Patna High Court
NARESH MANDAL and ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court upheld the convictions under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 IPC, finding that the evidence established the required proximate link, and modified the sentences to the period already undergone.
Summary
The appellants, Naresh Mandal and Anil Mandal, were convicted for the dowry death of Guddi Devi under Section 304B IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 201 and 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded dowry and subjected the victim to cruelty, leading to her disappearance and presumed death, although her body was never recovered. The trial court relied on the testimonies of several relatives, including the victim's mother, brothers, aunt, and a cousin, while some witnesses were declared hostile. The High Court held that the cumulative evidence established a proximate link between the dowry‑related cruelty and the victim’s disappearance, satisfying the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, but the sentences of eight years and three years were reduced to the time already served, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304B IPC, including the requirement of cruelty "soon before" death and the applicability of the presumption under Section 113B.
- Whether the accused are liable under Sections 201 and 34 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.
- Whether the sentences imposed should be modified to reflect time already served.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 2
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304B IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 113B Evidence Act
- presumption of dowry death
- hostile witness
- conviction upheld
- sentence modification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.22 of 2012
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2005 Thana- HABIBPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. NARESH MANDAL S/O Late Sitaram Mandal R/O Satghara, P.S.
Habibpur, Distt. Bhagalpur.
2. Anil Mandal S/O Naresh Mandal R/O Satghara, P.S. Habibpur, Distt.
Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Ojaswee Kumari, Advocate
Mr.Shivam Aniket, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2026
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
appellants and learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction dated 09.12.2011 and order of sentence dated
15.12.2011 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1484/2005 and
1485/2005, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
2/22
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for six months. They have further
been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
Saraswati Devi lodged a written report alleging that her
daughter Guddi Devi was married with appellant no.2 in the
year 2001 by way of court marriage. After the marriage, the
appellants started demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, television
and sewing machine and subjected the deceased to cruelty for
non-fulfillment of the same. On 07.03.2005, appellant no.2
informed the informant that her daughter had fled away from the
matrimonial home and advised not to disclose the same.
Thereafter, despite search, the deceased could not be traced and
suspicion was raised that the appellants had caused her death
and disposed of the dead body.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report,
Habibpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2005 was instituted and after
investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The case was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
3/22
committed to the Court of Sessions and both the sessions trials
arising out of the same police case were amalgamated and tried
together.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
is wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts. It is submitted
that out of eleven prosecution witnesses, a majority of the
independent witnesses have been declared hostile and have not
supported the prosecution case. The entire case rests upon
interested witnesses, namely the informant and her relatives,
whose testimonies suffer from material inconsistencies and lack
of specific allegations regarding cruelty “soon before death”.
6. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-
witness to the occurrence and admittedly the dead body of the
deceased has not been recovered till date. The prosecution has
failed to establish the foundational facts required for invoking
the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
The consistent defence of the appellants has been that the
deceased had fled away from the matrimonial home, which is
supported by the conduct of appellant no.2, who himself
informed the informant regarding the missing of his wife.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
4/22
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the marriage
was a court marriage and both parties belonged to the same
village and were living together with two children. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The
appellants have remained in custody since 09.12.2011 and the
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and
appellant no.1 was released on bail vide order dated 23.02.2012
and appellant no.2 on 20.08.2014.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State submitted that the learned trial court, after appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
convicted the appellants. The evidence of the informant and
other family members clearly establishes demand of dowry and
cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her
disappearance. The occurrence having taken place within seven
years of marriage and the circumstances indicating unnatural
disappearance of the deceased, the presumption under Section
113B of the Evidence Act has rightly been invoked by the
learned trial court. It is thus submitted that no interference is
warranted by this Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
5/22
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. Heard the parties.
10. 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.
11. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials
as collected during the course of investigation, passed by the
judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2011 and order of sentence
dated 15.12.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304
B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
12. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether eleven witnesses, namely:
1) P.W.1 Sanjay Mandal,
2) P.W.2 Sujit Kumar Mandal,
3) P.W.3 Chandan Mandal,
4) P.W.4 Draupadi Devi,
5) P.W.5 Jagdish Mandal,
6) P.W.6 Saraswati Devi (informant),
7) P.W.7- Binod Kumar Vijeta,
8) P.W.8 Pujari Prasad Singh,
9) P.W.9 Kiran Devi,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
6/22
10) P.W.10 Dashrath Mandal
11) P.W.11 Shyam Bihari Singh- (Investigating Officer).
13. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:
(i)Exhibit-1- Endorsement on the written report
(ii)Exhibit-1/1- Formal noting of registration
(iii)Exhibit-2- Formal First Information Report
14. Upon a meticulous examination of the record,
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
summarised as follows:
I. P.W.-1 Sanjay Mandal did not support the
prosecution case during trial and was declared hostile by the
prosecution. His evidence did not materially advance the
prosecution story regarding demand of dowry, cruelty, or the
alleged disappearance of the deceased Guddi Devi.
II. P.W.-2 Sumit Kumar Mandal, brother of the
deceased Guddi Devi, deposed that the marriage of the deceased
with accused Anil Mandal had taken place about four years prior
to the occurrence. He stated that accused Anil Mandal came to
his house and informed that Guddi Devi had fled away from her
matrimonial home and requested him not to disclose the said
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
7/22
fact to others. The witness further stated that the accused
persons used to demand dowry and harass his sister on account
of non-fulfillment of such demand. He also stated that he came
to know that the accused persons had caused the death of Guddi
Devi and had disposed of her dead body. In his cross-
examination, he stated that Guddi Devi was not happy in her
matrimonial home.
III. P.W.-3 Chandan Mandal, another brother of
the deceased, stated that after marriage Guddi Devi lived
peacefully in her matrimonial home only for about two to four
months, after which accused Anil Mandal started harassing her
due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. He stated that
although no occurrence had taken place in his presence, he
suspected the family members of accused Anil Mandal
regarding the disappearance and death of his sister. His
testimony supported the allegation of cruelty and harassment for
dowry.
IV. P.W.-4 Draupadi Devi, maternal aunt of the
deceased and sister of the informant, deposed that the marriage
between Guddi Devi and accused Anil Mandal had taken place
and two children were born out of the wedlock. She stated that
after about six months of marriage, accused Anil Mandal began
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
8/22
assaulting and harassing Guddi Devi for dowry. She further
stated that demands for money, motorcycle and sewing machine
were made from the deceased and her family members. The
witness also alleged that accused persons had murdered Guddi
Devi and disposed of her dead body. She further stated that
despite search, the dead body of Guddi Devi could not be
traced.
V. P.W.-5 Jagdish Mandal did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile. His testimony did not
substantiate the allegations made by the prosecution regarding
dowry demand or cruelty.
VI. P.W.-6 Saraswati Devi, mother of the
deceased and informant of the case, fully supported the
prosecution case. She stated that the accused persons used to
assault her daughter and demand dowry in the form of
Rs.50,000/-, a motorcycle and a sewing machine. She further
deposed that when she visited the matrimonial home of her
daughter, the accused persons threatened that unless the
demanded dowry articles were provided, they would kill Guddi
Devi. She alleged that thereafter the accused persons murdered
her daughter and caused disappearance of the dead body. She
also stated that the dead body of Guddi Devi could never be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
9/22
recovered. During cross-examination, though certain
inconsistencies regarding dates were pointed out, the witness
maintained the allegations of dowry demand and harassment.
VII. P.W.-7 Binod Kumar Vijeta deposed that
Guddi Devi was married to accused Anil Mandal in the year
2001 and stated that accused Anil Mandal had killed Guddi Devi
and disposed of her dead body. In cross-examination, he
admitted that the deceased was his maternal cousin sister. He
also stated that he had made similar statements before the police
during investigation.
VIII. P.W.-8 Pujari Prasad Singh did not materially
support the prosecution case and his evidence did not
substantially contribute towards proving the allegations against
the accused persons.
IX. P.W.-9 Kiran Devi, though declared hostile
by the prosecution, partially supported the prosecution case. She
stated that on the night of the occurrence, while returning from
the market at about 8–9 P.M., she heard some women discussing
that Guddi Devi had refused to cook food and thereafter some
quarrel had taken place in the matrimonial home. Her testimony
indicated that some dispute had occurred in the house of the
accused persons on the night of the occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
10/22
X. P.W.-10 Dasharath Mandal did not substantially
support the prosecution case and his testimony did not
materially establish the allegations relating to dowry demand,
cruelty, or disappearance of the deceased.
XI. P.W.-11 Shyam Bihari Singh, the
Investigating Officer of the case, proved the fardbeyan
endorsement and formal FIR, which were marked as Exhibits 1,
1/1 and 2 respectively. He deposed regarding the steps taken
during investigation, inspection of the place of occurrence, and
recording of statements of witnesses. He also stated that after
the occurrence the accused persons had absconded from their
house. The witness supported the prosecution case by
corroborating the statements made by witnesses during
investigation and proved the investigation conducted by him.
15. On the basis of materials surfaced during the
trial, the appellants/accused was examined under Section 313 of
the Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
LAW GOVERNING DOWRY DEATH
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
provisions of Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
11/22
Code for the sake of convenience and better understanding:
“Sections 304B- 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
purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 (28 of 1961).”
Section 201 IPC Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—
Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any
evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear,
with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be
false;if a capital offence.— shall, if the offence which he
knows or believes to have been committed is punishable
with death, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with
imprisonment for life.— and if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which
may extend to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;if
punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.— and
if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any
term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of the description provided for the offence,
for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the
longest term of the imprisonment provided for the
offence, or with fine, or with both.”
17. The essential ingredients for attracting the
offence under Section 304-B IPC, as consistently laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, require the following conditions to
be cumulatively satisfied:
(i) that the death of a woman has been caused by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
12/22
burns or bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
(ii) that such death has occurred within a period of
seven years of her marriage;
(iii) that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or his relatives soon before her
death; and
(iv) that such cruelty or harassment was in
connection with, or in furtherance of, a demand for dowry and it
is only upon the strict establishment of all the aforesaid
ingredients that the offence under Section 304-B IPC can be
said to be made out and the presumption under Section 113-B of
the Evidence Act can be invoked.
18. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex
Court in case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6
SCC 477 reported in para nos. has held inter alia as under:
8. A perusal of Section 2 shows that this
definition can be broken into six distinct parts:
(1) Dowry must first consist of any
property or valuable security— the word “any” is a
word of width and would, therefore, include within it
property and valuable security of any kind
whatsoever.
(2) Such property or security can be
given or even agreed to be given. The actual giving
of such property or security is, therefore, not
necessary.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
13/22
(3) Such property or security can be
given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly.
(4) Such giving or agreeing to give can
again be not only by one party to a marriage to the
other but also by the parents of either party or by
any other person to either party to the marriage or
to any other person. It will be noticed that this
clause again widens the reach of the Act insofar as
those guilty of committing the offence of giving or
receiving dowry is concerned.
(5) Such giving or agreeing to give can
be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time
after the marriage. Thus, it can be many years after
a marriage is solemnised.
(6) Such giving or receiving must be in
connection with the marriage of the parties.
Obviously, the expression “in connection with”
would in the context of the social evil sought to be
tackled by the Dowry Prohibition Act mean “in
relation with” or “relating to”.
9. The ingredients of the offence under
Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in
many judgments. There are four such ingredients
and they are said to be:
(a) death of a woman must have been
caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death
must have occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances;
(b) such death must have occurred
within seven years of her marriage;
(c) soon before her death, she must have
been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband; and
(d) such cruelty or harassment must be
in connection with the demand for dowry.
21. Coming now to the other important
ingredient of Section 304-B—what exactly is meant
by “soon before her death”?
22. This Court in Surinder Singh v. State
of Haryana [(2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri)
769] had this to say : (SCC pp. 137-39, paras 17-
18)22. This Court in Surinder Singh v. State of
Haryana [(2014) 4 SCC 129 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri)
769] had this to say : (SCC pp. 137-39, paras 17-
18)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
14/22
17. “Thus, the words ‘soon before’
appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872
and also in Section 304-B IPC. For the
presumptions contemplated under these sections to
spring into action, it is necessary to show that the
cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the
death. The interpretation of the words ‘soon before’
is, therefore, important. The question is how ‘soon
before’? This would obviously depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or
harassment differs from case to case. It relates to
the mindset of people which varies from person to
person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical.
Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be
verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or
humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of
injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be
depriving her of economic resources or essential
amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her
movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the
outside world. The list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating
or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman.
Every such instance of cruelty and related
harassment has a different impact on the mind of a
woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have
a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which
degrade her dignity may remain etched in her
memory for a long time. Therefore, ‘soon before’ is
a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot
have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from
case to case. This must be kept in mind while
examining each case of dowry death.
18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment
of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000)
5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court
considered the term ‘soon before’. The relevant
observations are as under : (SCC pp. 222-23, para
15)
‘15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not
synonymous with the term “immediately before”
and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as
used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a)
of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that
the interval should not be too long between the time
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
15/22
of making the statement and the death. It
contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier
noticed, has to be understood and determined under
the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation
to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the
existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased
are not restricted to a particular instance but
normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct
may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty
or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to
have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon
before death” if any other intervening circumstance
showing the non-existence of such treatment is not
brought on record, before such alleged treatment
and the date of death. It does not, however, mean
that such time can be stretched to any period.
Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the consequential
death is required to be proved by the prosecution.
The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based
upon such demand and the date of death should not
be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.’
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such
demand and the date of death. The test of proximity
will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of
the court within the confines of law.”
17. “Thus, the words ‘soon before’ appear in
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in
Section 304-B IPC. For the presumptions
contemplated under these sections to spring into
action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or
harassment was caused soon before the death. The
interpretation of the words ‘soon before’ is,
therefore, important. The question is how ‘soon
before’? This would obviously depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or
harassment differs from case to case. It relates to
the mindset of people which varies from person to
person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical.
Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be
verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or
humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of
injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be
depriving her of economic resources or essential
amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her
movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
16/22
outside world. The list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating
or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman.
Every such instance of cruelty and related
harassment has a different impact on the mind of a
woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have
a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which
degrade her dignity may remain etched in her
memory for a long time. Therefore, ‘soon before’ is
a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot
have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from
case to case. This must be kept in mind while
examining each case of dowry death.
18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment
of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000)
5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court
considered the term ‘soon before’. The relevant
observations are as under : (SCC pp. 222-23, para
15)
‘15. … “Soon before” is a relative term which is
required to be considered under specific
circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of
proximity test. The term “soon before” is not
synonymous with the term “immediately before”
and is opposite of the expression “soon after” as
used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a)
of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that
the interval should not be too long between the time
of making the statement and the death. It
contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier
noticed, has to be understood and determined under
the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation
to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the
existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased
are not restricted to a particular instance but
normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct
may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty
or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to
have persisted, it shall be deemed to be “soon
before death” if any other intervening circumstance
showing the non-existence of such treatment is not
brought on record, before such alleged treatment
and the date of death. It does not, however, mean
that such time can be stretched to any period.
Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the consequential
death is required to be proved by the prosecution.
The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based
upon such demand and the date of death should not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
17/22
be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale
enough.’
Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of
dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such
demand and the date of death. The test of proximity
will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of
the court within the confines of law.”
19. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case
of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra and Anr. reported in
(2022) 5 SCC 401.
20. The record reveals that P.W.-1 Sanjay Mandal
and P.W.-5 Jagdish Mandal were declared hostile during the
trial as they did not support the prosecution case on material
particulars, and nothing substantive transpired from their
testimonies which could be said to corroborate or lend assurance
to the version of the other prosecution witnesses. Their evidence
does not support the prosecution case with regard to the
allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, or the alleged
disappearance of the deceased. Therefore, the testimonies of
these witnesses are not relevant qua establishing the guilt of the
accused/appellants.
21. The conviction of the appellants has been
sustained primarily on the testimonies of P.W.-2 Sumit Kumar
Mandal, P.W.-3 Chandan Mandal, P.W.-4 Draupadi Devi,
P.W.-6 Saraswati Devi (informant) and P.W.-7 Binod Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
18/22
Vijeta, who have consistently stated that after the marriage of
the deceased Guddi Devi with appellant no.2, she was subjected
to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of
dowry demands, including cash, motorcycle and sewing
machine. These witnesses have further deposed that the
deceased was not happy in her matrimonial home and was
frequently assaulted and threatened by the accused persons, and
that subsequently she went missing under suspicious
circumstances, leading to the allegation that the appellants had
caused her death and disposed of the dead body. Their
testimonies, thus, form the basis for sustaining the conviction of
the accused/appellants.
22. From the perusal of the records and facts and
circumstances of the present case and in light of consistent
observation and the view of the Court and the expression
“dowry” under Section 304-B IPC must receive a broad and
purposive construction so as to effectuate the legislative intent
of eradicating the social evil of dowry deaths, and any demand
for money or valuable security having a nexus with the marital
relationship, even if made subsequent to the marriage, would
fall within its sweep; however, for the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act to arise, the prosecution is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
19/22
obligated to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection
with such demand “soon before her death” and that there existed
a proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty and the
death and in the absence of such foundational facts, mere
general or omnibus allegations would not suffice to sustain a
conviction under Section 304-B IPC, and the Court must,
therefore, exercise due circumspection in evaluating the
evidence so as to ensure that the statutory presumption is not
invoked in a mechanical manner but only upon strict satisfaction
of the requirements contemplated by law.
WHETHER PROSECUTION PROVED THEIR
CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?
23. It is observed that merely because P.W.-1 Sanjay
Mandal and P.W.-5 Jagdish Mandal have turned hostile, or that
P.W.-8 Pujari Prasad Singh and P.W.-10 Dasharath Mandal have
not fully supported the prosecution case, the otherwise
consistent and reliable testimonies of the material witnesses
cannot be discarded. The evidence of P.W.-9 Kiran Devi, though
declared hostile, lends partial corroboration by indicating that a
quarrel had taken place in the matrimonial home on the night of
occurrence. Further, the Investigating Officer, P.W.-11 Shyam
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
20/22
Bihari Singh, has duly proved the fardbeyan and formal FIR and
has supported the prosecution case with regard to the
investigation conducted. Thus, the cumulative effect of the
evidence on record establishes a proximate and live link
between the cruelty for dowry and the disappearance of the
deceased, and in such circumstances, the statutory presumption
under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act stands attracted, which
the defence has failed to rebut, thereby fully justifying the
conviction of the appellants.
24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
and in the light of the settled legal principles and law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh (supra) and
Jogendra (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and
has correctly convicted the appellants. The prosecution has
successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, particularly
that the deceased Guddi Devi was subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before her
disappearance. The testimonies of P.W.-2 Sumit Kumar Mandal,
P.W.-3 Chandan Mandal, P.W.-4 Draupadi Devi, P.W.-6
Saraswati Devi (informant) and P.W.-7 Binod Kumar Vijeta
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
21/22
consistently disclose that after the marriage, the deceased was
subjected to persistent harassment and cruelty on account of
non-fulfillment of dowry demands, including cash, motorcycle
and sewing machine, and that she was not living happily in her
matrimonial home, ultimately leading to her disappearance
under suspicious circumstances. Significantly, despite sustained
search, the dead body of the victim could not be recovered,
which lends further credence to the prosecution case regarding
her unnatural disappearance of body.
25. In facts of the case, this Court don’t find any
reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants which is
upheld but the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8
years under section 304-B I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for
3 years under section 201/34 I.P.C. is modified to the period
already undergone by the appellants in custody i.e. four and half
years. Since the appellants is on bail, as such, they are
discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. The fine
deposited by the appellants, if any, shall be refunded to them.
26. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly
allowed.
27. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.22 of 2012 dt.07-05-2026
22/22
below forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 23.04.2026
Uploading Date 07.05.2026
Transmission Date 07.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.