Patna High Court
RAM BRICHH PATWA and ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was upheld.
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 406, 323 and 354 of the IPC arising from a dowry‑related complaint by the victim Anita Devi, who alleged cruelty, assault and miscarriage. On appeal, the appellants contended that the prosecution case rested on hearsay, lacked independent corroboration, and that the non‑examination of the investigating officer and weak medical evidence created reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses, finding that most were not eye‑witnesses and their statements were largely derivative of the victim’s account, while the medical report was not conclusive. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the absence of the investigating officer’s testimony does not per se vitiate a prosecution case and that the evidence, though imperfect, was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence, largely hearsay and lacking independent corroboration, establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt under IPC Sections 406, 323 and 354.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer warrants setting aside the conviction.
- Whether the medical evidence sufficiently proves assault leading to miscarriage.
- Whether a dowry demand under the Dowry Prohibition Act was proved.
- Whether the convictions should be affirmed or the appeal allowed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 313
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 60
- Indian Penal Code — s. 315, 323, 354, 406, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- IPC 406
- IPC 323
- IPC 354
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- hearsay evidence
- medical evidence
- criminal appeal
- conviction upheld
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1245 of 2011
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2001 Thana- AMJOR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Ram Brichh Patwa S/O Late Bilash Patwa Resident Of Village- Sulsuli,
Police Station- Basantpur, District- Sarguja, State - Chhatisgarh.
2. Kaushlay Devi W/O Sri Ram Briksh Patwa Resident Of Village- Sulsuli,
Police Station- Basantpur, District- Sarguja, State - Chhatisgarh.
3. Guru Bachan Patwa S/O Ram Briksh Patwa Resident Of Village- Sulsuli,
Police Station- Basantpur, District- Sarguja, State - Chhatisgarh.
4. Kusumi Devi W/O Guru Bachan Patwa Resident Of Village- Sulsuli, Police
Station- Basantpur, District- Sarguja, State - Chhatisgarh.
5. Alamchand Chaudhary S/O Ram Prit Chaudhary Resident Of Village-
Maharaganj, Police Station- Tilauthu, District- Rohtas At Sasaram
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sheopujan Choudhary S/O Late Deonandan Chaudhary Resident Of Village-
Karma, Police Station- Rohtas, District- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, App
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 20-04-2026
Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2011
passed in S. Tr. No. 556 of 2004 (arising out of Rohtas
(Amjhora) P.S. Case No. 139 of 2001 / G.R. No. 1822 of 2001)
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
2/15
Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby and whereunder all the appellants
have been convicted under Sections 406 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and appellant no. 3, namely Guru Bachan Patwa,
has further been convicted under Section 354 of the Indian
Penal Code and released on probation.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment primarily
on the ground that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has
wrongly recorded the conviction of the appellants despite the
existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the
prosecution case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant filed a complaint alleging that his daughter Anita
Devi, who was married to Rishi Kumar Patwa on 05.04.1998,
was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for
demand of dowry. She was physically and mentally tortured, her
ornaments were retained by the accused persons and she was
assaulted on several occasions. Appellant no. 3 outraged her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
3/15
modesty and that she was assaulted even during pregnancy
resulting in loss of unborn child.
5. On the basis of the complaint petition, the case
was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Rohtas (Amjhora)
P.S. Case No. 139 of 2001 was registered under Sections 498A,
323, 406, 354, 315 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as the prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is
contended that most of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay
and interested witnesses and no independent witness has
supported the prosecution case.
7. There are material contradictions and
inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
which go to the root of the matter. The Investigating Officer has
not been examined, causing serious prejudice to the defence.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
4/15
medical evidence does not support the prosecution case,
particularly with regard to pregnancy and nature of injuries.
There was admitted land dispute between the parties, which
provides motive for false implication.
9. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the
evidence in its proper perspective and has wrongly convicted
the appellants.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
10. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of
the State opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned trial
court has rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded
conviction, which does not call for interference.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
11. Heard the parties.
12. 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.
13. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials
as collected during the course of investigation, passed the
judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2011 and order of sentence
for the offences under Sections 406, 323 and 354 of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
5/15
Penal Code.
14. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether 9 witnesses, namely:
(i) (P.W.-1) – Sheo Kumar
(ii) (P.W.-2) – Raj Kumar
(iii) (P.W.-3) – Abdul Rajak
(iv) (P.W.-4) – Alamgir Ansari
(v) (P.W.-5) – Rishi Kumar
(vi) (P.W.-6) – Sheo Pujan Chaudhary
(vii) (P.W.-7) – Sushila Devi
(viii) (P.W.-8) – Anita Devi
(ix) (P.W.-9) – Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
15. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:
(i) Signature of informant on complaint
petition (Exhibit-1)
(ii) Injury report (Exhibit-X)
16. Upon a meticulous examination of the record,
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
summarised as under:
(i) P.W.1 – (Sheo Kumar) has supported the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
6/15
occurrence but is not an eye-witness. He deposed that the victim
Anita was brought from her in-laws’ house by her father and she
narrated the occurrence to him. However, the victim (P.W.8) has
not stated that she disclosed the incident to P.W.1, rendering his
testimony hearsay and inadmissible under Section 60 of the
Evidence Act.
(ii) P.W.2 – Raj Kumar has supported the
prosecution case and stated that he once visited the victim’s
matrimonial home where a demand of ₹70,000/- was made.
However, he is not an eye-witness to the assault. His statement
regarding the occurrence is based on what the victim allegedly
told him, but since P.W.8 has not corroborated this disclosure,
his testimony is hearsay and inadmissible. He further admitted
delay in disclosure and non-reporting to authorities.
(iii) P.W.3 – Abdul Rajak has supported the
prosecution version but admitted that he never visited the
matrimonial house of the victim. His knowledge is derived from
what he heard after the victim returned to her parental home.
Hence, he is a pure hearsay witness with no direct knowledge of
the occurrence.
(iv) P.W.4 – (Alamgir Ansari) also supported the
prosecution case but clearly admitted in cross-examination that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
7/15
he has no personal knowledge of the occurrence. His evidence is
therefore hearsay in nature and carries no evidentiary value.
(v) P.W.5 – Rishi Kumar (Husband of the Victim)
has supported the prosecution case and stated that after a few
months of peaceful marital life, his step-mother, step-brothers,
and others began torturing his wife for dowry of ₹70,000/-. He
further stated that he went to Surat for work and later came to
know about the assault and abortion. However, in cross-
examination: He admitted he was not present at the time of
occurrence. He acknowledged family property disputes and
partition litigation. He admitted that there is no evidence of
dowry demand. Thus, his testimony is partly hearsay and also
affected by admitted family disputes, reducing its reliability.
(vi) P.W.6 – Informant (Father of the Victim) has
supported the prosecution case stating that he gave dowry at the
time of marriage. His daughter was later tortured for ₹70,000/-.
Upon receiving information, he went to her matrimonial home
and brought her back in injured condition. However, in cross-
examination he admitted no medical treatment was taken during
transit despite continuous bleeding. He admitted availability of
hospitals en route but did not utilize them. He had no direct
knowledge of assault; facts were told by his daughter. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
8/15
admitted no prior complaint or letter from the victim regarding
harassment. Thus, his evidence is largely based on what the
victim told him, making it derivative in nature.
(vii) P.W.7 – Mother of the Victim has corroborated
the version of P.W.6 and supported allegations of dowry
demand, assault, and abortion. However, she was not present at
the place of occurrence. She admitted that her husband alone
brought the victim. She lacks direct knowledge of the incident.
Hence, her testimony is also hearsay and corroborative only in
nature.
(viii) P.W.8 – Victim (Anita Devi) is the star
witness and has fully supported the prosecution case. She
deposed that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demand of
Rs. 70,000/-. She was assaulted by in-laws during pregnancy.
Her father-in-law pressed her abdomen leading to bleeding and
abortion. She was taken by her father for treatment after the
incident. However, in cross-examination she admitted delay and
inconsistency in seeking medical treatment. She did not take
treatment at available hospitals at Garhwa or Sasaram
immediately. She gave inconsistent statements regarding
residence of her husband. No independent corroboration of her
narration to other witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
9/15
(ix) P.W.9 – Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (Medical
Officer) he examined the victim and found:
I. Bleeding from vagina,
II. Pain and swelling in abdomen,
III. Bruises in pelvic region.
He opined that injuries could cause abortion due to
assault. However, he is a private practitioner and not a
gynecologist. Injury report produced is photocopy (marked ‘X’)
and not legally admissible. He admitted that findings were based
partly on patient’s own statement. No police intimation was
made despite it being a medico-legal case. He did not find clear
signs of prior pregnancy. Thus, medical evidence is weak and
not fully reliable.
17. On the basis of materials surfaced during the
trial, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against them, which they denied and claimed
innocence.
18. In the present case, the Investigating Officer
has not been examined by the prosecution The records disclose
that the Investigating Officer was not examined during the
course of trial. Undoubtedly, the Investigating Officer is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
10/15
material witness, being essential to explain the manner in which
the investigation was conducted and the steps taken during the
investigation. His examination also affords the defence an
opportunity to test the fairness of the investigation through
cross-examination. However, it is well settled that the mere non-
examination of the Investigating Officer does not ipso facto
vitiate the prosecution case. The effect of such omission has to
be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each case,
particularly with regard to whether any prejudice has been
caused to the accused and where the ocular and other
substantive evidence is otherwise found to be cogent, reliable
and trustworthy, the prosecution case cannot be rejected on that
ground alone. In this regard reference can be drawn from the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Gulam
Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 311 in
para no. 18, which is reproduced hereinafter:
“26. In the case of Ram Dev v. State of
U.P. [1995 Supp (1) SCC 547 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 402 (2)] this Court has held that it is
always desirable for the prosecution to
examine the investigating officer. However,
non-examination of the investigating officer
does not in any way create any dent in the
prosecution case much less affect the
credibility of the otherwise trustworthy
testimony of the eyewitnesses.
27. In the case of Behari Prasad v. State of
Bihar [(1996) 2 SCC 317 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
271] this Court has held that for non-
examination of the investigating officer the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
11/15
prosecution case need not fail. This Court
has held that it would not be correct to
contend that if the investigating officer is not
examined the entire case would fall to the
ground as the accused were deprived of the
opportunity to effectively cross-examine the
witnesses and bring out contradictions. It
was held that the case of prejudice likely to
be suffered must depend upon the facts of
each case and no universal straitjacket
formula should be laid down that non-
examination of investigating officer per se
vitiates the criminal trial.
28. In the case of Ambika Prasad v. State
(Delhi Admn.) [(2000) 2 SCC 646 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 522] it was held that the criminal
trial is meant for doing justice not just to the
accused but also to the victim and the society
so that law and order is maintained. It was
held that a Judge does not preside over the
criminal trial merely to see that no innocent
man is punished. It was held that a Judge
presides over criminal trial also to see that a
guilty man does not escape. It was held that
both are public duties which the Judge has to
perform. It was held that it was unfortunate
that the investigating officer had not stepped
into the witness box without any justifiable
ground. It was held that this conduct of the
investigating officer and other hostile
witnesses could not be a ground for
discarding evidence of PWs 5 and 7 whose
presence on the spot was established beyond
any reasonable doubt. It was held that non-
examination of the investigating officer
could not be a ground for disbelieving
eyewitnesses.
29. In the case of Bahadur Naik v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 9 SCC 153 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
1186] it was held that non-examination of an
investigating officer was of no consequence
when it could not be shown as to what
prejudice had been caused to the appellant
by such non-examination..”
19. On careful consideration of the prosecution case
and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that
although the victim (P.W.8) has supported the allegations of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
12/15
cruelty, dowry demand of Rs. 70,000/-, and assault leading to
miscarriage, her testimony remains the sole substantive basis of
the case and is not sufficiently corroborated by reliable
independent evidence, the remaining witnesses, namely P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, and P.W.7, are admittedly not eye-
witnesses and their statements are largely hearsay in nature,
being based on what they claim to have been told by the victim,
which is further weakened by the fact that the victim herself has
not consistently affirmed such disclosures, thereby rendering
their evidence of limited probative value even P.W.5 (husband),
though partly supporting the prosecution, has no direct
knowledge of the occurrence and his testimony is affected by
admitted family disputes and absence of concrete proof of
dowry demand. The medical evidence of P.W.9 also does not
conclusively support the prosecution case as the injury report is
not duly proved, the doctor is not a specialist, findings are partly
based on the victim’s own narration, and there is no clear
medical confirmation of pregnancy or miscarriage. The conduct
of the informant in not seeking immediate medical treatment
despite alleged continuous bleeding, coupled with absence of
any prior complaint or contemporaneous report, creates serious
doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution story. No
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
13/15
independent witness has supported the case and the entire
prosecution rests upon interested and hearsay witnesses, and in
such circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has
failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, entitling
the appellants to the benefit of doubt.
20. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the
present case, the evidence on record suffers from material
inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration and
procedural lapses which may have prejudiced the appellant,
However, it is a well settled law that mere non-joining of an
independent witness, where the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy
and reliable, cannot create reasonable doubt on the version
forwarded by the prosecution if there seems to be no reason on
record to falsely impli12 ptcate the appellant. Reference in this
regard can be drawn from the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Gian Chand vs State of Haryana, reported
in (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 226, in paragraphs No.34 and 35 which
are reproduced hereinafter:
“34. In Appabhai v. State of Gujarat
[1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR
1988 SC 696] this Court dealt with the issue of non-
examining the independent witnesses and held as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
14/15
under : (SCC pp. 245-46, para 11)
“11. … the prosecution case cannot be thrown out
or doubted on that ground alone. Experience
reminds us that civilised people are generally
insensitive when a crime is committed even in their
presence. They withdraw both from the victim and
the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the
court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime
like civil dispute is between two individuals or
parties and they should not involve themselves. This
kind of apathy of the general public is indeed
unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in
village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this
handicap with which the investigating agency has to
discharge its duties.”
35. The principle of law laid down
hereinabove is fully applicable to the facts of the
present case. Therefore, mere non-joining of an
independent witness where the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent,
convincing, creditworthy and reliable, cannot cast
doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution if
there seems to be no reason on record to falsely
implicate the appellants”
21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the
opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the
charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the
learned trial court has not erred in recording conviction, which
is in accordance with law.
22. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Rohtas at Sasaram in S. Tr. No. 556
of 2004 is sustained.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1245 of 2011 dt.20-04-2026
15/15
23. The period of detention already undergone by the
appellant during investigation and trial shall be set off against
the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him, in
accordance with law.
24. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody
forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 07.04.2026
Uploading Date 20.04.2026
Transmission Date 20.04.2026
Checking your session…