsed from the happening of the
occurrence. The appellants have sustained the agony of trial
for such a long period of time, therefore, sending them again
for sustaining the remaining period of imprisonment would
serve no useful purpose in the ends of justice. Hence, the
appellant No. 2 may be reduced to the imprisonment already
undergone.
Submissions on behalf of the State
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. defending the conviction
and sentence of the appellants has submitted that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has very wisely and
aptly considered all aspects of the case including the
ingredient of offence under Section 304B IPC and passed a well
reasoned judgment and order which suffers from no illegality
or infirmity calling for any interference by way of this appeal
and this appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
10. We have gone through the record along with the impugned
judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
the appellants suffers from any error of law and based beyond
the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any
interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, reasons and decision:
12. Before imparting our verdict on above point, it would be
appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of law applicable
in this case which 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).
(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."
"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.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
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)."
498-A. 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.]
13. 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.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
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.
14. The provision of section 304-B of IPC as regards cause of death
does not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal or accidental
rather any death occurring "otherwise than under normal
circumstances" may attract the provision of section 304-B of
IPC, if other ingredients are fulfilled.
15. In light of legal proposition applicable in this case, we have to
examine the evidence available on record as adduced by the
prosecution.
P.W.-1, Abdul Subhan, is the father of the deceased.
According to his evidence, on the next day of occurrence, he
came to know that his daughter Rehana Bibi has been
murdered at her matrimonial home. Then, he proceeded to the
matrimonial home of his daughter and saw ligature mark on
his neck which was also swollen. He has also stated that the
marriage was solemnized about three years ago with Akthar
Sheikh and about nine months ago Akhthar Sheikh and his
mother and brother were asking Rs. 5,000/- from his daughter
and also assaulted and driven away from matrimonial home
and said that unless Rs. 5000/- is paid, they will not keep her.
This occurrence was disclosed by Rehana Bibi to this witness.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
Then, he managed some money and called upon his son-in-law
Akthar Sheikh and gave Rs. 3000/- to him with assurance that
rest amount will be paid later and his daughter were sent with
his son-in-law.
In his cross-examination, he admits that brother-in-law
of Akhtar Sheikh informed him about the occurrence. He also
admits that the occurrence of assault and demand of Rs. 5000
from the deceased was not complained before any authority
and no Panchayati was held in this regard.
P.W.-2, Asgar Ali proceeded to matrimonial home of the
deceased after hearing about the occurrence along with father
of deceased namely Abdul Subhan, P.W.-1 and saw the dead
body of the Rehana Bibi lying on her matrimonial home. He
also came to know from father of the deceased about demand
of Rs. 5000/- and due to non-fulfillment of which, deceased
was driven to her home prior to some days of occurrence,
thereafter, Rs. 3000/- was given by father of the deceased to
the husband of the deceased namely Akhtar Sheikh and the
deceased was sent to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she
was killed in her Sasural. There is nothing in his cross-
examination to rebut his above testimony.
P.W.-3, Dr. Lalit Kumar posted as Medical Officer, SDO, Pakur
on 29.04.2001 who conducted post-mortem examination on the
dead body of Rehana Bibi and found following injury:
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
(i) One ligature mark at upper middle of neck measuring
4"x1"
(ii) Easy movement of head all round
(iii) Froth coming from nose on both sides
(iv) On dissection
(a) On opening skull, there is no finding the brain except brain
is congested. All ors. Meninges are also congested.
(b) Neck- On opening neck, hyoid bone is fractured, cricoid
cartilage is ruptured. 1st and 2nd cervical vetbraes are also
fractured leading to easy movement of skull bone or neck.
Laryngeal opening is blocked. Airways is blocked leading
to asphyxia death.
(c) Thorax -both lungs congested. Both chambers contain
blood.
V. Time elapsed since death-written 6 to 36 hours from
time of post-mortem examination.
vi. Opinion
Cause of death is asphyxial death caused by blockage of
airways of upper respiratory trachea due to fracture of hyoid
bone, cricoids cartilage and blockage of laryngeal opening
caused by throttling by rope hard blunt substance.
This witness has proved post mortem report which is
marked as Ext.-1.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
P.W.-4, Mamlat Sheikh is a witness of inquest report which
was prepared by police in his presence and proved the carbon
copy of inquest report along with his signature and signature of
other witnesses which is marked as Ext. 2 and 2/1, respectively.
P.W.-5, Manirul Sheikh is a local witness who was working in
his field nearby pond then heard about death of wife of Akhtar
Sheikh and went to his house. He saw the dead body of the
wife of Akhtar Sheikh lying and villagers were saying that she
has committed suicide by hanging.
P.W.-6, Naresh Sheikh, he is also hearsay witness and came to
know about death of the deceased. He also saw the dead body
of the deceased in the house. He has further deposed that about
three years ago, everything was going well, thereafter, due to
demand of money, there was tense relationship between the
husband and wife. He has also disclosed that Rs. 5000/- was
demanded by Akthar Sheikh from Rehana Bibi and Rs. 3000/-
was given to him by father of Rehana Bibi and rest amount was
undertaken to be paid later on.
In his cross-examination, he admits to be Fufera brother of the
deceased. He admits that the money was being demanded for
opening a shop by Akhtar Sheikh. He also admits that money
was not given as a loan.
P.W.-7, Kalu Sheikh has expressed no knowledge about the
occurrence and declared hostile by the prosecution.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
P.W.-8, Ekmal Haque is also hearsay witness and claimed to
have seen the dead body of the deceased at her matrimonial
home lying in the Bramda. He also came to know that she has
committed suicide by hanging. This witness has been declared
hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.-9 is Hamphool Bibi. She is the mother of the deceased
who has corroborated the contents of her Fardbeyan and stated
that her daughter was married about three years ago and about
one and half years lived well in her matrimonial home but
thereafter her husband namely Akhtar Sheikh, brother-in-law
namely Gabbar Sheikh and his mother namely Julekha Bibi,
appellant No. 1 started demanding Rs. 5,000/- from her
daughter and started threatening to kill her if demand is not
fulfilled. Her husband also went to the house of her daughter
where the deceased complained about demand of Rs. 5000/-
and torture meted with her. She has also deposed that due to
constant harassment, torture and cruelty, her daughter came to
her paternal house and told that her Bhaisur is demanding Rs.
5000/-, thereafter, she called upon her son-in-law and gave him
Rs. 3000/- and sent her daughter to matrimonial home with
him. She has also assured to manage the rest amount which will
be paid later on but, in the meantime, within twenty-one days
taking her daughter to matrimonial home, the accused persons
killed her. She also went to matrimonial home of the deceased
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
after the occurrence and saw the dead body in the Bramda. In
her cross-examination, she has also reiterated the aforesaid
facts.
P.W.-10, Santosh Kr. Suman, is the I.O. of this case. According
to his evidence, on 29.04.2001, he was posted at Mufassil Police
Station, Pakur, on that day, about 2:10 PM, he got information
from rumor that one woman has been killed. He made SD entry
and proceeded to village Manikapara along with armed forces
where he saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the house
of her husband Akhtar Sheikh in his Bramda. He prepared
inquest report of the deceased in presence of witness Saidul
Rehman and Mamlot Sheikh which is marked as Exhibit-3. He
also recorded Fardbeyan of Hamphool Bibi, the mother of the
deceased and marked as Exhibit-4 and on the basis of above
Fardbeyan, Pakur (M) P.S. Case No.91 of 2001 was registered
for the offence as noted above. He himself took the charge of
investigation of this case and he has also inspected the place of
occurrence upon identification of the witness which is house of
Wahid Sheikh situated in village Manikpara made out from
mud, bushes and tin shaded. It is comprising two rooms like
Bramda fitted with wooden and doors. The room situated at
North-East was occupied by Rehana Bibi along with her
husband and in the Bramda towards northside her dead body
was lying. He also recorded statement of independent witness
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
and obtained post-mortem report of the deceased and finding
sufficient evidence against accused persons submitted charge-
sheet against them for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of the
IPC. His attention has been drawn towards statement of
witness Kalu Sheikh, P.W.-7 who has stated before him that
mother of the Akthar Sheikh was demanding dowry from the
deceased and subjecting her cruelty for non-fulfillment of the
same. He also stated about 20-22 days prior to occurrence,
mother of Rehana Bibi called Akthar Sheikh to her home and
gave Rs. 3,000/- and also sent her daughter with her husband
to matrimonial home. But again, she was being tortured for rest
of money Rs. 2,000/-. Her husband was saying that he will
solemnize second marriage and also threatening to kill his wife
Rehana Bibi.
16. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from
occurrence and false implication.
17. The defence has also examined D.W.-1, Shaidur Rahman who
has deposed that he cannot tell how Rehana Bibi died. He
came to know from the father of Akhtar Sheikh that Rehana
Bibi has committed suicide. He suggested him to inform at
police station. He has also stated about cordial relationship
with deceased and her husband and other family members of
her husband. He also stated that his statement was not
recorded by the Police during investigation but in his cross-
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
examination by prosecution, he admits that police has
interrogated with him about the occurrence and he was also
present along with present informant at the time of her
Fardbeyan.
18. No documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
19. On the basis of aforesaid evidence of prime prosecution
witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, Abdul Subhan, P.W.-9, informant-
cum-mother of the deceased namely Hamphool Bibi and other
witnesses of case, it is crystal clear that deceased was married
with appellant No. 2 Akhtar Sheikh. She has been died within
7 years of her marriage at her matrimonial home, otherwise
than under normal circumstances which also finds
corroboration from Post-Mortem report of the deceased
wherein the cause of death of the deceased has been opined to
be throttling. Therefore, so far as the ingredient No. (i) and (ii)
for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC as discussed
above, has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt through
unrebutted evidence.
20. So far as ingredient Nos. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, it has
been stated that the mother of the Akhtar Sheikh is only
instigator. It is also proved that just before 22 days of the
occurrence, the appellant No. 2 was called upon by his mother-
in-law and she gave Rs. 3000/- out of Rs. 5000/- as demanded.
Thereafter, appellant No.2 brought his wife to her matrimonial
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
home along. It is also proved by witnesses that due to non-
fulfillment of rest amount of Rs. 2,000/-, the deceased was
again subjected to cruelty by her husband on instigation of her
mother-in-law (appellant No. 1). The factum of demand of Rs.
5000/- as dowry and receipt of partial money Rs. 3000/- has
not been controverted by appellant No. 2 rather the suggestion
has been extended to P.W.-6 that the money was given for
opening shop and it was not in the form of loan.
21. From the aforesaid discussion and overall background of this
case as brought on record by the prosecution, it is crystal clear
that all the specific allegations are centered around against the
appellant No. 2 alone, who happens to be husband of the
deceased himself. Appellant No. 1 has been alleged to be an
instigator but without attributing any specific overt act either
making any demand or subjecting the deceased to cruelty or
harassment. Therefore, presumption under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act come only against appellant No. 2, therefore, we
do not find any error of law in convicting the appellant No. 2
for the offence under Section 304B of IPC. The sentence
awarded to the appellant No. 2 is also proportionate to his
guilt and do not require any interference.
22. So far as conviction of appellant No. 1 is concerned, we find
that there are general and omnibus allegations against her
about the instigation of her son to demand Rs. 5000/- from the
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
deceased. No overt act or any kind of assault or torture is
imputed against her, therefore, we find that the conviction and
sentence of appellant No. 1 is based upon conjecture and
surmises and without any reliable substantial piece of
evidence, therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant
No. 1 is hereby, set aside and she is acquitted from the charge
levelled against her and she is discharged from the liabilities of
bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
23. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the appeal
preferred by appellant No. 1 is allowed and the appeal filed by
appellant No. 2 is dismissed and his conviction and sentence
passed by learned trial Court is upheld and confirmed.
24. Accordingly, the appellant No. 2 is directed to surrender
before the learned Trial Court within two months from the
date of this Judgment and undergo the remaining period of
sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court, failing
which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive steps for
arrest and detention of the appellant No. 2 namely Akhtar
Sheikh for sustaining the remaining period of sentence
awarded to him.
25. The suspension of sentence granted to Appellant No. 2 namely
Akhtar Sheikh during pendency of this appeal is hereby
cancelled.
26. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
2025:JHHC: 32183-DB
27. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 16/10 /2025
Basant/-N.A.F.R.
