Patna High Court
Amritpal SinghversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The conviction under Section 304B IPC (and related charges) is unsustainable and the appeal is allowed, resulting in acquittal.
Summary
The appellant, Amritpal Singh, was convicted by the Sessions Court for dowry death under IPC Sections 304B, 498A and 201, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, contending that the prosecution failed to prove the three essential ingredients of Section 304B and relied solely on a presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act without proper evidence. The High Court observed that the prosecution did not produce the FIR, post‑mortem, inquest report, nor examine key witnesses such as the informant, investigating officer, or doctor, rendering the evidence unreliable. It held that without proof of a dowry demand or cruelty immediately before the death, the presumption could not arise and the burden did not shift to the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The prosecution's failure to prove the three essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC.
- Whether the presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act applies in the absence of proven ingredients.
- Whether the non‑production of FIR, post‑mortem, inquest report and non‑examination of material witnesses vitiates the conviction.
- Whether the burden of proof shifts to the accused when the presumption is not triggered.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 304B, 498A
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304B
- presumption of guilt
- evidentiary burden
- acquittal
- circumstantial evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.206 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2013 Thana- BEGUSARAI GRP CASE District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Amritpal Singh Son of Amrik Singh Resident of Village - Amardas Colony,
Chhehara, District-Amritsar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 23-03-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2015 and order of sentence
dated 18.12.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2014
arising out of Barauni Rail Case No. 76 of 2013 whereby the
sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 304B, 498A
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years
and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and in default of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
2/9
three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All sentences have
been directed to run concurrently.
3. In this case, initially, a U.D. case was registered
by the Gajipur Rail Police on 25.09.2013 under Section 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, converted into a
regular case on the statement of the informant, namely
Saweeran Singh, who identified the dead body of the deceased
as his daughter and thereafter, the case was transferred before
the Barauni Rail Police and Barauni Rail Case No. 76 of 2013
was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B,
498A, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case, charge-sheet
was submitted by the investigating officer only against this
appellant, who happens to be husband of the deceased and
accordingly, cognizance was taken on 14.02.2014 and case was
committed before the learned Sessions Court on 01.03.2014.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of
daughter of informant was solemnized with this appellant on
24.02.2013 and thereafter, she went to her in-laws house and
after a few days, informed the informant over phone that this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
3/9
appellant and his family members are demanding a vehicle and
one lakh rupees cash as dowry and are assaulting and torturing
her. The informant persuaded this appellant to meet out his
demands later on. After a few days, the victim again informed
over phone that this appellant has been torturing her due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry. Later on, this appellant took the
daughter of informant to Assam and from there also, the victim
informed the informant and her brother that this appellant has
continuously been torturing and assaulting her. Thereafter, on
23.09.2013, the victim informed that informant that she is
coming back home along with this appellant and on 25.09.2013
at about 6:10 PM, this appellant informed the son of informant
on phone that he had got down from the train for getting some
items but missed the train and the victim is going alone and
asked him to receive her at Amritsar. The informant firmly
believes that this appellant has killed his daughter by cutting her
neck with knife in the toilet of the running train due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry before calling on phone.
5. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the
accused person, the prosecution has examined two witnesses.
P.W. 1 is business partner of brother of the deceased and P.W. 2
is brother of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
4/9
6. On the other hand, the defence has not produced
any oral or documentary evidence. However, defence of the
appellant is gathered from the line of cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and is that of total denial of the
charges.
7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the
opening paragraph of this order.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant assails the order of conviction and sentence on
multiple grounds. He contends that P.W. 1, in chief of
examination, claimed himself to be cousin of the deceased but
during cross-examination, he accepted that he is business
partner of brother of the deceased. Thus, he has no concern with
the affairs of the deceased and her family members and is a
hearsay witness and not a reliable witness. P.W. 2 is also not a
reliable witness because he has neither lodged the F.I.R. nor
produced any corroborative evidence in support of the
allegations. Learned senior counsel further contends that the
prosecution has not exhibited the F.I.R., post mortem report or
inquest report and hence, the very basis of the case is not on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
5/9
record and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant
only on the basis of presumption under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act, which would not be attracted because initial
burden of proving the circumstances, as envisaged under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, rests on the prosecution.
He further contends that in this case, neither the informant nor
the investigating officer, doctor or seizure list witnesses have
been examined. Neither any corroborative document relating to
the prosecution case has been brought on record. Non-
examination of informant, Investigating Officer, doctor and
seizure list witnesses as well as not exhibiting any document
like the F.I.R., post mortem report, seizure list or inquest report
has highly prejudiced the case of prosecution and in fact, there
is no case against the appellant. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
6/9
cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection
with any demand of dowry.
9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
contends that in the present case, there is no proof on record
which can establish that there was any demand of dowry or
torture soon before the death. Thus, it is a case of no evidence
and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt and hence, the appellant is fit to be acquitted. In support
of his contentions, he places reliance upon judgments of this
Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Shivjee Sah and another
versus State of Bihar reported in 2021 (2) PLJR 374, Md.
Jamaluddin Khan @ Mohammad Jamaluddin Khan versus
The State of Bihar passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1190 of 2017
and Kaushaliya Devi and another versus The State of Bihar
passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1012 of 2006.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State
has submitted that there is no need of any interference in this
appeal since the prosecution witnesses have supported the
corroborated the prosecution story and there is no reason to
differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the
judgement of conviction and order of sentence are justified and
legal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
7/9
11. From going through the evidence and perusal of
the records, it appears that none of the two 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. Informant,
Investigating Officer, doctor or seizure list witnesses have not
been examined. F.I.R., post mortem report or inquest report have
not been brought on record. In my view, the Investigating
Officer is a material witness and 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. Non-examination of the doctor has also
made the case of the prosecution doubtful.
12. 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
Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. Such
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
8/9
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.
13. 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
necessary ingredient to bring guilt of the accused under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code. Since one of the essential
ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is absent
on record, in my view, the appellant cannot be convicted under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, in this case,
F.I.R., post mortem report and inquest report are not on record.
The Investigating Officer, informant, doctor and seizure list
witnesses have also not been examined.
14. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, as discussed above, it is not sufficient to come to a
conclusion that this appellant committed dowry death due to
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
15. It is well established rule of law that in case of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.206 of 2016(7) dt.23-03-2026
9/9
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.
16. In that view of the matter, the judgment of
conviction dated 17.12.2015 and order of sentence dated
18.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Begusarai in connection with Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2014
arising out of Barauni Rail P.S. Case No. 76 of 2013 are hereby
set aside.
17. Appellant is acquitted of all the charges and is
discharged from the liability of the bail bond in connection with
this case.
18. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…