Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment And Order Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 634 of 2002
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.09.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ist, Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 80/1994]
Bhatu Mahto son of Late Sewa Mahto resident of village- Jharkhandi,
P.S. Hirodih, District-Giridih. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. .... Respondent
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on: 09/09/2025 Pronounced on 26/09/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Instant criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court in S.T. Case No. 80/94 dated
06.09.2002 whereby and whereunder the present appellant along with
deceased appellant Megni Devi have been held guilty for the offence
under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. along with Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years for the offences under Section 304-B and R.I. for 2 years under
each count of under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and under Section- 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Originally this appeal has been filed by two appellants i.e. father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. During the pendency of
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 1
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
this appeal, appellant no.2 Megni Devi died and her appeal has been
abated vide order dated 07.05.2025.
3. We have already heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ram
Lakhan Yadav and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Factual Matrix
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant's daughter
Jamuni Devi (since deceased) was married with Prakash Mahto about 03
years ago. After solemnization of marriage, she went to her matrimonial
home. It is further alleged that the daughter of the informant was always
subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture by way of physical assault
by the accused persons for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as
informant was unable to fulfill their demand due to poverty. It is further
alleged that on 23.08.1993, a panchayati was convened and the accused
persons Bhatu Mahto (Father-in-law) assured that they will not torture
the daughter of the informant and also desist from any demand of money
or anything else. Thereafter on 27.08.1993, the informant heard that his
daughter committed suicide at her Sasural by hanging. Accordingly,
F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of Fard Beyan of the informant against
husband and in-laws of the deceased vide P.S. Case No. 62 of 1993
registered for the offences under Section 498A, 304 B of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Before framing of charge the husband (Prakash Mahato) was declared
juvenile and his case was separated and sent to Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, the Juvenile Justice Court.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 2
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
6. Charges under Sections 302, 306, 498 A of the I.P.C. were framed on
20.09.1995 and again charge under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also framed on 27.11.1998.
The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After
conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellants have been passed.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence,
learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant happens to
be unfortunate father-in-law of deceased. Neither in the F.I.R. nor in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses including the informant, it is not
disclosed as to what was being demanded by the present appellant (fa-
ther-in-law) from the deceased as additional dowry. There is no specific
allegation of any physical or mental torture extended to the deceased at
the hands of present appellant. There is no direct or circumstantial evi-
dence that the appellant was in any manner involved in commission of
alleged offence. The appellant has been acquitted from the charge under
Section 306 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. but held guilty for the offence
under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. without any evidence to prove his
guilt. The appellant always cooperated in maintaining the good relation,
but could not control over the situation. It is further submitted that pros-
ecution has miserably failed to prove the very foundational fact for es-
tablishing the offence under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. as such pre-
sumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised
against the appellant. The learned trial court has committed serious error
of law while recording guilt of the appellant without any cogent and re-
liable evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 3
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
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
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."
Therefore, he pleaded that the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 4
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
appellant deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against him.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor defending the
legality of impugned judgment and order has submitted that learned trial
court has very wisely and aptly considered the entire aspects of the case
and complicity of the appellant in commission of offences charged and
arrived at right conclusion. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal
which is liable to be dismissed.
9. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether
conviction and sentence of appellant passed by learned trial court suffers
from any error of law calling for any interference by way of this appeal
or not?
10. Before imparting verdicts on above point, 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).
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 5
2025:JHHC:30447-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."
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 re-
lated 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 de-
mand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person
had caused the dowry death.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 6
2025:JHHC:30447-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)."
11. 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.
12. 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 caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death occurring
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 7
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
"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 cir-
cumstances 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.
13. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC, one of
the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be estab-
lished is that "soon before her death" the woman 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 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
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 8
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
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.
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 re-
quired 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 show-
ing 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
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 9
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances,
be treated as having become stale enough.
14. Section 113-B of the Indian 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 dis-
proved by the accused. However, it is open to the accused to
adduce such evidence for disproving such conclusive presump-
tion as the burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can
discharge such burden by getting an answer through cross- ex-
amination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing evidence
on the defence side as such putting reverse onus of proving on
the accused.
15. Prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses in this case
and we have to apprise with the testimony of witnesses exam-
ined by the prosecution:-
P.W.1 Janki Mahato is local villager of the informant.
According to his evidence, informant's daughter Jamuni Devi
(deceased) was married with Prakash Mahato about three years
ago. Jamuni Devi was subjected to cruelty and torture due to
non-fulfillment of additional dowry of Rs.10, 000/- by the
accused persons. According to him, twice Panchayati was held
by Ganesh Mahto (informant) and he undertook to satisfy the
demand after availability of cash. He has further deposed that
about 02 years ago, one Mangal Mahto of village Jharkhandi
informed about the death of Jamuni Devi at her Sasural, then this
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 10
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
witness along with informant and other villagers went to
matrimonial house of Jamuni Devi where she was found died
and dead body was hanging by the neck.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was present
at the time of Panchayati held between the parties.
P.W.2 Biro Mahto:- has deposed that Jamuni Devi married with
Prakash Mahato of village Jharkhandi. She lived quite well about
one year at her Sasural, but thereafter her in-laws and husband
started demanding money as additional dowry and she was being
tortured for non-fulfillment of the same, thereafter she died at her
matrimonial home due to hanging.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he was not present at
the time of Panchayati. He also admits that about 15-20 days
prior to the occurrence, the deceased had come to her father's
home where she disclosed about demand of additional dowry at
the hands of accused persons.
P.W.3 Suresh Prasad Verma has stated that there was some
demand of money as dowry by the accused persons with the
deceased Jamuni Devi, for that reason she was being assaulted by
the accused persons. He heard that Jamuni Devi has been died at
her Sasural.
In his cross-examination also he has admitted about the several
Panchayati was held between the parties.
P.W.4 Prasadi Mahto has also stated that accused persons were
demanding Rs.10,000/- due to non-fulfillment of which she was
subjected to physical and mental torture.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 11
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
P.W.5 Baijnath Mahto also states about several panchayati held
between the parties in connection with demand of Rs.10,000/- as
additional dowry by the accused persons from Jamuni Devi
which could not be fulfilled. He came to know that Jamuni Devi
has been hanged and died. The dead body of the deceased was
seized in his presence by the police, but he knows nothing about
the Panchayati.
P.W.6 Dashrath Mahto is a post-man, who has no knowledge
about the demand of dowry and ill-treatment to Jamuni Devi at her
Sasural.
P.W. 7 Churaman Mahto has stated about some matrimonial
dispute between the deceased and her husband for some domestic
works, but he has expressed no knowledge about any demand of
dowry and torture meted with the deceased. He came to know that
the deceased has committed suicide.
P.W. 8 Dr. K. Kumar has conducted the autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased and found following:-
A) Rigor mortis was present on both feet. Abdomen was distended
with greyish colour of abdominal flank. Tongue was protruded
swollen dark in colour, nail bed was blue. Frothy reddish
discharge was coming out from the mouth and nostril. Breast
distended. Faecal discharge present, eyes were partly opened,
conjunctivitis was congested, no saliva mark was present.
(ii)Echymosis around left eye present with swelling of the left
temporal region. There was sub-conjuctiva hemorrhage on the left
eye. On dissection there was extra vassation of the blood in
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 12
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
subcutaneous tissue. Underlined bone was intact.
(iii) One well defined ligature mark was present on the neck in
circling it at the level of the thyroid cartilage in front of obliquely
upward with the knot mark on the back of the neck and there was
ecchymosis on the skull near the ligature mark in front. The
ligature mark was hard parchment like.
B) On dissection there was extra vassations of blood under
ligature mark on the right side of neck under subcutaneous tissue.
Right corner of hyoid bone was fractured. Larynx and trachea was
congested. On further dissection skull intact brain soft and pupil,
brances contained frothy blood fluid. Right side of heard
contained dark colour blood and left side was empty. Lungs
congested. Dark purple in colour and on dissection dark frothy
blood stained fluid came out. Liver soft, floggy and honey
combed. Spleen soft and pulpy, kidney brown. Stomach was
empty, mucosa NAD. Uterus was small non-gravid. External
genital organ NAD.
C) This witness has opined that the death was caused due to
asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Injury no.1 was caused by
hard blunt object.
2. He has proved the P.M. report marked as Exhibit-1).
P.W. 9 Ganesh Mahto (informant) has deposed that his daughter
Jamuni Devi was married with Prakash Mahto about three years
ago and she went to her Sasural where accused persons were
scuffling, scolding and assaulting her in connection with demand
of additional dowry. He has convened twice Panchayti and
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 13
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
accused persons undertook to keep his daughter quite well, but
due to non-fulfillment of money they hanged her. He went to see
his daughter and saw the dead body of the deceased was hanged
by neck. He lodged the F.I.R. about the occurrence and proved his
signature on F.I.R. marked as Ext-2/1 as well as signature of the
then Officer In-Charge on the formal F.I.R. Inquest report was also
prepared which was signed by witness Vishun Mahto. The rope of
20 feet was also seized by police and seizure list was prepared
which is marked as Ext-5.
In his cross-examination, he admits that in written report he has
stated about demand of money as additional dowry.
16. It appears that there is no specific allegation regarding demand of
dowry Rs.10,000/- against the present appellant. No specific overt
act has been attributed against the appellant as to when he raised
the demand of dowry. In the first information report also no
specific nature of demand of additional dowry has been
mentioned. From the post-mortem report it transpires that the
deceased died due to strangulation. In view of evidence of
witnesses as discussed above, there is no doubt that deceased has
died unnatural death at her matrimonial home within 07 years of
her marriage. Therefore, first two ingredients of Section 304-B of
the I.P.C. are satisfied here.
So far ingredient (iii) and (iv) is concerned, there is no iota
of evidence showing that soon before her death, the deceased was
subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of
additional dowry at the hand of the present appellant. No specific
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 14
2025:JHHC:30447-DB
allegation regarding demand of dowry and torture has been
attributed against present appellant. Therefore, presumption of
Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not attracted against the
present appellant at all.
17. Considering the overall aspects of the case and the evidence
available on record, we arrive at the conclusion that learned trial
court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. The
very foundational facts are absent as against the present appellant,
who happens to be father-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order suffers from serious error of law
and also based on beyond the weight of evidence available on
record. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction of
appellant is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant
he is acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
18. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of
his bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
19. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to
the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:26 /09/2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2002 Page | 15
