Patna High Court

MD. SAIYADversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The conviction under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.

Summary

The appellant, Md. Saiyad, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, for dowry death under IPC Section 304B/34 and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201/34, receiving life imprisonment and a five‑year term. The prosecution relied on the statements of ten witnesses and a post‑mortem report that showed no external injuries but indicated poisoning, asserting that the appellant murdered his wife over dowry disputes. The defence argued that the death was a suicide, that there was no evidence of dowry demand or cruelty, and that the prosecution failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 304B, rendering the presumption under Section 113B inapplicable. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, noted the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the administration of poison, and found the prosecution’s case insufficient to establish a dowry death. Applying the legal principles from Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his release.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the essential ingredients of IPC Section 304B (dowry death).
Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies in the absence of direct evidence of dowry demand and cruelty.
Whether the death was a homicide or a suicide, affecting the applicability of Sections 304B and 306 IPC.
The adequacy of medical and circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 374(2)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 306, 34

Subjects

dowry death
IPC 304B
Section 113B presumption
suicide vs homicide
evidence appraisal
appeal under CrPC 374(2)
acquittal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.662 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2018 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria
======================================================
Md. Saiyad S/o Halimuddin @ Md. Halimuddin R/o village- Chamanpur,
P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Md. Fazle Karim, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)

Date : 24-04-2026

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the

appellant-convict under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)

challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated

07.05.2019 and order of sentence dated 09.05.2019 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Araria in Sessions Trial

No. 123 of 2018 (CIS No. 123 of 2018) arising out of Trial No.

100 of 2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted

appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
2/22

and Section 201/34 of the IPC, where appellant sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.

50,000/- and in in default of payment of fine further directed to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year, for the offence

punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC and further

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years

along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine

further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months,

for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the IPC. All

aforesaid sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Case of prosecution

3. The brief facts of the prosecution, as it speaks

through fard-e-beyan of the informant, namely, Imran (P.W. 4),

which was recorded on 14.01.2018 at 22:10 hrs. by an Assistant

Sub-Inspector at Jokihat Police Station is that his sister, Hena

Parween, had been married to the appellant about five years

earlier according to Muslim customs. After marriage, she gave

birth to a son who died shortly after birth. Thereafter, her in-

laws allegedly began demanding a motorcycle and a cow as

additional dowry, leading to a case which was later

compromised under pressure. On 14.01.2018, the informant

received information that the accused persons had assaulted his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
3/22

sister and poisoned her. They took her to Araria for treatment,

where she died upon reaching the hospital. It was further alleged

that the accused persons brought her dead body back and left it

on a divider near Toll Tax Bhatta Chowk before fleeing. The

informant claimed that accused persons killed her sister by

administering poison.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, given by

P.W. 4, namely, Imran (informant), Jokihat P.S. Case No. 09 of

2018, was registered for the offences punishable under Sections

328, 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned Magistrate on the basis of materials

collected during investigation took cognizance and committed

this case to the learned Trial Court for its trial and disposal.

Learned trial court accordingly framed charges for offences

punishable under Sections 306/34, 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 of

IC against appellant-accused, which was duly explained to him

upon which he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed trial.

6. To substantiate its case, before learned Trial

Court the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses.

They are:-

Sr. No(s). Prosecution Witnesses
P.W. 1 Israil
P.W. 2 Md. Sabir Alam
P.W. 3 Belal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
4/22

P.W. 4 Md. Imran (informant)
P.W. 5 Nazra
P.W. 5(A) Md. Nurul Hoda
P.W. 6 Abdul Raquib
P.W.7 Mehtab
P.W.8 Jitendra Kumar Sharma
P.W.9 Ashok Kumar
P.W.10 Dr. Rajendra Kumar

7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution

has also proved the following documents in order to prove the

charges:-

Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. List of documents
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of Imran on fardbeyan
2. Exhibit-1/1 Signature of A.S.I. Ashok Kumar
on fardbeyan
3. Exhibit-1/2 Endorsement of P.S. Case number
4. Exhibit-2 Formal FIR
5. Exhibit-3 Charge-sheet
6. Exhibit-4 Signature of Ashok Kumar on
inquest report
7. Exhibit-X Postmortem report
8. Exhibit-5 Certified copy of order sheet of
complaint case no. 360 C of 2017
9. Exhibit-6 Certified copy of Complaint case
no. 360 C of 2017

8. No defence witnesses were examined on

behalf of accused/appellant during the trial.

9. The defence has also exhibited following

documents during the trial to substantiate its case which are

as:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
5/22

Sl. No. Exhibit Nos. List of documents
1. Exhibit-A Order sheet dated 13.10.2017 of
Case No. M 39 of 2017
2. Exhibit-B Compromise petition in case no.
39 M of 2017
3. Exhibit-C Order sheet dated 01.02.2019 in
case no. 360C of 2017
4. Exhibit-D Compromise petition in case no.
360C of 2017

10. The statement of the appellant-accused was

recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating him

incriminating evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the

trial, which he denied and shows his complete innocence.

11. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during

the trial and the arguments as advanced by the parties, the

learned Trial Court has convicted appellant/convict for the

offences under Sections 304(B)/34 and Section 201/34 of IPC

and sentenced him in the manner as stated above, after

recording the acquittal of appellant for the offences punishable

under Section 302/34 and 306/34 of the Indian penal Code.

12. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict has

preferred the present appeal.

13. Hence, the present appeal.

Argument on behalf of appellant

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
6/22

appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated

with the present case as deceased committed suicide after

consuming poison. This is supported by the fact as the

investigating agency, upon completion of investigation, found

the case fit only to be register under Section 306 IPC (abetment

of suicide) and not under Section 304(B) IPC (dowry death),

which reflects the absence of material indicating homicidal

death or dowry-related causation. It is pointed out that evidence

on record, including medical findings, indicates that the

deceased herself consumed poison. However, the Learned Trial

Court erred in presuming, without any reliable or corroborative

evidence, that the accused persons administered poison to the

deceased. Such a conclusion is based on conjecture rather than

proof.

15. It is further submitted that since no

foundational aspects as to constitute offence under Section

304(B) IPC was proved, therefore, the presumption under

Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act is not available to the

prosecution. Therefore, the burden remained on the prosecution

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has failed to

do. It is also pointed out that the Trial Court adopted a selective

approach in appreciating evidence, while disbelieving defence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
7/22

witnesses on the ground that no one saw the deceased

consuming poison, trial court ignored the equally important fact

that no witness saw the accused administering poison, thereby

applying unequal standards. In support of his submission

learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme

Court as available through Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana,

[2025] 1 SCR 1370: 2025 INSC 133.

16. While concluding his argument, learned

counsel submitted that impugned judgment have been founded

on presumptions, conjectures, and selective appreciation of

evidence rather than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The

prosecution has failed to establish the case of the appellant on

the strength of reliable and cogent evidence, while crucial

aspects such as the absence of a viscera report and lack of

eyewitness testimony have been overlooked. The findings

recorded are thus unsustainable in the eyes of law and have

resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, prayed

to set aside the impugned judgment and extend the benefit of

doubt to the appellant in the interest of justice.

Argument on behalf of the State

17. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State, while

opposing the appeal submitted that the judgment of the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
8/22

Trial Court is based on a proper and holistic appreciation of

evidence and does not warrant interference. The prosecution

case stands on consistent and reliable witness testimonies,

which are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The post-

mortem findings—particularly the “swelling of the lower lip

and congestion of lungs—clearly indicate antemortem injury

and an unnatural death.” Minor discrepancies, if any, are

natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The

circumstances establish a complete chain pointing towards the

guilt of the accused, especially when the death occurred in a

situation where the accused was in a position to explain the

events, yet failed to offer any plausible explanation.

18. It is further submitted that absence of multiple

external injuries does not negate culpability, particularly, where

medical and circumstantial evidence clearly indicate otherwise

and there is no material suggesting false implication. Hence,

there is no occasion to interfere with judgment of conviction of

appellant as recorded by the learned trial court.

Deposition of witnesses

19. P.W. 1 is the Israel, He states that the occurrence

took place about 6–7 months prior, and he was at home when he

came to know around 7:00 PM that Hena Pravin had filed a case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
9/22

against her husband Saiyad, which continued in court for about

a year. He further states that on the day of Muharram, Saiyad

took Hena Pravin away. According to him, despite his complaint

to the police, Saiyad kept her with him for about three months,

during which her whereabouts were unknown. He alleges that

Saiyad secured bail in the earlier case by pressurizing her

without paying the agreed compromise amount of ₹1,80,000,

and thereafter committed her murder on the 14th, disposing of

her body near the east side of the toll tax at Jahanpur. The police

reached the spot, seized the body and the Scorpio vehicle, sent

the body for postmortem to Araria, and later handed it over to

the family, whereupon the witness gave his statement.

19.1. Upon cross-examination, he deposed that he had

no direct knowledge of the incident and learned about the

murder later, after which he went to Saiyad’s house where many

people had gathered, but the body was not found there. He states

that the body was discovered around 2:00 AM near the toll tax

in presence of police. He also gives details about the vehicle,

driver, and his son, and said that the driver informed his son that

Hena Pravin was seriously ill and had been taken to a doctor,

where she allegedly died. The witness acknowledges several

omissions in his police statement, including not stating that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
10/22

Saiyad had taken her to Delhi or forcefully taken her away

initially, though he reiterates the latter in court. He denies

suggestions of false implication, conspiracy for extortion of

money, or that Hena Pravin died due to illness while being taken

for treatment, maintaining that Saiyad is responsible for her

death.

20. P.W. 2 is Md. Sabir Alam, he deposed that the

occurrence took place on 14th January 2018, when he was at

home attending his daughter’s wedding. In the evening, he came

to know that Hena Pravin had consumed poison and was taken

to the hospital, where she died. He further deposed that her dead

body was later found near the toll tax ahead of Jahanpur. The

police sent the body to Araria for postmortem, and although he

did not see the dead body, he identified the accused Saiyad and

gave his statement to the police.

20.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him

that Hena Pravin and Saiyad were living happily and she was

never harassed for dowry. He stated that she did not consume

poison at her in-laws’ house, but after returning from outside, it

was suspected that she had taken poison and was taken for

treatment. He further stated that while bringing back the body,

the informant took custody of it near the toll tax and informed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
11/22

the police. He adds that the couple lived well in Mumbai, earned

sufficiently, and had started building a house, though Saiyad did

not have good relations with his in-laws, which Hena Pravin

tried to resolve.

21. P.W. 3 is Belal. He deposed that on 14 th January

2018, he came to know around 7:00 PM that Hena Pravin had

been murdered. He went to the place of occurrence, where the

dead body was found near the toll tax on the highway around

11:00 PM. He stated that villagers informed him that the body

had been transported in a vehicle, after which he informed the

police. The police seized the vehicle and driver, took custody of

the body, and sent it for postmortem to Araria. He stated that

Saiyad Alam and other in-laws jointly committed the murder

due to a dowry case and maintenance case filed by the deceased.

21.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that he is

not the eyewitness of the occurrence and learned about it from

others whose names he cannot specify. He stated that when he

reached the spot, the police were already present and the body

was lying near the toll tax. He also admits not seeing the vehicle

at the spot and acknowledges certain omissions in his police

statement. He denies suggestions that the death was due to

illness or that he has given false testimony, maintaining his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
12/22

allegation against the accused.

22. P.W. 4, is Md. Ibran, who is also informant of this

case, deposed that the incident occurred on 14 January 2018

around 11:00 PM and alleges that Saiyad Alam along with other

in-laws committed the murder of Heena Parween. On receiving

information, he along with others went to Saiyad’s house at

Chamanpura, where they learned that she had been killed and

her body was taken in a Scorpio vehicle. The police were

informed and had already reached the spot near Toll Tax Bhattha

Chowk and recovered the body and sent it for postmortem.

22.1. During the course of cross-examination, PW 4

stated that he is not the eye witness of the incident and his

knowledge is based on hearsay. He states that when he reached

the place of occurrence, the police were already present and the

Scorpio vehicle was not there. He confirms that his statement in

court is the same as given to the police and denies the

suggestion that the deceased died due to illness while being

taken for treatment or that he has given false evidence.

23. P.W.-5 is Najra, who stated during trial that

incident occurred about 8–9 months ago around 4 PM, when she

was at her home and learned that Heena Parween had consumed

medicine. She was taken to Jokihat and then referred to Araria,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
13/22

but she died on the way. While her body was being brought back

from Araria, her family members allegedly took away the corpse

near Jahanpur Chowk. In cross-examination, she stated that

Heena Parween was living a good life with her husband Saiyad

and that he used to earn well. She added that Saiyad did not

have good relations with his in-laws and that a case was filed by

Heena and was later compromised, which angered her family

and led to disputes between her and her parents.

24. P.W. 5A is Md. Narul Huda, who stated that about

a year ago, while he was at home, he heard that Heena Parween

had been murdered and her body was thrown near the Toll Tax.

He went to the spot where the police had already seized the

body and prepared the inquest report, on which he signed as a

witness. He also identified the accused Saiyad Alam in court.

During cross-examination, he admits that he only came to know

about the incident later and did not see the occurrence. He stated

that around 100 people were present at the Toll Tax, he signed

the papers around 11 PM, and he did not see any Scorpio

vehicle. He further stated that the body was lying to the north-

east side of the Toll Tax and denies the suggestion that he has

deposed falsely.

25. P.W. 6 is Abdul Rakib stated that about 4–5
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
14/22

months prior, he learned that Heena Parween had consumed

medicine, and was taken first to Jokihat and then to Araria for

treatment, but died, and her body was later found near the

barrier. He admits that he did not see the body at the spot and is

unaware whether the police arrived there, though he was

interrogated by them. During the course of cross-examination,

he stated that the deceased had purchased and consumed the

medicine herself and fell unconscious, after which she was

taken for treatment in a hired Scorpio. He claims that Saiyad

was with him in the village at that time and that the body was

forcibly taken away from the vehicle by the informant and

others. He further stated that Saiyad and the deceased lived

happily without disputes, and conflicts existed between Saiyad

and his in-laws over money and a dowry case, which was later

compromised, leading to disputes within the deceased’s parental

family.

26. P.W. 7 is Mehtab, who stated that about eleven

months before, during a marriage ceremony where he was

present with Saiyad, he learned that Heena Parween had

consumed medicine following a quarrel. He also supported the

occurrence.

27. P.W. 8 is Jitendra Kumar Sharma an ASI posted at
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
15/22

Jokihat Police Station on 14.01.2018, stated that the formal FIR

and fardbeyan were recorded by different officers whose

signatures he identifies, and thereafter same were marked as

Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-1/1. After taking charge of the

investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, where the

inquest report was prepared near Toll Tax, Bhattha Chowk. He

recorded the statements of the informant and witnesses,

including relatives of the deceased, and inspected two places of

occurrence—first at the road divider on NH-328 E near Bhattha

Chowk and second at the in-laws’ house in village Chayanpur.

After investigation, finding the case true, he submitted Charge-

Sheet No. 48/18 dated 20.04.2018 against Saiyad, which he

identified and was exhibited as Exhibit-3.

28.1. During cross-examination, he stated that several

procedural lapses, including non-recording of dates and times of

statements and movements in the case diary. He stated that the

case was found true under Sections 306, 201, and 34 IPC. He

also referred to the statement suggesting that the deceased

consumed poison due to a domestic dispute and was being taken

for treatment when she died. Some witnesses did not support

allegations of dowry demand or physical abuse. He denies the

suggestion that the charge-sheet was falsely submitted without
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
16/22

proper investigation.

29. P.W. 9 is Ashok Kumar, an ASI posted at

Jokihat Police Station on 14.01.2018, stated that he prepared the

inquest report of Bibi Hina Praveen on the same day, which he

identified along with his signature, whereafter it was marked as

Exhibit-4. In cross-examination, he stated that no external

injuries were found on the body, the deceased was clothed, and

the prima-facie cause of death appeared due to consumption of

poison, as also stated by witnesses. He further stated that the

inquest report was prepared based on information received at

the police station at about 21:40 hours on the same day.

30. P.W. 10 is Dr. Rajendra Kumar, who was

posted as Medical Officer (M.O.) at Sadar Hospital, Araria on

15.01.2018 and conducted the autopsy upon Bibi Hina Praveen.

Upon examination no external injuries were found on the body

except swelling of the lower lip.

1. Internal Examination (Dissection
Findings)
Cranial, thoracic, and abdominal cavities were
opened.
All internal organs (viscera) were found intact
and in situ.
Lungs were congested.
Stomach contained semi-digested food with
foul smell.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
17/22

2. Viscera Preserved for Chemical Analysis
The following samples were preserved and
handed over:
Stomach with contents
One kidney
Portions of small and large intestine
Portions of lungs, liver, heart, and spleen
3. Opinion on Cause of Death
No definite cause of death could be determined
at the time of post-mortem. Cause of death was
kept pending, subject to chemical analysis of
viscera.
4. Post-Mortem Report
The report is in the doctor’s handwriting and
bears his signature. The submitted copy is a
true photocopy of the original (marked as
Exhibit X).
30.1. Upon cross-examination doctor stated that no

abnormality was found on the body of the deceased

31. In present factual scenario, it would be apposite

to reproduce para no(s). 3, 6 and 7 of the Karan Singh’s Case

(supra), which reads as under :

“3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
taken us through the notes of evidence of material
prosecution witnesses. He submitted that all the allegations
made by the witnesses regarding the demand of dowry are
omissions. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to show that
the appellant demanded dowry. Moreover, there is no
evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty.
Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in the
case of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh v. State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
18/22

Uttarakhand and submitted that there is no evidence to show
that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection
with demand for dowry. He would, therefore, submit that in
the absence of legal evidence against the appellant, the
Courts ought to have acquitted him.
6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-
B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any
burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise
than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years
of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected
to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative
of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry.
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death
can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or
husband’s relative,as the case may be, shall be deemed to
have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the
other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party
to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to
the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be
given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the
marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties.
The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30
of IPC”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
19/22

Discussion & Conclusion

32. In view of aforesaid, coming to the factual

aspects of this case, it appears that none of the prosecution

witnesses stated that sister of informant (P.W. 4) was subjected

to cruelty arising out of dowry demand soon before her death,

rather they stated that she was murdered by the appellant. The

testimony of P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 not support the allegation of

murder even as poison was not said to be administered by the

appellant. P.W. 1 in his cross-examination stated that prior to

the occurrence deceased lodged the case against appellant which

was compromised against sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- but said amount

was not paid by the appellant and, thereafter, creating a pressure

he obtained bail in said criminal case lodged by the deceased,

but this fact was not supported by P.W. 4/informant.

33. It also appears from the testimony of P.W. 1 to

P.W. 7 that the dead body of the deceased was found at east of

Toll Tax, Jahanpur. It was suspected to be thrown by the

appellant and his family members. They are not the actual

eyewitness of the occurrence. P.W. 6 stated that he came to

know that after consumption of poison deceased was taken by

family members for her treatment to Jokihat, where after she

was taken to Araria for Dr. Arshad. He also stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
20/22

parents of deceased lodged a false case under dowry act against

appellant, but same was subsequently compromised by the

deceased without taking consent of her parents due to which her

parents and brother were unhappy. P.W. 7 also supported this

fact that quarrel took place between deceased and her brother

that why she compromised criminal case with her husband.

34. P.W. 8, who is IO of this case deposed that he

submitted charge-sheet under Sections 306, 201 and 34 of the

IPC. However, the factual aspects of this case do not support

this charge as, the testimony of witnesses does not indicate the

act of appellant was of such a nature, as could be said to force

the deceased to commit suicide without leaving any other option

and, therefore, appellant was acquitted from charge under

Section 306 of the IPC by learned trial court itself.

35. P.W. 8 also deposed that witnesses P.W. 5 and

P.W. 2 did not support that any dowry demand was made. These

witnesses were not declared hostile by the prosecution rather it

was deposed by I.O. that during the investigation he came to

know, regarding domestic quarrel of deceased with mother-in-

law as to prepare cow dung cake due to which sister of

informant (P.W. 4) consumed poison.

36. P.W. 9 is the seizure list witness, who also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
21/22

supported that no sign of physical assault was found upon body

of the deceased. P.W. 10 upon postmortem could not ascertain

the cause of death, viscera was preserved but FSL report was not

made available for consideration by the learned Trial Court.

37. In view of aforesaid, we arrive at the

conclusion that prosecution miserably failed to establish

foundational aspects for the offence punishable under Section

304(B) of the IPC, in terms of legal ratio as discussed through

Karan Singhs’s Case. No doubt, without proving the

foundational aspects, presumption as available under Section

113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be import.

38. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant, as

recorded by the learned trial court, is hereby set-aside. The

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07.05.2019 and 09.05.2019 as passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge-III, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2018, Trial No.

100 of 2018 arising out of Jokihat P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 is

hereby set-aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges

levelled against him.

39. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed on

contest.

40. The accused/appellant be acquitted of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.662 of 2019 dt.24-04-2026
22/22

charges and released at once, if he is in custody.

41. The Office is directed to issue release order at

once. Fine amount, if any, which has been deposited by the

appellant be returned to him.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

Bibek Chaudhuri, J:- I agree

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
S.Tripathi/Veena-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.05.2026
Transmission Date 01.05.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…