Patna High Court
MANJILA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of a dowry death, so the acquittal stands.
Summary
The appellant alleged that her daughter was burnt to death after the accused, Manish Kumar, demanded a motorcycle and gold as dowry. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of a dowry death and that witnesses, including the mother of the victim, turned hostile. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the prosecution had satisfied the requirements of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, including proof of dowry demand, cruelty, and causal connection to the death. The Court held that the prosecution did not establish these elements and that the presumption of guilt under Section 304B could not be invoked without such proof. Consequently, the acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of a dowry death under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 304B IPC applies in the absence of proof of dowry demand and cruelty.
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground of alleged haste or mismanagement of evidence.
- Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304B IPC
- presumption of guilt
- acquittal
- appeal against acquittal
- evidence
- hostile witness
- burden of proof
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.127 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2018 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger
======================================================
Manjila Devi, Wife of Rajgir Yadav, R/o Village- Khutaha, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manish Kumar, Son of Krishnanand Yadav, Resident of Village- Fulhat
Patam, P.S.- Naya Ramnagar, District- Munger.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : None
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Addl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 22-01-2026
No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State. The trial court records have been
received.
3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal dated 25.01.2020 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Munger (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2019 arising
out of Nayaram Nagar P.S. Case No. 135 of 2018. By the
impugned judgment under appeal, the accused-respondent no. 2
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
2/15
who was facing trial for the charges under Sections 304(B)/34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) has been acquitted.
Prosecution Case
4. On 03.06.2018 at about 01:15 PM, one Manjila Devi
(PW-4) alleged in her fardbeyan recorded in the premises of
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur that
her daughter Juli Kumari was married to Manish Kumar
(respondent no. 2) in the year 2014 as per Hindu Rites and
Customs. After two months of her marriage, the family members
of her sasural used to demand a Bullet Motorcycle which the
informant’s daughter had told her on mobile phone. They were
also demanding two bhar gold. The informant further alleged that
about two years ago, the accused persons had assaulted the
informant’s daughter due to which she had sustained injuries over
her head and ear. The informant’s family got her treated and a
Panchayat was held. On 01.06.2018, the informant’s daughter told
her over telephone that if they will not give gold and motorcycle,
the accused persons are planning to kill her. On 03.06.2018, the
son-in-law of the informant informed her that her daughter is
getting treatment for burn at Mayaganj Hospital, Bhagalpur and
asked them to come as early as possible. The informant asked him
to let her talk to her daughter then he said that she was not in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
3/15
position to talk. When the informant reached the hospital, her
daughter was being treated and during treatment she died. The
informant alleged that the accused persons have burnt her to death
due to one motorcycle and two bhar gold.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Nayaram Nagar P.S.
Case No. 135 of 2018 dated 21.06.2018 was registered under
Section 304B/34 IPC against (1) Manish Kumar, (2) Krishnanand
Yadav, (3) wife of Krishnanad Yadav, (4) Shabnam, (5) Anish and
(6) Ashish. After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet
bearing Chargesheet No. 327 of 2018 dated 30.11.2018 against
Manish Kumar keeping investigation pending against other
accused persons. Learned trial court vide order dated 13.12.2018
took cognizance under above-mentioned section.
6. Charges were read over and explained to the
respondent no. 2 in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.08.2019,
charges were framed under Section 304B/34 IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
nine witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences. The
names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in tabular form:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
4/15
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Dr. Jayant Kumar
PW-2 Parmanand Kumar
PW-3 Dhrup Yadav
PW-4 Manjila Devi
PW-5 Rajgir Yadav
PW-6 Barun Kumar
Chaurasia
PW-7 Devan Yadav
PW-8 Sri Ram Chaudhary
PW-9 Bindeshwari Yadav
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Postmortem report
Exhibit ‘2’ Writing and Signature of the In-
charge
Exhibit ‘2/1’ Formal FIR
8. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent no. 2 was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. He took a plea of his
innocence and stated that his wife died in course of cooking. No
oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the
defence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court, after analysing the evidences
available on the record found that all the witnesses of the
prosecution seem to support the occurrence but they have stated in
one voice that the relationship between the accused and the
deceased was cordial and the accused or his family members have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
5/15
not demanded motorcycle and gold as dowry. Learned trial court
found that the Doctor in his cross-examination has stated that the
injury may be accidental.
10. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove the charges levelled against respondent no. 2 beyond all
reasonable doubts and held respondent no. 2 not guilty of the
charge framed against him. Accordingly, he was acquitted of the
charges framed under Section 304(B)/34 IPC.
The grounds of appeal
11. It is submitted in the Memorandum of Appeal that after
framing of charges, the witnesses were examined in a hurried manner
and it appears that they have been managed. PW-1 was examined on
27.08.2019, whereafter PW-2 and PW-3 were examined on
17.12.2019, PW-4 and PW-5 were examined on 19.12.2019, PW-6
and PW-7 have been examined on 20.12.2019, PW-8 got examined
on 07.01.2020 and PW-9 was examined on 13.01.2020, thereafter,
the statement under Section 313 CrPC has been recorded on
20.01.2020 and finally the judgment had been delivered on
25.01.2020. The submission is that the total trial seems to have been
managed, the informant questions as to what was the occasion to
examine the witnesses in a sessions trial of 304B/34 IPC where the
presumption is that the accused persons are responsible for the death
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
6/15
as the marriage of the deceased with respondent no. 2 was
solemnized only in the year 2014 and the death had taken place
within four years at the matrimonial home of the victim in a
suspicious condition.
12. It is submitted in the appeal that the deceased had two
children i.e. one son and one daughter who are minor and are in
custody of their grandfather and grandmother. The submission is that
the informant was pressurised that if they would say the real and
correct thing in their examination in court, the children will be put in
trouble for their life, otherwise if the respondent no. 2 gets free with
their help, then the children will be given full cooperation and
security by the members of the matrimonial family and having this
impression and condition, they got managed the entire trial.
13. The submission is that this Court should direct the
learned trial court to re-hear and re-examine the witnesses who have
deposed themselves under pressure and coercion of the prosecution
(informant) who is mother of the deceased, illiterate and pardanashin
lady.
Submissions on behalf of the State
14. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in this case
the trial has been conducted in a fair manner. Witnesses have been
examined on several dates and it would appear that while PW-1
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
7/15
was examined on 27.08.2019, PW-9, who was the last witness, got
examined on 13.01.2020, therefore, the records remained pending
for evidence for almost four and a half months. By no stretch of
imagination it can be said that the trial court has recorded the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses in haste.
15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that
in this case the informant who has filed the present appeal was
examined as PW-4 but she did not support the prosecution case as
a result whereof she was declared hostile on the prayer of the
prosecution. In her cross-examination, she denied that the husband
or relatives demanded a motorcycle and two bhar gold, she denied
all the allegations. She also deposed that there was good
relationship between her daughter and her husband. It is submitted
that the present appeal has been preferred only as an afterthought.
16. The brother of the victim has been examined as PW-
2. He has stated that the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the
deceased had informed him on mobile during the night between
12:00-1:00 o’clock that his sister had got burnt, he reached
Mayaganj Hospital and one hour thereafter his sister died. In his
cross-examination by the defence, this witness has stated that
his sister and brother-in-law were having good relationship
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
8/15
and his brother-in-law had never demanded any money,
motorcycle or gold. He has further stated that his sister had never
made any complaint against her husband. He came to know that
when his sister was boiling milk for the children, fire broke out of
the gas in which his sister got burnt and died in course of
treatment.
17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has placed before this Court the evidence of PW-3, who is an
independent witness. PW-3 has not supported the prosecution case
and has been declared hostile. Similarly, the father of the victim,
who has been examined as PW-5, has also not supported the
prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that
since the informant, her husband, her son and other independent
witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the learned trial
court has rightly held that all the prosecution witnesses have stated
that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was
cordial and that the accused or his family members had not
demanded motorcycle and gold as dowry. The learned trial court is
correct in recording a finding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt giving him benefit of doubt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
9/15
Consideration
18. Having gone through the grounds of appeal, the
submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and upon perusal of the records, we find much substance in the
submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. There is no
element of haste in the matter of recording of evidences by the trial
court. The records of the case remained pending for four and half
months for recording of evidence. It is found that in this case the
charge was framed under Section 304B/34 IPC. The contention of
the appellant that there is a presumption under Section 304B IPC
of the guilt of the accused, therefore there was no need to examine
any witness is not a correct statement. For this purpose, we would
extract Section 304B IPC as under:-
“1[304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a
woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall
be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,
"dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.]”
1. Ins. By Act 43 of 1986, s. 10 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
10/15
Section 304B IPC is to be read with Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, therefore Section 113B of the Evidence
Act is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“15[113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When
the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman had been subjected by
such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry
death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "dowry
death", shall have the same meaning as in section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). ]”
19. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that to
convict an accused under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution is
required to prove that (a) the death of a woman was caused by
burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances; (b) such death should have occurred within
seven years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her
husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with the demand for dowry; and (e) to such cruelty or
harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before
her death. Refer the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
15. Inserted by Act 43 of 1986, S. 12 (w.e.f. 1-5-1986).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
11/15
the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR
2000 SC 2324 : (2000) 5 SCC 207, Satvir Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2001 (8) SCC 633, Baljeet
Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC
1714.
20. In the case of Sher Singh @ Partapa vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2015) 3 SCC 724, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had occasion to consider the true meaning and import of the
words “soon” and “deemed” occurring under Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also occasion to
consider as to what would be the standard of proof to be applied to
the prosecution in proving the ingredients of Section 304B IPC
and the standard of proof to be applied to the accused to rebut the
deemed presumption of guilt which arises once the prosecution has
proved the ingredients.
22. Upon consideration of the earlier judgments in the
case of State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and
Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382 and in the case of
Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) 14
SCC 415, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sher Singh (supra) observed in paragraph ‘16’ as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
12/15
“16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were
introduced into their respective statutes
simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be
assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word
“deemed” in Section 304-B to distinguish this
provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is
well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally
acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the
word “shown” is used as synonymous to “prove”
and the word “presume” as freely interchangeable
with the word “deemed”. In the realm of civil and
fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary
meaning of the word “deem” to denote a set of
circumstances which call to be construed contrary to
what they actually are. In criminal legislation,
however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by
rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution
Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-
Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory8
and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd.9, requiring
the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the
statutory fiction brought about by the use of the
word “deemed” so as to give full effect to the
legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We
may add that it is generally posited that there are
rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the
latter oftentimes assuming an artificiality as
actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is
abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a
person guilty of an offence even though he had
neither intention to commit it nor active
participation in its commission. It is after deep
cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe
the word “shown” in Section 304-B IPC as to, in
fact, connote “prove”. In other words, it is for the
prosecution to prove that a “dowry death” has
occurred, namely,
(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in
abnormal circumstances by her having been
burned or having been bodily injured,
(ii) within seven years of her marriage,
8. [AIR 1953 SC 333]
9. [(1997) 1 SCC 326]
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
13/15
(iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband,
(iv) in connection with any demand for dowry,
and
(v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her
continued to have a causal connection or a live
link with the demand of dowry.
We are aware that the word “soon” finds place in Section
304-B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in
terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily
indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale
or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing
cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide
under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these
concomitants is established or shown or proved by the
prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the
initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an
assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon
transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and
requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt,
beyond reasonable doubt. It seems to us that what
Parliament intended by using the word “deemed” was
that only preponderance of evidence would be
insufficient to discharge the husband or his family
members of their guilt. This interpretation provides the
accused a chance of proving their innocence. This is also
the postulation of Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The
purpose of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304-B IPC, in our opinion, is to counter what is
commonly encountered—the lack or the absence of
evidence in the case of suicide or death of a woman
within seven years of marriage. If the word “shown” has
to be given its ordinary meaning then it would only
require the prosecution to merely present its evidence in
court, not necessarily through oral deposition, and
thereupon make the accused lead detailed evidence to be
followed by that of the prosecution. This procedure is
unknown to common law systems, and beyond the
contemplation of CrPC.”
Therefore in a case charged under Section 304B IPC it is
required to be considered as to whether the prosecution in the case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
14/15
has been able to prove the essential ingredients which have been
highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph ‘16’ in the
case of Sher Singh (supra).
23. Keeping in view the aforementioned provisions of
law and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
subject, when we examine the evidences available on the record, it
is found that the prosecution has not proved the essential
conditions for raising a presumption that it is a case of dowry
death. The prosecution witnesses, even the informant, who is the
mother of the victim, and the entire family members of the victim
as also independent witnesses have turned hostile.
24. In these circumstances, we are reminded of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D.
Sundara and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9
SCC 581 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein their
Lordships have laid down the principles governing an appeal
against acquittal. Paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) is being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
“ 8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider
the legality and validity of the impugned judgment 1
rendered by the High Court while
1. (State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.127 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
15/15
deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC”). The principles which govern the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be
summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens
the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which could have been
taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”
25. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
26. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Praveen Kumar, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.01.2026
Transmission Date 30.01.2026
Checking your session…