Patna High Court
Ram Naresh Mahto And Anr vs State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.18 of 2006
======================================================
1. Ram Naresh Mahto, aged about 28 years, Son of Bino Mahto.
2. Chandra Kala Devi @ Chanrika Devi @ Chanda Devi aged about 35 years,
Wife of Bino Mahto.
Both residents of village- Jagdar, P.S. Birpur (Barauni) District-Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh, Advocate
: Mr. Jeet Kishor Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 28-04-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh assisted by Mr. Jeet
Kishor Mahto and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
Judgment of conviction dated 05.12.2005 and order of sentence
dated 12.12.2005 in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1995 arising out
of Barauni P.S. Case No. 257 of 1994 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-I, Begusarai
have convicted the appellants under Sections 498A and 304 B
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') and
under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced
them to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
2/20
Section 498A of the IPC and on non payment of fine, the
appellants have to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months. Further appellants have to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under
Section 304B of the IPC and all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the
present appeal on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, is
that the informant (Chowkidar No. 2/10) namely Shivji Paswan
gave his statement before the police on 21.06.1994 at about
6:30 AM alleging therein that at about 3:30 AM, he heard hulla
and rushed towards the house of the accused and saw that
Sonia Devi aged about 24 years wife of Ram Naresh Mahto
was lying dead in the house and her entire body was burnt. The
reason behind the occurrence is that on previous day there was
altercation between the wife Sonia Devi and her husband Ram
Naresh Mahto and the husband Ram Naresh Mahto has also
assaulted her wife. It is further alleged in the fardbeyan that
there was no good relation between the wife and the husband
since the time of marriage. Further it is alleged that in the
mean-time the husband had demanded dowry. Further, it is
alleged in the fardbeyan that on the previous night all the
family members after taking dinner were sleeping in the house.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
3/20
Ram Naresh Mahto had sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of
her wife Sonia Devi and put fire by match and further locked
the door of the room as a result of which Sonia Devi died.
After seeing smoke from the house the villagers Munna Thakur
Laxman Mahto, Triveni Tanti, Prasadi Mahto reached there and
they after breaking the door tried to save the victim but she
died.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the
informant Barauni P.S. Case No. 257 of 1994 dated 21.06.1994
was registered. After completion of investigation the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the
accused Ram Naresh Mahto and Chandrikala Devi. After
cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Thereafter for the trial the case was transferred to the Addl.
Session Judge FTC I Begusarai.
5. The prosecution has altogether examined
seven witnesses in this case. Out of them, PW-1 Ram Prasad
Mahto declared hostile, PW-2 Laxman Mahto declared hostile,
PW-3 Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai, PW-4 Dilip Kumar PW-5 Ram
Udgar Mahto, PW-6 Shivji Paswan (Chowkidar no.-2/10) of
the village Jagdar (Informant) and PW-7 Munna Thakur.
6. PW-3 Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 21.06.1994 he was posted at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
4/20
Sadar Hospital, Begusarai as Civil Assistant Surgeon. On that
day at about 11.30 AM. the dead body of Sonia Devi aged
about 24 years wife of Ram Naresh Mahto of village Jagdal
P.S.-Birpur District Begusarai was brought and identified by
constable Raghubar Singh and 2/18 Hare Ram Paswan and
chowkidar no.2/10 Ram Ratan Paswan. He further stated that
he held postmortem on the same day under the observership of
Dr. A. K. Jha.
External appearance: Rigor mortis present
at all over the body. Deep burn and
superficial at places is present all over the
body except lower part of back and
buttock. Due to deep burn both thigh have
develop cracks about 90% burnt tongue
produced out. He has further stated that
on dissection carbon particals are present
in trachea in good amount. Lungs are
congested stomach contains rice uterus
gravid 2 to 4 months.
Opinion- most probable, Cause of death
was due to shock and asphyxia produced
by burn caused by fire, but due to deep
burn other external findings can not be
made out. Viscera are kept reserved for
further investigation. The time elapsed
since death within 6 to 24 hours. This
post-mortem report is in my pen and bears
my signature marked as Exhibit-1.
6.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that the
presence of rigor mortis depends on climatic variation as well
as on account of cause of death. But in normal condition its
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
5/20
presence over the body is visible within 6 to 4 hours within the
time of death. Literally it is possible to point out the death
having within 6 hours and within 24 hours as rigor mortis is
not present in all over the body within 6 hours but it has not
present after 6 hours. I can distinguish antemortem burn injury
as well as postmortem burn injury. Part of lung and heart were
kept for further investigation. Viscera were not tested by me.
As there is no detail description in postmortem report regarding
the state of rice, so I cannot say anything over it. It is not a fact
that I could not performed the postmortem.
7. PW-4 Dilip Kumar is the brother of the
deceased victim in his examination-in-chief stated that
occurrence took place 6 years ago in the night and he came
from his village Kumbhi to village Jagdal and he grasped that
his sister the victim died due to fire caught in her Sari during
preparation of food. He also stated that deceased victim got
married with Ram Naresh Mahto and her death took place in
her sasural. He has further stated that deceased victim had no
dispute with the family members of her sasural. He stated that
his statement was not recorded by the police.
7.i. In his cross-examination, he admitted in
para-2 that deceased victim always resided in her matrimonial
home and her husband and mother in law kept her in a good
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
6/20
condition and provide her all the comfort as required. He said
his sister the deceased victim had never made any complaint
against the family members of her in laws.
8. PW-5 Ram Udgar Mahto is the father of the
deceased in his examination-in-chief stated that occurrence
took place 6 years ago and after passing of 3 to 4 days of the
occurrence he came to learnt that his daughter deceased victim
was burnt in her matrimonial home. He stated that the marriage
of his daughter took place with Naresh Mahto 4 years ago from
the date of the occurrence.
8.i. In his cross-examination and he has
admitted vide para 2 that the marriage of his daughter took
place 5 to 6 years ago from the date of her death. He also said
that she used to come to her parental home from the sasural
and she was sharing good relation with the family members of
her sasural and she never made any complaint against her in-
laws in sasural. He also said that his son in law has given
information about the incident to is house. He said that he
came and inquired the matter and comprehend that his daughter
died due to burnt while she was preparing food. He further said
that he can not recall that the marriage of his deceased daughter
took place 10 years ago from the date of her death and again
voluntarily he stated that the death took place 8 years ago.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
7/20
9. PW-6 Shivji Paswan Chowkidar no. 2/10 of
village Jagdal in his examination-in-chief stated that
occurrence took place to 10 years ago at about 3.30 AM and he
heard hulla and went to the house of Bino Mahto and saw that
the eastern gate of the daughter in law of Bino Mahto was
closed. He further stated that the hand of the deceased victim
was tied and her body and cloths were burning and she was
shouting "Bachao Bachao". He also stated that when he
reached at the house of the deceased victim she was alive. He
further stated that he went to Police Station to give information
about the alleged incident and when he returned from the
police station he found that the victim died due to burn injury.
He stated in para-2 of his deposition that altercation and assault
took place between the deceased victim and her husband due to
demand of Dowry and the murder of the victim was committed
by her husband Ram Naresh Mahto. He further stated in para-3
of his deposition that the marriage of Sonia Devi with accused
Ram Naresh Mahto took place 4 to 5 years ago from the date of
occurrence. He stated in para 4 that after receiving information
the S.I. of police came at the place of occurrence and he has
given his fardbeyan before the S.I. of police. He further stated
that S.I. of police has recorded his statement. and he has further
proved the fardbeyan which is Ext.-2 The signature of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
8/20
witness on the fardbeyan is Ext.-3 he also stated in para 5 of
his examinations-in-chief that the mother of Ram Naresh
Mahto was also residing in the house and the occurrence was
witnesses by Munna Thakur, Triveni Tanti, Prasad Mahto and
Laxman Mahto and others.
9.i. PW-6 in his cross-examination, he admitted
in para-11 that he used to go in the mohalla of accused for
taking out milk in the house of Bhole choudhary and have
noticed altercation between victim and her husband Ram
Naresh Mahto and due to this reason he has stated the cause
behind the occurrence in his fardbeyan. He also stated in para-
12 that he heard the information regarding the demand of
dowry from Triveni Tanti, Prasadi Mahto and late Lakshman
Mahto. He further stated that he did not submitted any sanha in
this regard. S.I. after hearing statements of other witnesses
mentioned about demand of dowry in his report. After
exhibiting fardbeyan, S.I. did not further asked anything from
him.
10. PW-7 Munna Thakur in his examination-in-
chief stated that occurrence took place 10 years ago at about
3.30 AM when he heard hulla he went to the house of accused
and found that the wife of accused Ram Naresh Mahto was
shouting that the accused/appellants killed her by fire. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
9/20
further stated that in the morning the S.I. of police came and he
prepared inquest report in his presence and he has put his
signature on the inquest report. The signature of the witnesses
on inquest report is marked as Ext.-4. He stated in para-2 of his
deposition that the marriage of deceased with accused Ram
Naresh Mahto took place 4 to 5 years ago and the mother of
Ram Naresh Mahto was also residing in the house. He further
stated that altercation took place between the deceased and her
husband due to demand of dowry of motor cycle and the police
has interrogated him on the same day and further did not
inquired from him.
10.i. PW-7 in his cross-examination he stated
that in front of police his statement was recorded and it is not
true that he in-front of police stated that accused/appellants
Naresh Mahto went his sasural to bring back her wife. PW-7 in
his cross examination stated that the relationship between
deceased wife and appellants/accused was good and there was
no dispute between them and they shared the harmonious
relation with each other and lived happily.
11. After closure of the prosecution evidence,
the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
where they claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and
they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
10/20
present case.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable in the eye
of law or on facts. Learned trial Court has not applied its
judicial mind and erroneously passed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence from the perusal of the
evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution it is crystal
clear from the statement of PW-4 and PW-5 the brother and
father of the victim respectively have not supported the
prosecution case and were also not declared hostile. As per
PW-4 and PW-5 the relation between wife and husband was at
harmony and good. Both PW's further stated in their deposition
that victim died due to catching of fire to the saree while she
was preparing food. He further submitted that PW-6 the
informant was not been examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
and PW-7 was not reliable witness as his statement was
contradictory in his disposition and his statement before police
in case diary. PW-7 in his cross examination stated that the
relationship between deceased wife and appellants/accused was
good and there was no dispute between them and they shared
the harmonious relation with each other and lived happily.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
11/20
is no any evidence of dowry demand from appellants and the
demand of dowry was not established and clearly denied by
PW-4 and PW-5. Son-in-law has given the information that
victim died due to fire caught in her saree while she was
preparing food and this fact is admitted by the brother and
father of the victim lady who has been examined in this case as
PW-4 and PW-5. He stated that without the prove of cruelty or
harassment being perpetrated by husband or any relative soon
before the death of wife and the only circumstances of death
due to burn injuries within the seven year of marriage is not
enough to attract the ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC. In
the present case the demand of dowry and cruelty both were
the self imagination and assumption of the informant and
without any corroboration.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the
instance case was based on circumstantial evidence there was
no direct evidence or ocular witnesses were available. In
circumstantial evidence the chain of guilt should clearly
established the guilt of accused and no other probability, which
is not established in the instant case. There must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and must show that in all human probability the act must have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
12/20
been done by the accused. He also submitted that Investigating
Officer has not been examined in this case causing great injury
and prejudice to the defence and the case diary has also not
marked as exhibit in the instant case. He further submitted that
for appellant no. 2, there is no single evidence against her
except that she lives in the same house, same has been stated
by PW-6 and PW-7 in their deposition and she was wrongly,
illegally and arbitrarily convicted in this case.
15. On the other hand, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these appeals and
submits that there is direct allegation against the present
appellants, for committing an offence under Sections 304B and
498A of IPC and under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He
submitted that death has been occurred in matrimonial house
within the seven years of her marriage. The alleged incident
took place within one week after she returned from her parental
home and the death of victim was clearly and evidently
unnatural. Further it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid
statements and the evidence on record, learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellants and the present appeals should
not be entertained.
16. At this stage, I would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
13/20
defence before the Trial Court.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2023 SCC online SC
452 has laid down that:
wherein a woman died an unnatural death
in her matrimonial home, held that mere
death of the deceased being unnatural in
the matrimonial home within seven years
of marriage will not be sufficient to
convict the accused under Section 304-B
and 498-A IPC if the cruelty or
harassment has not been proved to be soon
before the death.
18. On deeply studied and scrutinized all
evidences, it is evident to note that the prosecution alleged that
the deceased was murdered by the accused persons for demand
of dowry. the defence denied the allegation leveled against
them and said that the deceased died due to fire caught in her
sari while she was preparing food and this fact is admitted by
the brother and father of the victim lady who has been
examined in this case as PW-4 and PW-5. The demand of
dowry was not established in the instant case. On a collective
appreciation of the evidence I am of the considered view that
the per-requisites to raise presumption under Section 304B of
the IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act having
not been fulfilled, the conviction of the appellants cannot be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
14/20
justified.
19. Mere death of the deceased being unnatural
in the matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will
not be sufficient to convict the accused under section 498A and
304B of the IPC. The family member of the deceased victim
her own brother and father has examined as PW4 and PW5 not
stated anything about the cruelty or harassment to the deceased
by the appellants or any of his family members on account of
demand of dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather
harassment and demand of dowry has not been narrated by
anyone. It is only certain oral averments regarding demand of
motorcycle as dowry. The aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution does not fulfill the per-requisites to invoke
presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section 498A of
the IPC not made out for the same reason as there is no
evidence of cruelty and harassment to the deceased soon before
her death.
20. To attract the provision of Section 304-B of
the Code, 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 and harassment "in connection with
the demand for dowry". To appreciate the arguments raised by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
15/20
the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of section 304B
and 498A of the IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 would be required. The same are extracted herein
below:- Section 304B of the IPC read as follow:
"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 purpose 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.
20.i. The essential ingredients of dowry death
under Section 304-B of the IPC are as follow:
(i) death of the woman concerned is by any
burns or bodily injury or by any cause
other than in normal circumstances, and
(ii) is within seven years of her marriage,
and
(iii) that soon before her death, she was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
16/20
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of the husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for
dowry.
20.ii. The accused must have subjected the
woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon
before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the
Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence
of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 498A of the IPC read as:
"Section 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 wilful 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
17/20
to meet such demand "
20.iii. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act
read as:
"Section113B: 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."
21. Noticeably this presumption as well is
founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman
dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the
person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry
death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact
that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or
harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by
the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death.
Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to
invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of
commission of the offence of dowry death by the person
charged therewith.
22. A conjoint reading of these three provisions,
thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailable
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
18/20
substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and
convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption en-grafted
in Section 113B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty
or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person
charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory
presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils
thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent,
coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person
accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held
guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the
shortfall in proof.
23. The family members either related to blood,
marriage or adoption of the deceased can lodge the complain
under Section 498A of the IPC. As in the present case, the
informant is the chowkidar of the mohalla and not related to
the deceased either by blood, marriage or adoption. On the
contrary, the PW-4 and PW-5 brother and father of the
deceased have denied the allegation with regard to demand of
dowry or assault upon the deceased. But in the instant case the
family members not supported the prosecution case.
24. Further, Investigating Officer has also not
been examined who has investigated the case during the course
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
19/20
of trial as it was fatal since he could have adduced the expected
evidence and his non-examination creates a material lacuna in
the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby
creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and the
learned trial Court failed to scrutinize the evidence brought on
record regarding deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities crept
during course of trial and passed the impugned judgment in
complete ignorance of criminal jurisprudence. Further, there is
no eyewitnesses to the said occurrence and all the PW's were
hearsay witnesses and have not seen the occurrence. In the
instant case that the prosecution failed to established beyond
the shadow of all reasonable doubt that the accused must have
subjected the deceased victim to cruelty in connection with
demand for dowry soon before her death.
25. Hence, the Judgment of conviction dated
05.12.2005
and order of sentence dated 12.12.2005 in Sessions
Trial No. 178 of 1995 arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 257
of 1994, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No-I, Begusarai is set aside and the
accused/appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled
against them. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged
from liability of their bail bond.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2006 dt.28-04-2025
26. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
27. Office is directed to send back the trial
Court records and proceedings along with a copy of this
judgment to the trial Court, forthwith, for necessary
compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 02.05.2025
Transmission Date 02.05.2025
