[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Bhupendra Kumar Mishra @ Bhupendra ... vs The State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.184 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2006 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Bhupendra Kumar Mishra @ Bhupendra Mishra @ Bhup Narayan Mishra
@ Ram Janam Mishra, Son of Late Durga Mishra
2. Sujeet Kumar Mishra @ Bibhu Son of Bhupendra Kumar
3. Sudha Devi wife of Sujeet Kumar Mishra @ Bibhu All resident of village-
Lohasarai, P.S. Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sharda Kumari @ Minki, wife of Sunit Kumar @ Mohan, resident of
village - Lohsari, P.S.-Bochahan, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Aditya Dev, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP.
For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-04-2026
Heard Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, learned counsel
along with Mr. Aditya Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State
and Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel along with Mr. Vivek
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. The above criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2014 and order
of sentence dated 04.04.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.
559/2008, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1512 of 2006 by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
2/26
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, whereby the
learned trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 498A,
307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and further convicted the appellant no.1
under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. All the
appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three
years each and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment of five years
each and fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment of one year each under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo imprisonment
of five years each and fine of Rs.15,000/- each under Section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to undergo imprisonment of six
months each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act; appellant no.1 was further sentenced to
undergo imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 3000/- under
Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment
of fine, all the appellants shall undergo imprisonment of one
year and all the sentences will run concurrently.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
Sharda Kumari @ Minki, filed Complaint Case No. 1512/2006
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
3/26
which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to
registration of the F.I.R. It is alleged that the informant was
married to accused no. 1 on 12.06.2006 at Santoshi Mata
Temple, wherein her family provided cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-,
additional expenses for the marriage, and ornaments and articles
worth approximately Rs. 1,55,000/-. Soon after the marriage, the
accused persons allegedly demanded an additional dowry of Rs.
1,00,000/-, a Hero Honda motorcycle, and a colour television,
threatening that non-fulfillment would result in her death. It is
further alleged that the informant was subjected to continuous
physical and mental cruelty, and on one occasion, accused no. 2
allegedly attempted to commit rape upon her, assaulted her, and,
along with others, tried to kill her by strangulation when she
raised alarm; however, intervention by villagers forced the
accused to flee. Subsequently, on 18.07.2006, the informant was
allegedly ousted from her matrimonial home after being
dispossessed of her belongings, and no effort was made by the
accused persons to take her back, compelling her to seek legal
recourse.
4. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint petition to
the P.S. Bochahan for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, Bochahan P.S. Case No. 101/2026 was registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
4/26
under Sections 498A, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
appellants. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and
upon trial in Sessions Trial No.559/2008, the learned trial court
convicted the appellants under Sections 498A, 307 and 379 of
the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
further convicted the appellant no.1 under Section 376/511 of
the IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2014 and order
of sentence dated 04.04.2014.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
is wholly erroneous, being based on unreliable and contradictory
evidence. It is contended that the prosecution story is inherently
improbable, as the marriage was admittedly solemnized in a
temple with full knowledge that the husband was already
married, and therefore the allegation of huge dowry demand is
not believable. It is further submitted that the most serious
allegations under Sections 307 and 376/511 IPC are not
supported by any medical evidence, as neither any injury report
has been produced nor any doctor has been examined. The
prosecution witnesses are highly interested and their testimonies
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
5/26
suffer from material contradictions; P.W.1 being closely related
and instrumental in the marriage, and other witnesses being
either pattidars or hearsay witnesses, cannot be relied upon. The
evidence on record is inconsistent with the version of the
informant, thereby creating serious doubt about the occurrence
itself.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that there is
unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, which indicates that
the case is an afterthought arising out of prior enmity and village
politics. The allegations against appellant nos. 2 and 3 who are
brother-in-law (bhaisur) and sister-in-law (gotni) of the
complainant are general and omnibus in nature, despite the
admitted position that they were residing separately at Mumbai
and had no direct involvement in the alleged occurrence. The
defence case has been probabilized that the prosecution was
instituted at the instance of P.W.1 due to personal grudge. It is
thus argued that the learned trial court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence and has recorded conviction on
conjectures and surmises, ignoring material inconsistencies and
lack of corroboration. Hence, the appellants are entitled to
benefit of doubt and the judgment under appeal is liable to be set
aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
6/26
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
7. Per Contra, learned APP appearing for the State
while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District
court, after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits
submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has
rightly convicted the appellants for said offences as the offences
alleged against the appellants appears to be serious in nature and
also constitutes cognizable offence.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
8. Heard the parties.
9. I have perused the lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
10. Before I proceed to analyze the evidences in support
of the allegation both oral i.e. direct evidence what the witnesses
personally said, heard or perceived and the documentary
evidences, both primary and secondary evidences which needs
consideration to decide the appeal, I find it gainful to reproduce
the provisions of Sections 498A, 307, 379, 375 and 511 of the
Indian Penal Code, which are as under:-
"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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
7/26
extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.Explanation.-- For the purpose 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 to meet such
demand.
375. Rape.-- A man is said to commit "rape"
if he--(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or
makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the
body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so
with him or any other person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so
as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,
anus or any part of body of such woman or makes
her to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of
a woman or makes her to do so with him or any
other person,under the circumstances falling under
any of the following seven descriptions:
(First.)-- Against her will.
(Secondly.) -- Without her consent.
(Thirdly.) -- With her consent, when her consent has
been obtained by putting her or any person in whom
she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt,
(Fourthly.) -- With her consent, when the man
knows that he is not her husband and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is
another man to whom she is or believes herself to be
lawfully married.
(Fifthly.) -- With her consent when, at the time of
giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of
mind or intoxication or the administration by him
personally or through another of any stupefying or
unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
8/26
the nature and consequences of that to which she
gives consent.
(Sixthly.) -- With or without her consent, when she is
under eighteen years of age.
(Seventhly.) -- When she is unable to communicate
consent.
Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section,
"vagina" shall also include labia majora.
Explanation 2.-- Consent means an unequivocal
voluntary agreement when the woman by words,
gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to
participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically
resist to the act of penetration shall not by the
reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting
to the sexual activity.
Exception 1.-- A medical procedure or intervention
shall not constitute rape.
Exception 2.-- Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by
a man with his own wife, the wife not being under
fifteen years of age, is not rape."
376. Punishment for rape.-- (1)Whoever,
except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2),
commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment of either description for a term which
[shall not be less than ten years, but which may
extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine]
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any
act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--
When any person offending under this section is
under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if
hurt is caused, be punished with death. Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under
such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be
guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
9/26
section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a
child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A
has committed the offence defined by this section,
though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads
it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the
gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in
this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is
liable to the punishment provided by the latter part
of the first paragraph of this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases
poison and mixes the same with food which remains
in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence
defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table
or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.
379. Punishment for theft.-- Whoever commits theft
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences
punishable with imprisonment for life or other
imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an
offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence
to be committed, and in such attempt does any act
towards the commission of the offence, shall, where
no express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such attempt, be punished with
imprisonment of any description provided for the
offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of
the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be,
one-half of the longest term of imprisonment
provided for that offence, or with such fine as is
provided for the offence, or with both. Illustrations
(a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by
breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the
box, that there is no jewel in it. He has done an act
towards the commission of theft, and therefore is
guilty under this section.
(b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by
thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the
attempt in consequence of Z's having nothing in his
pocket. A is guilty under this section."
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
10/26
11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether eight witnesses, namely:
1. P.W.1 - Lalbabu Mishra
2. P.W.2 - Sanjay Kumar Mishra
3. P.W.3 - Rakesh Mishra
4. P.W.4 - Ratnesh Prasad Singh
5. P.W.5 - Jayanandan Singh (Father of the victim)
6. P.W.6 - Sharda Kumari @ Miki
(Victim/Informant)
7. P.W.7 - Ram Shrestha Shah (Priest)
8. P.W.8 - Chandrakari Yadav (Investigating Officer)
12. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:-
(i) Ext.1 - Signature of the informant on complaint
(ii) Ext.2 - Marriage certificate
(iii) Ext.3 - Registered Portion on the complaint at
the time of F.I.R
(iv) Ext. 4- signature of Bhupendra Kumar Mishra
13. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidences. The evidence of the prosecution
witnesses (PWs) can be summarized as follows:
(i) P.W.1 - Lalbabu Mishra- This witness is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
11/26
maternal uncle of the victim. He deposed that the marriage of
the victim, Sharda Kumari @ Miki, with accused Sunit Kumar
@ Mohan was solemnized on 16.06.2006 at Santoshi Mata
Temple, Muzaffarpur. He stated that sufficient dowry in cash,
ornaments, and articles was given at the time of marriage. Soon
after marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs. 1,00,000, a
motorcycle, and a colour television, and subjected the victim to
cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand. He further deposed
that on 17.07.2006, the victim was found unconscious near a
pond, and upon regaining consciousness, she disclosed that her
father-in-law attempted to outrage her modesty and, on
resistance, she was strangulated. In cross-examination, he
remained consistent and supported the prosecution case without
material contradiction.
(ii) P.W.2 - Sanjay Kumar Mishra- This witness is a
neighbour of the accused. He deposed that during the night of
occurrence, the victim was found lying unconscious near a pond
and was brought to the house. He supported the allegation that
the victim was subjected to dowry demand and harassment. In
cross-examination, he admitted being present nearby and
reiterated the facts stated in examination-in-chief, thereby
corroborating the prosecution version.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
12/26
(iii) P.W.3 - (Rakesh Mishra)- This witness stated
that on the night of 17.07.2006, upon hearing cries, he along
with others reached the pond where the victim was lying
unconscious. After sprinkling water, she regained consciousness
and disclosed harassment and dowry demand by her in-laws. He
fully supported the prosecution case in both examination-in-
chief and cross-examination.
(iv) P.W.4 - (Ratnesh Prasad Singh)- This witness
deposed regarding the marriage, dowry given, and subsequent
demand of Rs.1,00,000, motorcycle, and television. He stated
that when they visited the matrimonial home, the accused
insisted on fulfillment of dowry demand and threatened
consequences. He further stated that the victim later disclosed
that her father-in-law attempted rape and strangulated her when
she resisted. He supported the prosecution case consistently.
(v) P.W.5 - Jayanandan Singh (Father of the
Victim)-He deposed that the marriage of his daughter was
solemnized at Santoshi Mata Temple. He confirmed giving
dowry at the time of marriage. After marriage, the accused
persons demanded additional dowry and subjected his daughter
to cruelty. He further stated that his daughter informed him that
her father-in-law attempted to molest her and she was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
13/26
strangulated when she resisted. Despite cross-examination, his
testimony remained intact and consistent.
(vi) P.W.6 - Sharda Kumari @ Miki
(Victim/Informant)-The victim categorically deposed that after
her marriage with accused Sunit Kumar @ Mohan, she was
subjected to cruelty for dowry demand of cash, motorcycle, and
television. She further stated that on the night of 17.07.2006, her
father-in-law entered her room with bad intention, attempted to
rape her, and on her resistance, she was assaulted and
strangulated, causing her to lose consciousness. She regained
consciousness near the pond and narrated the occurrence to
villagers and her family members. She proved the complaint
petition (Exhibit-10). Her testimony remained consistent on
material particulars despite cross-examination.
(vii) P.W.7 - Ram Shrestha Shah -This witness
proved the marriage certificate (Exhibit-2) and stated that the
marriage between the victim and accused was solemnized at
Santoshi Mata Temple. He identified the signatures on the
certificate and thereby corroborated the factum of marriage.
(viii) P.W.8 - Chandrakari Yadav (Investigating
Officer)-This witness deposed about registration of the case,
investigation, inspection of place of occurrence, and recording
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
14/26
of statements of witnesses. He proved the formal FIR (Exhibit-
3) and stated that after investigation, he found the allegations to
be true and submitted charge-sheet against the accused. In cross-
examination, he admitted certain omissions but nothing material
to discredit the prosecution case.
14. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellants/accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
15. The record reveals that all family members were
initially made accused, and it has been submitted by both the
parties that, although certain prosecution witnesses supported
the case alleging that all the family members, including the
present appellants, subjected the respondent no. 2 to cruelty for
non-fulfillment of a dowry demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the
learned trial court, in the absence of cogent evidence, acquitted
the husband and mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 vide
judgment dated 15.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 341 of
2013. The present appellants are the father-in-law, brother-in-
law (bhaisur), and sister-in-law (gotni) of respondent no. 2, and
a joint compromise petition could not be filed earlier as the trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
15/26
stood bifurcated in respect of them. It has now been jointly
submitted on behalf of the appellants and respondent no. 2
(informant) that the informant is presently residing peacefully in
her matrimonial home, as cordial relations have been restored
between her and her in-laws pursuant to the Joint Compromise
Petition dated 27.05.2019. The marriage is a sacred ceremony
but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred.
Matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and
does not inherently constitute an offence against society.
16. An allegation under Section 498A IPC requires
careful judicial scrutiny, as the provision while salutary in object
has been subject to misuse. The analysis must, therefore,
proceed on strict legal parameters, not on mere allegation
keeping in mind that the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are father-in-
law, brother-in-law (bhaisur) and sister-in-law (gotni). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the
matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a
matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and
does not inherently constitute an offence against society, as has
been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat v.
State of Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 in
paragraph no.9 which is as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
16/26
"9. Taking note of the object of
Section 498-AIPC, the expected approach of
the High Court in the event of bona fide
settlement of disputes had been duly
exposited by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State
of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] ,
wherein this Court has underscored the duty
of the Court to encourage the genuine
settlement of matrimonial disputes and said
as under : (SCC pp. 682-83, paras 12-16)
"12. The special features in such matrimonial
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court
to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in
a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC
693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in
view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was
said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused
in the criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their
"cases" in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal
Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498-A was added with a view to punishing a
husband and his relatives who harass or torture the
wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would
be counterproductive and would act against interests
of women and against the object for which this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
17/26
provision was added. There is every likelihood that
non-exercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice would
prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned
judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR
abovementioned.""
17. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against
the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict
between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence
against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous
consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal
dispute cannot call for a criminal offence.
18. Keeping in mind the caution that all the relatives
of the husband should not be implicated in absence of credible
and specific allegations substantiating their involvement, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that mere naming of in-
laws in a matrimonial dispute, without clear attribution of overt
acts of cruelty or harassment, amounts to an abuse of the process
of law. General and omnibus allegations, often arising out of
strained marital relationships, do not satisfy the statutory
requirement of "cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC,
and such proceedings deserve to be quashed at the threshold to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
18/26
prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. It
has been judicially recognized that matrimonial disputes are
often accompanied by heightened emotions, leading to
exaggeration or over-implication of the husband's relatives. In
such circumstances, courts are required to exercise caution and
scrutinize whether the allegations disclose specific instances of
unlawful conduct, particularly acts connected with dowry
demands or conduct likely to cause grave injury or drive the
woman to commit suicide. In the absence of such particulars,
continuation of criminal proceedings against in-laws would
result in a vexatious trial, causing irreparable harm to their
reputation and dignity.
19. The evidentiary threshold in cases under Section
498-A IPC assumes greater significance where the accused are
relatives other than the husband. The Apex Court has
underscored that criminal liability cannot be fastened on the
basis of vague, uncorroborated, or sweeping statements. There
must be prima facie material demonstrating active involvement
and a proximate nexus between the alleged acts and the offence
of cruelty. Mere presence in the matrimonial home or passive
conduct, without evidence of participation or instigation, is
insufficient to sustain prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
19/26
20. Further, it has been observed that the tendency to
implicate distant or uninvolved relatives, including elderly
parents or married sisters living separately, reflects misuse of the
provision as a tool of coercion or personal vendetta. Such
misuse not only undermines the credibility of genuine
complaints but also dilutes the legislative intent behind the
provision, which is to protect women from real and grave
instances of cruelty and dowry harassment. Therefore, judicial
intervention becomes necessary to strike a balance between
safeguarding the rights of the complainant and preventing unjust
prosecution of innocent persons. In cases where the allegations
are found to be inherently improbable, lacking in specificity, or
unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence such as medical
records, independent witnesses, or consistent statements, courts
have not hesitated to acquit the in-laws. It has been reiterated
that a criminal trial itself is a serious ordeal, and compelling
individuals to undergo such a process without sufficient grounds
would be contrary to the principles of justice.
21. Accordingly, where the prosecution fails to
establish specific, consistent, and credible evidence of cruelty
attributable to the in-laws, and the allegations appear to be
omnibus or motivated, the benefit of doubt must necessarily
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
20/26
enure to the accused. In such circumstances, acquittal of the in-
laws is not only justified but essential to uphold the rule of law
and prevent misuse of penal provisions.
22. The Apex Court for the above reasons that the
family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings, in the case of Mange Ram Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos. 25, 31 and 32
has held as under:-
"25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC
735, has made it clear that family members of the
husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial
discord. The Court observed that it has become a
recurring tendency to implicate every member of the
husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual
involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen
between the spouses. It was further held that where
the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and
particularly where the relatives sought to be
prosecuted are residing separately or have had no
connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the
prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of
the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law
is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment,
and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard
against such misuse.
(emphasis supplied)
31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court
observed that where the High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that
the dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled, although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
21/26
and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a
specific reference was made to offences arising out
of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the
victim but the offender and the victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable. The High Court may, within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted
and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated.
(emphasis supplied)
32. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P.,
(2025) 4 SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.)
observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding with the
trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the
dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice
require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse
of process particularly when the dispute is settled
and resolved.
(emphasis supplied)
23. Now coming to the most grave allegation, the
charge of attempted rape coupled with strangulation against
Appellant No. 1 (father-in-law) does withstand judicial scrutiny
in light of the oral evidences on record. The P.W.6 has alleged
that she was strangulated to the extent of losing consciousness
and was subsequently found near a pond but significantly no
medical examination was conducted to substantiate such a
serious allegation. The record is conspicuously devoid of any
medical report, injury certificate, or doctor's testimony
indicating marks of violence, particularly on the neck, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
22/26
would ordinarily be expected in a case of alleged strangulation.
The absence of such crucial medical evidence creates a serious
dent in the prosecution case.
24. To sustain a charge under Section 376 IPC, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Kumar & Anr. v. State of
Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379, held that, to constitute an attempt
to commit rape, there must be an act clearly indicating the
intention to commit rape; mere assault or indecent behaviour is
insufficient. In the present case, from the statement of the
informant (victim) herself, particularly in her cross-examination,
no such act or direct movement indicating an attempt to commit
rape has been supported.
25. In the case of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the version of the
prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and is inconsistent with the
medical evidence, and when the surrounding circumstances
render the prosecution story doubtful, the accused is entitled to
the benefit of doubt. The Apex Court further held that conviction
cannot be sustained where the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
26. Further, the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
23/26
projected as independent witnesses, do not inspire full
confidence in the absence of corroborative material. Though
they have stated that the victim was found unconscious near a
pond, the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) has admitted to material
omissions during cross-examination, thereby weakening the
prosecution's attempt to establish a consistent and reliable chain
of circumstances linking the alleged occurrence with the
accused. These omissions assume significance, particularly
when the prosecution seeks to rely on circumstantial
corroboration.
27. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4, and P.W.5, being
related and interested witnesses, requires careful scrutiny. When
their testimonies are evaluated in the backdrop of the absence of
any objective medical evidence and the procedural lapses in
investigation, the prosecution version, insofar as it relates to the
allegation of attempted rape and strangulation, appears to fall
short of the standard of proof required in criminal law. The case,
at best, raises a suspicion, but it is well settled that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
28. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to bridge the gap between "may be true"
and "must be true" with respect to the allegations against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
24/26
Appellant no. 1. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must
necessarily enure in favour of the Appellant No. 1 (father-in-
law), entitling him to acquittal on this count.
29. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the
facts of the present case and in light of the settled principle of
law and material inconsistencies that cannot be safely relied
upon, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charges. The appellants, being the father-in-law,
brother-in-law (bhaisur) and sister-in-law (gotni) of the
informant, have been implicated on the basis of general and
omnibus allegations without specific attribution of distinct overt
acts, except vague assertions regarding demand of dowry and
participation in alleged cruelty, which are not supported by
reliable and independent corroboration; such tendency to rope in
all family members in matrimonial disputes, in absence of
specific and cogent evidence, renders the prosecution case
doubtful insofar as offences under Sections 498A, 307, 379 IPC
and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned.
Further, with respect to the allegation of attempt to rape, the
prosecution has failed to establish the same by trustworthy and
convincing evidence, as the testimony of P.W.1
(informant/victim), though material, does not inspire full
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
25/26
confidence. There is no evidence of injuries or circumstances
clearly establishing an attempt within the meaning of Section
376/511 IPC, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the
veracity of such allegation. It is also evident that key
prosecution witnesses have either not fully supported the case or
have given inconsistent versions, thereby weakening the
prosecution story, and the cumulative effect of these deficiencies
makes the case unreliable. In view of these material omissions
and the amicable settlement subsequently reached between the
parties to restore matrimonial harmony, the prosecution has
failed to bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be
true." Consequently, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of
doubt and the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.
including the allegation of attempt to rape on appellant
no.1(father-in-law) based on the testimony of P.W.1, all the
appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
30. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
31. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
03.04.2014
and order of sentence dated 04.04.2014, is hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the above-named
appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled
against them. Since the appellants are on bail, as such, they are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.184 of 2014 dt.15-04-2026
discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. The fine
deposited by the appellants, if any, shall be refunded to them.
32. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District
Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 20.04.2026
Transmission Date 20.04.2026
