Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sheikh Belal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1517 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
17.09.2003/18.09.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court-IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No.301 of 1999 arising out of
Katras P.S. Case No.176 of 1998]
------
Md. Sheikh Belal, son of late Tahir Firdoli, resident of village-
Chhardardih, P.O.-Katras, District-Dhanbad
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1574 of 2003
------
1. Sarkun Bibi, wife of late Tahir Firdoli
2. Sheikh Gulab, son of late Tahir Firdoli, both the residents of
village-Chhardardih, P.O.-Katras, District-Dhanbad
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 11/08/2025 Pronounce On 10 / 09/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Both the appeals arising out of common judgement, hence
heard together and are being disposed of by common
judgment.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
2. Above appeals are directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 17.09.2003 and 18.09.2003
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court-IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No.301 of 1999 arising out of Katras
P.S. Case No.176 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offences under
sections 304 B and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under section 304 B of
IPC and R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 201 of
IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Mahesh Tewari,
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar,
learned P.P. for the State.
4. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that the
informant, Md. Gayasuddin (P.W.6) solemnized marriage of
his daughter, Samida Khatoon (since deceased) with Md.
Sheikh Belal in accordance with Mohamdan Law and
Customs. It is alleged that both parties belong to the same
village. After marriage, the informant's daughter went to her
sasural and started residing along with her husband, in-laws
and other family members.
It is further alleged that just after sometime of the
marriage, the husband, Md. Sheikh Belal, his brother, Sheikh
Gulab and mother Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/-
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
as dowry and due to poverty, the above demand could not be
fulfilled, then all the accused persons started torturing and
harassing the daughter of the informant. It is further alleged
that the informant also convened a Panchyati in the village and
the matter was pacified for some time.
It is further alleged that the informant has also
executed a registered sale deed of some landed property in
favor of the accused persons to construct a house without
taking any price and Md. Belal has also constructed a house
over the said landed property and started living with his
family members. It is further alleged that in spite of several
attempts made by the informant to convince the accused
persons, they did not mend themselves, their demand and
torture meted with victim did not stop rather on 01.06.1998,
the accused persons assaulted the informant's daughter, which
was also complained to the village Panchyat. Thereafter on
02.06.1998, a Panchyati was again held under Secretaryship of
Md. Sahaban and other local villagers and Md. Belal was
directed to keep the victim with due dignity and honor, but
other accused persons namely Sarkun Bibi and Sheikh Gulab
refused to obey the order of Panchyati unless their demand of
Rs.25,000/- is fulfilled.
It is further alleged that on 03.06.1998 in the morning,
the informant came to know from his relative that the dead
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
body of his daughter is lying in a field in injured condition
having injury on her head and other parts of the body.
Receiving such information, the informant along with Md.
Ramjan Mian, Md. Jafar, Md. Salim went to the place of
occurrence and saw the dead body of his daughter. It is alleged
that the accused persons have committed dowry death of the
informant's daughter and thrown her dead body at a distance
place in an open field near railway line.
5. On the basis of Fardbayan of the informant, Md. Gayasuddin,
Katras P.S. Case No.176 of 1998 was registered for the offences
under sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code against the above appellants. The charge of investigation
was taken by S.I. Ram Nath Tiwari (P.W.8) and later on S.I.
Anjani Kumar(P.W.9), who after completion of investigation
submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. The
case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case
No.301 of 1999 was registered. The accused persons have
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution namely:
P.W.1- Md. Hadi,
P.W.2. Md. Murtaza
P.W.3-Md. Mannan
P.W.4-Md. Khalid
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
P.W.5-Dr. Shailendra Kumar
P.W.-6 Md. Gayasuddin (Informant)
P.W.7-Sheikh Aainul
P.W. 8-Ram Nath Tiwary (S.I. of Police)
P.W.9-Anjani Kumar (S.I. of Police)
7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:-
Ext.1-Postmortm report
Ext.2- Signature of Md. Hadi and Md.
Gayasuddin on Fardbayan
Ext.3 Formal FIR
Ext.4 Fardbayan
Ext.5 endorsement on Fardbayan
Ext.X signature of Md. Hadi and Md. Akbar on
carbon copy of inquest report.
8. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence.
However, following documents have been adduced on behalf
of the defence.
Ext. A to A/1- Injury reports
Ext.B to B/3- Xerox copies of panchyati
Ext.C- Certified copy of sale deed
9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication. The further plea is that the sale deed (Ext.C) was
executed by the informant taking consideration amount of
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
Rs.8,000/-. The Panchyati papers have also been relied upon,
which are marked Ext. B, B/1, B/2 and B/3 on prayer of
defence. Above documents shows that there is no specific
allegation of demand of dowry and torture meted to the
deceased at the hands of all the accused persons except the
husband.
10. Learned trial court after evaluating and scrutinizing oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties has
arrived at conclusion that all the accused persons have
committed dowry death and disposed of the dead body of the
deceased at a lonely place with a view to screen themselves
from legal punishment.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the
impugned judgment and order mainly on following grounds:
(i) Learned court below has wrongly appreciated
the evidence led by parties and arrived at
erroneous conclusion.
(ii) Learned court below has failed to consider
the ingredient "soon before death" as the same is
not attracted in this case as because the deceased
was residing at her parental house soon before
her death, which was also admitted by the
informant.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
(iii) Learned court below has also failed to
appreciate the facts about a series of panchyati
held to resolve the dispute but there is no
whisper about demand of dowry in the
panchyati papers.
(iv) The appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal has been
implicated in this case because he is the
unfortunate husband of the deceased. No
specific overt act has been attributed against any
appellants.
(v) There are glaring discrepancies between oral
evidence and medical evidence including that of
informant with regard to the burn injury found
on the body of the deceased. Though, all the
witnesses have deposed in one voice about
witnessing the burn caused by iron on the body
of the deceased, however, the post-mortem
report clearly denies any mark of burn injury.
(vi) The post-mortem report indicates that some
of the miscreants must have assaulted the
deceased during chain snatching and when she
became unconscious, must have thrown her on
the railway line, where she was cut down by a
train and all the appellants had been implicated
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
in this case as because they had sour relationship
with the deceased.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon
reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 207, wherein at para 15,
it has been held as under:-
"15. ............ "Soon before" is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific circumstances of
each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down
by fixing any time limit. This expression is pregnant with
the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not
synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is
opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and
understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence
Act. These words would imply that the interval should not
be too long between the time of making the statement and
the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as
earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under
the peculiar circumstances of each case. 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. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is
shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be 'soon
before death' if any other intervening circumstance
showing the non existence of such treatment is not
brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and
the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such
time can be stretched to any period. 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
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
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."
In view of the above points of arguments, it is
submitted that impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence of the appellants is fit to be set aside and these
appeals may be allowed.
13. Per contra: learned P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently refuted the aforesaid arguments and submitted
that the prosecution witnesses have been able to prove the
charges leveled against the present appellants beyond all
shadow of reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has very
wisely apprised, scanned and evaluated the un-rebutted oral
as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the doctor (P.W.5), who has
conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased has
opined that death was caused by craniocerebral injury, which
was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and some injuries
were caused by hard blunt weapon which corroborates the
prosecution story. There is no valid and reasonable ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence of the appellants. These appeals are devoid of
merits and fit to be dismissed.
14. The only point for determination in these appeals is as to
whether conviction and sentence of appellants passed by
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any
interference by way of these appeals or not.
15. The appellants have been held guilty for the offences under
sections 304 B and 201 of Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore,
appropriate to extract relevant provisions for better
appreciation of this case.
The offence of "dowry death" was incorporated in the
Indian Penal Code by way of amendment in the year 1986
along with amendment in the Indian Evidence Act by
incorporating Section 113 B Presumption as to dowry death.
Section 498 A of IPC and Section 113 A of Indian Evidence act
has been added by way of amendment in 1983. These
provisions read as under:-
304 B. Dowry Death
(i) Whether the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances with 7 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 relatives of
her husband for, or in connection with, in 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 purpose of this sub-section
"Dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
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.]
113-B. 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 purpose of this section, "dowry
death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code.
16. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the deceased, Samida
Khatoon, the daughter of informant was married with
appellant, Md. Belal in the year 1995 and the deceased died in
the year 1998 i.e. within 7 years of her marriage.
As regards the cause of death is concerned, P.W.5, Dr.
Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
deceased on 03.06.1998 at 12:00 at noon and found following
ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:-
(i) Incised wound 2 ½" x 1" x brain deep on right side of
the head 1 ¼" above root of right ear.
(ii) Lacerated would 1 ½" x 1" x skin deep behind the left
ear.
Abrasion
(i) 1 ½" x ½" on the back of left shoulder;
(ii) 2 ½" x ¼" on the upper portion inner aspect of the
right forearm;
(iii) 2 ½" x ¼" over right knee.
On dis-section
Blood clots in an area of 2 ½" x 1 ½" were found
underneath the scalp over left temporal parietal region with
multiple fracture of left temporal bone including its parietal
parts.
On the right side parietal bone was found linear cut in an
area of 2" x ¼" x cavity deep underneath injury No.1 subdural
hematoma was defused all over the surface of the brain of both
sides. 2" long cut was found in the meninges and brain
underneath the injury No.1 heart, stomach and bladder were
empty. Uterus was normal. Other internal organs were pale.
Cause of Death
Death was caused by aforementioned cranio cerebral
injury which on right side was caused by heavy sharp cutting
weapon and on left side was caused by hard blunt weapon.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
Therefore, it is also prove beyond doubt that the
deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances. Now
3rd and 4th circumstances to be proved by the prosecution for
establishing the case of dowry death are soon before her death,
the deceased must be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband and such cruelty or
harassment should be for or in connection with demand of
dowry.
17.In the instant case, the witnesses of facts examined by the
prosecution are family members of the deceased, who also
reside in the same village where maternal home of the deceased
was situated.
P.W.6- Md. Gayasuddin Ansari is the informant-cum-
father of the victim lady. According to his evidence, his
daughter Samida Khatoon was marriage with Md. Belal in the
year 1995 and he has deposed that just after marriage, his
daughter's husband, Md. Belal, brother-in-law Md. Sheikh
Gulab and mother Sarkun Bibi started demanding Rs.25,000/- as
dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of which, his daughter was being
assaulted by all the three accused persons. His daughter
frequently used to complaint about the torture meted with her.
Thereafter, some land was provided by this witness to Sarkun
Bibi to construct the house and to live therein. He has also
convened Panchyati for several times for pacifying the matter on
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
1st June, 1998, Md. Belal assaulted the deceased for which a
Panchyati was also convened on 2nd June, 1998 and the accused
persons were requested not to ill-treat or harass the victim lady
but they did not mend and insist upon for fulfilling demand of
Rs.25,000/- as dowry otherwise, they will not stop assaulting
and torturing the deceased. He further deposed that just after end
of Panchyati in the night, the accused persons brutally assaulted
to the deceased and threw the dead body in the field of Sheikh
Amin. This witness got information about the above incident in
the next day morning from his Sarhu, Md. Hadid. This witness
along with other villagers and family members went to the place
of occurrence and found the dead body and saw sharp-cutting
injuries as well as some patches on skin were appearing to be
burnt by iron (clothes iron). The police had also arrived at the
place of occurrence at 2 PM and fardbayan was recorded and he
put his signature, which is marked as Ext.2. This witness has
also identified the signature on carbon copy of the inquest
report.
In his cross-examination, this witness has remained
intact as regards the aforesaid incident. He has also admitted that
the house was constructed by Md. Belal but the land was given
by him. He further also states that in the Panchyati, document
was prepared wherein the complaint about demand of
Rs.25,000/- and consequent torture meted with his daughter has
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
also been mentioned. He had denied the suggestion that in the
Panchyati, there is no mention of demand of dowry and no
allegation of assaulting the deceased against all the accused
persons except appellant, Md. Belal, who happens to be husband
of the deceased.
P.W.1-Md. Hadi is an independent witness. According
to his evidence, Samida Khatton was married with Md. Belal in
the year 1995 and just after one year of the marriage, Md. Belal,
Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi started demanding
Rs.25,000/- as dowry from Samida Khatoon to bring from her
father. Samida Khatoon declined to fulfill the above demand and
asked from her father then all the accused persons started
assaulting and torturing her in various ways. He has further
deposed that for pacifying the matter between the parties,
several times, Panchyaits were convened and last Panchyati was
held on 02.06.1998, because just on previous day i.e.
01.06.1998, Samida Khatoon was assaulted by the accused
persons for not bringing Rs.25,000/- as dowry. The accused
persons attended the Panchyati but declined to obey the order of
panchyat and they were adamant unless Rs.25,000/- is given,
they will not keep the daughter of the informant peacefully.
Thereafter, the dead body of Samida Khatoon was found in open
field of Amin Sheikh near the culvert in injured condition. He
has informed about the presence of dead body at place of
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
occurrence to informant and saw the injuries were caused by
knife and also burnt by iron.
In his cross-examination, this witness has remained
intact and nothing has been elicited to discredit his above
testimony.
P.W.2- Md. Murtaza is also an independent witness.
According to this witness, Md. Belal was married with Samida
Khatoon in the year 1995 and just after some days of marriage,
the accused persons started demanding Rs.25,000/- as dowry.
Due to non-fulfillment of which, Samida Khatoon was
physically and mentally tortured in various ways. A Panchyati
was held on 02.06.1998 due to physical assault given to Samida
Khatoon and just in the night of said date of Panchyati, Samida
Khatoon was done to death. He also saw her dead body lying in
the field near railway track sustaining injuries caused by sharp-
cut weapon. He has also stated in specific terms that due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry, the deceased was frequently
assaulted and tortured and she has been done to death only
because of dowry and no other reason. Some landed property
was also given by the father of the deceased to the accused
persons for construction of house but they were not satisfied.
This witness has also been cross-examined at length but
nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
P.W.3-Md. Manan is also a local villager and an
independent witness. He has also corroborated the prosecution
story and deposed that the marriage of the deceased, Samida
Khatoon was solemnized in the year 1995 with Md. Belal. Md.
Sheikh Belal was asking for money as dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of which, he was assaulting to his wife. He further
states that about 3 to 4 occasions, Panchyatis were convened and
on last Panchyati was held on 2nd June, 1998 due to physical
assault given by Md. Sheikh Belal to his wife, Samida Khatoon
(since deceased). Thereafter, on 3rd June, 1998, the dead body of
Samida Khatoon was found outside the village in the field of
Amin Sheikh near railway track. He also went to see the dead
body.
This witness has also not been contradicted in his cross-
examination to discredit his testimony.
P.W.4, Md. Khalid has also stated about frequent
scuffle between the deceased and her husband and in-laws and
several Panchyatis were held in the village. Last panchyati was
convened on 02.06.1998 and the decision of the Panchyati was
not obeyed by the accused persons. He also saw the dead body
of Samida Khatoon sustaining injuries.
P.W.7-Sheikh Aninul is a formal witness and has
proved the formal FIR as Ext.3 and fardbayan of the informant
as Ext.4.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
P.W.8- ASI, Ram Nath Tiwari has also proved the
fardbayan of the informant in his handwriting over which the
signature of informant and other witnesses were also taken and
forwarding the report in his hand writing for registration of the
case, which is marked as Ext.5.
P.W. 9- S.I., Anjani Kumar is the Investigating Officer
of this case and he was also Officer-in-Charge of Katras Police
Station. According to his evidence on 03.06.1998, he took
charge of investigation of this case. He prepared inquest report
of the deceased and marked as Ext.6. He visited the place of
occurrence. The first place of occurrence is the house of
accused, Md. Belal situated in village Charidardih. The main
door of the house is towards north and there are three rooms and
one verandah and boundary wall towards east and west and
south. The second place of occurrence is situated near the
culvert about 30 yards away from the railway line in the field of
Sheikh Amin. He recorded the statement of witnesses and
obtained post-mortem report of the deceased and photocopy of
some Panchyat documents (Ext.Y to Y/3) and finding sufficient
evidence against the accused persons submitted charge-sheet for
the offence under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
This witness has been cross-examined by the defence
but no contradiction or attention of the witnesses towards any
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
contradiction has been obtained by the defence but he admits
that he also sent accused, Md. Belal for medical examination
because he was also sustaining some injuries. The accused was
examined by Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad and he has proved the
injury report of Md. Belal as Ext. A and requisition for injury
report was issued by him as Ext.A/1. There is nothing else in the
evidence of this witness.
18.From the aforesaid testimony of ocular witnesses, it emerges
that the witnesses of the facts P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and
P.W. 6 have consistently proved that there was demand of
dowry at the hands of the accused persons and due to non-
fulfillment of which, the deceased was frequently tortured
several times physically and mentally, Panchyatis were also held
to resolve the matter but in vain.
At this juncture, one Panchyat paper is pertaining dated
18.07.1996 (Ext.B) relied upon by the defence. A Panchyati was
held due to frequent physical assault given by the husband of the
deceased, Md. Belal to his wife and he was warned against the
repeating such acts and to take Bidai of his wife and keep her
peacefully. Another Panchyat document Ext.B/1 is dated
01.06.1997, this was also held for frequent assault and torture
meted with the deceased at the hand of her husband and he was
punished by the Panchyat by ups and down through ears.
Another Panchyat document is of 02.06.1998 for physical
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
assault given to Samida Khatoon by her husband but the
husband did not attain the Panchyati on pretext of illness. Later
on, Ext.C is the certified copy of registered sale deed executed
by Md. Gayasuddin, informant-cum-father of the deceased in
favour of Sarkun Bibi, mother-in-law of the deceased, total area
of 39 decimals land.
19.From the documentary evidence of Panchyats, it appears that
only husband of the deceased was involved in assaulting the
deceased frequently and there is no allegation against the
mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Md.
Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi respectively. There is un-rebutted
testimony of witnesses as against Md. Belal that just after
marriage since the year 1995, he started raising demand of
money Rs.25,000/- from his wife through her parents and
thereafter the sale deed in respect of 39 decimals land as stated
by the informant was executed by him (Ext.C) on 18.03.1998.
Although, in the Panchyat documents, there is allegation of only
physical assault to the deceased by her husband but the demand
of dowry Rs.25,000/- and also in consonance execution of sale
deed has been proved by the prosecution, which has not been
rebutted by the defence.
20.In view of the above discussion and oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record adduced by both parties, there
remains no doubt that the presumption of dowry death under
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act can be raised only against
the appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal and not against the rest of
appellants, namely, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi in as
much as no specific role has been attributed against them nor the
prosecution has been able to prove their involvement in the
alleged occurrence.
21.In our considered view, since the prosecution has been able to
prove the foundational facts and ingredients of offence under
Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code against the appellant, Md.
Sheikh Belal and no rebuttal evidence worth credence has been
adduced by the defence showing innocence of appellant, Md.
Sheikh Belal, his conviction and sentence does not suffer from
any error of law. We further find that conviction and sentence of
Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi is not justified under law
due to lack of evidence showing their involvement in the alleged
offence.
22.In view of the above discussion and reasons, conviction and
sentence of Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun Bibi is, hereby,
set aside and their appeal (Cr. Appeal (DB)No.1574 of 2023)
is allowed.
23.So far as the conviction of appellant, Md. Belal is concerned, we
concur with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial court and find no valid reasons to interfere with his
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:27712-DB )
conviction and sentence. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (S.J.)
No.1517 of 2003 of appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal is dismissed.
24.It appears that the appellants, Md. Sheikh Gulab and Sarkun
Bibi are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail
bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
25.The appellant, Md. Sheikh Belal is on bail, thus his bail bond is
cancelled and sureties are discharged. Further, he is directed to
surrender before the concerned trial court to serve remaining
period of custody awarded by the trial court and sentence of
imprisonment undergone by him during trial of the case shall be
set off.
26.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
27. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be
sent back to the trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 10 /09/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. A (S.J.) Nos.1517 & 1574/ 2003
