Shiv Charan Das @ Shibu DasversusThe State Of Bihar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.11 of 2016
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2008 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Shiv Charan Das @ Shibu Das son of Late Vishnu Das Resident of Village-
Patepur, Gopinath, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur

                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                      Versus
The State Of Bihar

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Z.Hoda, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 07-07-2026

                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

 learned A.P.P. for the State.

                 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the

 judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2015 and order of sentence

 dated 09.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2014

 arising out of Tajpur P. S. Case No. 79 of 2008 by learned

 Additional Sessions Judge V, Samastipur whereby appellant has

 been convicted under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal

 Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

 for 10 years.

                 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan

 of Satyanarayan Dass recorded by SI Ashok Kumar, Pusa P.S.

 on 21.03.08 at 8.30 AM at Sadar hospital Samastipur. As per the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            2/10




         fardbeyan, the prosecution case, in short, is that the daughter of

         informant, namely, Anita Devi (deceased) got married with this

         appellant of village Patepur about 5 years ago. After the

         marriage, he peacefully kept Anita Devi for some months,

         thereafter, appellant and his mother Ram Dulari Devi started

         torturing Anita Devi for the dowry. It is alleged that the

         informant persuaded appellant several times but the accused and

         his mother did not listen the prayer of informant and they kept

         torturing Anita Devi for non fulfillment of demand of motorcyle

         and Rs. 50,000/-. Informant's daughter was been blessed with

         two children. It is further alleged that about six months back the

         informant gave Palang, quilt, Gadda to this appellant but in

         presence of the informant, appellant and his mother misbehaved

         with Anita Devi. At that time also, the informant tried his best to

         calm down the situation. It is further alleged that once again,

         son-in-law and samdhin gave a threatening note that if it is not

         fulfilled, they will not allow Anita in the house and they will kill

         her. But informant took it lightly. He further alleged that on

         21.03.08 the police of Pusa P.S informed the informant that his

         daughter Anita Devi was murdered and her dead body was kept

         in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for postmortem. On this

         information, informant along with the villagers came to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            3/10




         Sasural of the Anita Devi at Patepur where he came to know

         that his daughter Anita Devi was brutally assaulted by this

         appellant and his mother and they killed her and fled away. The

         police arrived there on the information of the villagers and sent

         the dead body for postmortem. Informant claims Shiv Charan

         Das @ Shibu Das and Ram Dulari Devi killed his daughter due

         to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

                          4. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the

         accused person, the prosecution has examined five witnesses.

                        (i) P.W. 1, Ram Pukar Das is the brother of deceased

         who stated that she was married to this appellant about 5 years

         prior to occurrence. After 2-3 years of cordial relationship, the

         accused started demanding a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/- as

         dowry and used to torture her for non-fulfillment of the demand.

         He deposed that Anita informed her parental family about such

         torture whenever she visited Naihar. He received information

         about Anita's murder from the Chowkidar and saw several

         injuries on her body at the hospital. He proved his signature on

         the fardbeyan as Ext.1/1.

                      (ii) P.W. 2, namely, Satyanarayan Das is the informant

         and father of deceased Anita Devi. He stated that Anita was

         married to accused this appellant about six years before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            4/10




         occurrence and had two children. Initially, the accused treated

         Anita properly, but later on demanded Rs. 50,000/- and a

         motorcycle and subjected her to cruelty for non-fulfilment of

         demand. He stated that Anita repeatedly complained about

         torture by her husband. On receiving information from the

         Chowkidar, he went to Samastipur Hospital and found Anita

         dead with injuries on her head, buttock and hands, with blood

         oozing from her nose. He proved the fardbeyan as Ext. 1.

                         (iii) PW-3, namely, Suresh Das is another brother of

         deceased Anita Devi and he also supported the prosecution case.

         He denied the defence suggestion that Anita died due to illness.

                         (iv) PW-4, Dr. B.P. Rai is the Doctor who conducted

         the postmortem examination. He found several ante-mortem

         injuries including lacerated wounds on the forehead and hands,

         fracture of frontal bone, and blood in the cranial cavity. He

         opined that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage

         resulting from hard and blunt force injuries. He further stated

         that such injuries could not occur by a simple fall from the roof.

         He proved the postmortem report as Ext. 2.

                          (v) P.W. 5, Md. Amanullah is charge-sheet witness.

         He stated that he went to the hospital and saw the dead body of

         Anita Devi bearing several injuries.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            5/10




                          5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

         convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the

         opening paragraph of this order.

                          6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

         assails the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that

         there is no eye witness to the occurrence. He denied the

         prosecution case and stated that the deceased died by falling

         from the roof while plucking pumpkin and thereby, causing

         several injuries. Taking advantage of the situation, this false and

         concocted case was lodged against appellant. He argued that all

         the prosecution witnesses are close family members of the

         deceased, hence, their testimonies could not be relied upon. As

         also, prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer,

         which, according to the defence caused serious prejudice. It is

         further submitted that there is lack of iota of evidence that due

         to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the deceased was

         tortured and harassed by the appellant, resulting in her death. He

         submits that learned Trial Judge has ignored the aforesaid

         serious infirmities in the prosecution case while recording the

         judgment of conviction. Lastly, he contends that in order to

         convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,

         three essential ingredients are necessary to be present, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            6/10




         are:-

                      a. Death of a woman is caused by any burn or bodily

                          injury otherwise than under normal circumstances,

                      b. Such death of the woman should occur within

                          seven years of her marriage and

                       c. Soon before her death, she should be subjected to

         cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with any

         demand of dowry. In support of his contentions, he places

         reliance upon judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case

         of Gudhiya Devi versus State of Bihar reported in 2021 (1)

         PLJR 731 and Bakshish Ram & Another versus The State of

         Punjab reported in (2013) 4 SCC 131.

                          7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State

         has submitted that prosecution has successfully established the

         case of dowry death as the victim died in unnatural

         circumstances in her matrimonial house within seven years of

         her marriage with multiple injuries on her body and there is

         allegation of demand of dowry. Hence, pedantic approach in

         appreciation of evidence cannot be adopted and he urged that

         for technical flaws, the Trial Court judgment need not be

         interfered with.

                          8. From going through the evidence and perusal of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            7/10




         the records, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses

         have seen the occurrence and are related to the informant and

         are highly interested witnesses. The prosecution has not brought

         on record any proof with regard to the torture or demand of

         dowry prior to death of the deceased.

                          9. In this case, prosecution failed to establish the

         date of marriage of the appellant with the deceased as there is no

         oral or documentary evidence on record regarding the same.

         Hence, there is no proof that the deceased was married to the

         appellant within seven years of the alleged occurrence. I.O.,

         who conducted the investigation, has not been examined. Non-

         examination of the Investigating Officer has definitely

         prejudiced the appellant since the appellant lost opportunity to

         cross-examine the Investigating Officer on the point of seized

         materials, visit to the place of occurrence and contradiction in

         statements of the prosecution witnesses. Material contradictions

         and inconsistencies in the deposition of witnesses remain

         untested. It is also pertinent to mention here that in order to

         establish the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal

         Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove the three essential

         ingredients, as discussed above. If the prosecution, proves all

         the three essential ingredients, then the presumption under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            8/10




         Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. Such

         presumption is rebuttable and the onus to rebut shifts on the

         accused person. If the prosecution fails to establish the aforesaid

         ingredients, then the presumption under Section 113B of the

         Evidence Act does not apply and in such cases, the burden does

         not shift to the accused persons to rebut the presumption under

         the law. A conjoint reading the three provisions predicate the

         burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the

         ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing

         evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section

         113B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or

         harassment by the husband or her relative or the persons

         charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory

         presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils

         thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent

         coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person

         accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held

         guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the

         shortfall in proof.

                          10. In this case, it is evident that there is nothing on

         record to show that soon before the death of the deceased, there

         was any demand or torture by the appellant, which is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                            9/10




         necessary ingredient to bring guilt of the accused under Section

         304B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, cumulative consideration

         of the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence that the

         prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the

         charges levelled against the appellant as there is complete lack

         of evidence of harassment or torture for non-fulfillment of

         demand dowry. Learned Trial Judge has miserably overlooked

         the aforesaid lapses. Hence, judgment of conviction passed

         against the appellant is not sustained in law.

                          11. It is well established rule of law that in case of

         circumstantial evidence, the chain must be completed to

         establish the guilt of the accused person. Hence, the prosecution

         has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of all

         reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit

         of doubt.

                          12. In that view of the matter, the judgment of

         conviction dated 06.10.2015 and order of sentence dated

         09.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2014 arising out

         of Tajpur P. S. Case No. 79 of 2008 by learned Additional

         Sessions Judge V, Samastipur are hereby set aside.

                          13. Appellant is acquitted of all the charges and is

         discharged from the liability of the bail bond in connection with
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.11 of 2016 dt.07-07-2026
                                                         10/10




                      this case.

                                       14. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.




                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          10.07.2026
Transmission Date       10.07.2026