Patna High Court
MUKESH PASWANversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The conviction under Section 304‑B IPC was set aside and the appellant was acquitted due to lack of proof of dowry‑related cruelty and causal link to death.
Summary
Mukesh Paswan was convicted by the Sessions Court for dowry death under Section 304‑B IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution relied on the informant’s fardbayan, several eye‑witnesses and a post‑mortem report, but the High Court found serious contradictions in the testimonies, no contemporaneous police report, no forensic proof of kerosene, and no evidence of dowry demand or proximate link between alleged cruelty and death. The Court held that the essential ingredients of a dowry death – prior cruelty linked to dowry demand and a causal connection to the death – were not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt. The appellant was ordered to be released from custody.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the elements required under Section 304‑B IPC, namely prior cruelty related to dowry demand and a causal link to the death.
- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction for dowry death.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 302, 304-B, 34, 506
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304-B
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal
- evidence contradictions
- criminal appeal
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2666 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2017 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
MUKESH PASWAN Son of Suresh Paswan Resident of Village - Imamnagar,
Surari, Police Station- Halsi, District - Lakhisarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Ankita Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Anita Kumari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 12-05-2026
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgement of conviction, dated 16.06.2022
and the order of sentence, dated 18.06.2022, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lakhisarai, in Sessions Trial No.
No. 23 of 2019, arising out of Halsi Police Station Case No. 112 of
2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Following his conviction under Section 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and fine of Rs.
5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been
further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
2/22
3. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the accused Rajesh Paswan and Lagni Devi,
giving them the benefit of doubt.
4. The prosecution case, based on the basis of fardbayan
of the informant, Jitendra Paswan, recorded at Patna Medical
College and Hospital, Patna, on 11.11.2017, unfolds that the
daughter of the informant (now, deceased) was married one and a
half years ago to the appellant. After the marriage, the in-laws of
the deceased used to pressurize the deceased to bring money and
due to non-fulfillment of the demand, all the accused persons,
including the appellant, started torturing the deceased. On
02.11.2017, at about 07:30 PM, the appellant (son-in-law of the
informant) called him and threatened him to mend his daughter,
otherwise he will do it. Just after ten minute, the informant came to
know that all the accused persons have set the deceased on fire by
sprinkling kerosene oil upon her and they have taken her to
Sheikhpura for treatment. The informant met his daughter in the
Sheikhpura Hospital, upon which the deceased disclosed before
him that these people have done this. From Sheikhpura, she was
referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, where, in
course of treatment, the daughter of the informant died on
11.11.2017.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
3/22
5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbayan, Halsi Police
Station Case No. 112 of 2017, dated 02.12.2017, was registered
against the appellant and others for the offence punishable under
Sections under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted on 31.07.2018 against the appellant and accused Rajesh
Paswan under Sections 304-B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, keeping the
investigation pending against other accused persons. On
31.09.2019, the Investigating Officer submitted supplementary
charge sheet against accused Lagni Devi, under Sections 304-
B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, and rest accused persons were not sent up for
facing trial.
7. After submission of the first charge sheet on
31.07.2018, cognizance of the offences was taken on 27.08.2018
against the appellant and accused Rajesh Paswan under Sections
under Section 304-B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhisarai.
8. After cognizance, the trial of the appellant and
accused Rajesh Paswan were separated and the case was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
4/22
committed to the Court of Sessions, vide order, dated 01.02.2019,
giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2019.
9. On submission of the supplementary charge sheet on
31.01.2019, cognizance of the offences was taken on 28.03.2019
against the accused Lagni Devi under Sections 304-B/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Lakhisarai, and
her case was committed to the Court of Sessions, vide order, dated
05.04.2019, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2019.
10. Thereafter, on 12.03.2019, the learned Trial Court
framed charges against the appellant and accused Rajesh Paswan
under Sections 304-B read with Section 149 and Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Against accused Lagni
Devi, the learned Trial Court framed charges on 06.05.2019 under
Sections 304-B read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. After framing of the charges, the charges were read
over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. Later on, Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2019 was
amalgamated in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2019.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
5/22
13. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, has
examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited some
documents on its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and exhibits
are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses :
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
1. Mukhlal Paswan Eye-witness
2. Jitendra Paswan Informant
3. Ram Khelawan Paswan Eye-witness
4. Shivnath Mandal Eye-witness
5. Subelal Paswan Eye-witness
6. Dinesh Prasad Singh Investigating Officer
7. Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar Doctor
List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution :
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Date
No.
1 Signature of the informant on the 17.09.2019
fardbayan
2 Signature of the informant on the 17.09.2019
inquest report
1/1 Registration of case by Officer-in- 23.01.2020
charge, Raj Kumar
3 Formal First Information Report 23.01.2020
4 Handwriting and signature of I.O. 23.01.2020
Dinesh Prasad Singh on the first
charge sheet
4/1 Signature of Sitaram Singh on the 23.01.2020
charge sheet
4/2 Handwriting and signature of I.O. 23.01.2020
Dinesh Prasad Singh on the
supplementary charge sheet
4/3 Signature of Officer-in-charge 23.01.2020
Rajiv Kumar on supplementary
charge sheet
5 Post mortem examination report 10.12.2021
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
6/22
14. The appellant was, then, examined under Section
313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his
examination aforementioned, the appellant denied that he had
committed the offences, which were alleged to have been
committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial.
15. Neither any witness has been adduced on behalf of
the defence nor produced any document.
16. Having, however, found the appellant guilty of the
offences charged with, he has been convicted accordingly and
sentence has been passed against him as have been mentioned
above.
17. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted, at the very outset, that the judgment of
conviction is against the weight of evidence and has been passed
merely upon presumption of guilt. There are glaring contradictions
in the depositions of all the prosecution witness. The alleged
occurrence has taken place on 02.11.2017, and though, according
to the informant, he has full knowledge of the occurrence on the
date of occurrence itself, the informant gave his fardbayan on
11.11.2017, i.e. after the death of the informant’s daughter. The
informant and/or other family members of the informant did not
bother to inform the police about the alleged unnatural death of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
7/22
the daughter of the informant on the date of occurrence or on the
following date. It has been claimed by the uncle of the deceased
(PW 1) that the deceased disclosed before him when he had gone
to the matrimonial home of the deceased on the date of occurrence
itself after getting information of the occurrence that the appellant
and others have burnt her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. On
this information also, no one from the side of the informant
informed the police, which itself creates serious doubt over the
veracity of the prosecution story.
18. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that in the deposition of the doctor (PW 7), it has not
come that the deceased was burnt by pouring kerosene oil. The
Investigating Officer (PW 6) has also not found kerosene oil at the
place of occurrence.
19. Learned Counsel concluded his argument by
submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction is fit to be
set aside as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts. Not only this, the appellant has also
succeeded in proving his innocence.
20. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State
argued that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
8/22
have supported the prosecution case and no interference is
warranted by this Court.
21. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and
learned Counsel for the State and have also gone through the
entire materials available on record.
22. In order to give my conclusive finding, it is
necessary to analyze and discuss the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and the other documents, which were exhibited.
23. In order to appreciate the evidence adduced by the
prosecution against the appellant, I would like to first take note of
the evidence of the PW 2, the informant of this case, who is the
father of the deceased.
24. PW 2, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that
the occurrence is of 02.11.2017. On that date, he was in his home
when his son-in-law, the appellant, called and said ‘ask your
daughter to mend her behaviour, otherwise, he would do it’. After
half an hour, the appellant called him on his mobile and told him
that his daughter has been burnt.
25. This witness (PW 2) has further deposed that his
paternal uncle's father-in-law (Fufera Sasur) lives in village
Bachhiya Bigha, which is situated next to the village of the
appellant, whom he informed about the occurrence and told him to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
9/22
go and see his daughter. When the paternal uncle's father-in-law of
the informant (PW 2) reached the village of the deceased, he saw
the deceased in burnt condition, rolling on the ground. Then, this
witness called the appellant and told him to take her for treatment,
whereafter the appellant took her to Sheikhpura Nursing Home for
treatment and due to her serious condition, the deceased was
referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, and the
appellant took her to Patna for treatment.
26. This witness (PW 2) further deposed that two days
after the occurrence, he went to Patna to see her daughter, where
he saw that her daughter was restless due to the burn injuries and
further the deceased disclosed before him that Mukesh Paswan
(the appellant), Suresh Paswan, Suma Devi, Lagni Devi, Baby
Devi, Satyendra Paswan, and Upendra Paswan, all set her on fire
by pouring kerosene oil upon her. When his daughter died on
11.11.2017 in the hospital at Patna, the appellant fled away from
there.
27. This witness (PW 2) further deposed that he gave his
fardbayan before a Police Officer and he also identified his
signature on the fardbayan, which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
He further deposed that an inquest report was also prepared at
Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, upon which he has put
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
10/22
his signature. This witness has identified his signature on the
inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-2.
28. During cross-examination on behalf of the appellant,
this witness (PW 2) has deposed that after getting the news of
burning of his daughter, this witness neither went to see her at her
place nor anyone from his family went to see her either and when
the deceased was admitted to Sheikhpura Nursing Home, his
brother went to see the deceased there and returned back in the
same night to his village. The informant’s brother had told him
that the deceased was being treated at Vibha Nursing Home. He
further deposed that when he got the news of his daughter's
burning, he did not inform the occurrence to the police station.
29. This witness (PW 2) has further deposed that when
he went to see the deceased at Patna Medical College and
Hospital, Patna, the appellant was there and her daughter told him
that she was burnt by the accused persons.
30. This witness (PW 2) denied the suggestion of the
defence that his daughter burnt while cooking and it is also not
true that the deceased was burnt upto 99 per cent and was unable
to speak.
31. Coming to the deposition of one of the eye-
witnesses to the occurrence, PW 1, the uncle of the deceased and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
11/22
the brother of the informant (PW 2), in his examination-in-chief,
has stated that his niece, the deceased, was married with the
appellant about three years ago and after the marriage, she used to
tell that her in-laws used to demand money, and for that she was
harassed also. He further deposed that about one and a half years
after the marriage, an information was given by the appellant over
phone that the deceased had been burnt and was taken to
Sheikhpura for treatment, from where, seeing her serious
condition, she was referred to Patna Medical College and
Hospital, Patna, he went to Sheikhpura hospital to meet her, where
the deceased disclosed before her that her husband the appellant),
father-in-law (Suresh Paswan), elder brother-in-law (bhaisur),
mother-in-law, younger brother-in-law (devar), sister-in-law
(nanad), and others had burnt her. Upon receiving the news of her
death, this witness went to Patna.
32. This witness identified the appellant who was
present in the court, and stated that he is the husband of the
deceased. This witness also claimed to identify the other accused,
Suresh Paswan, who was on representation. However, this witness
could not identify the other two accused persons
33. During cross-examination on behalf of the appellant,
this witness has deposed that along with him, father of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
12/22
deceased and one or two other women had also gone to the in-
laws' house in the night.
34. This witness (PW 1) further deposed that his niece
stayed in the Sheikhpura hospital for about half an hour and after
that, the appellant, the informant and others took her to Patna
Medical College and Hospital, Patna, in a Bolero vehicle.
35. This witness further deposed that when he went to
the matrimonial home of the deceased, he did not see any stove.
And further denied the suggestion of the defence that his niece got
burnt while cooking and had given his evidence falsely out of
malice.
36. PW 3, Ram Khelawan Paswan, is the neighbour of
the appellant and in his deposition, he has stated that the
occurrence is about one and a half years old, at night and at that
time, he was at his home and on hearing hulla, he went to the
house of the appellant and saw that the appellant's wife was
burning. The appellant and his father took the deceased to
Sheikhpura for treatment, and from there, they took her to Patna
for better treatment, but the appellant’s wife died in Patna during
treatment.
37. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 3) has
deposed that at the time when he went to the house of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
13/22
appellant, the appellant and his father were not present in the
house and the deceased was alive, who was saying that while
cooking food on a mud stove with straw, her body caught fire.
38. This witness has further deposed that the
relationship of deceased with the appellant and his family was
good and there was no dispute between the husband and wife and
the occurrence had taken place due to an accident while cooking
food.
39. PW 4, Shivnath Mandal is the son of PW 3 and is
also a neighbour of the appellant. He, in his deposition, has stated
that on the hulla, he reached the house of the appellant, where he
saw that the deceased was burning, due to which she was
screaming and the fire caught while cooking with hay.
40. On the request of the prosecution, this witness was
declared hostile.
41. In the cross-examination by the defence, this witness
has deposed that at the time when the deceased was burning, the
appellant and/or his family members were not present in the house
42. PW 5, Nandlal Paswan, is the brother of the
appellant. He, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that in the
evening of the alleged occurrence, he was in his house and the
deceased came out of the house in burnt state. He further deposed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
14/22
that the clothes of the deceased caught fire while cooking with
straw. This witness has also been declared hostile on the request of
the prosecution.
43. According to the evidence of the doctor (PW 7), he
found, on conducting post mortem examination on the dead body
of Sulekha Devi, wife of the appellant, as follows:
“External appearance: Average built, rigor
mortis present all over the body, eyes and mouth close,
burn area bandage, no decomposition, singeing of scalp
and axiliary hairs.
Cranial and Spinal Canal: Brain congested
edematous
Thorax: Bilateral lung congested, edematou
with patchy consolidation oozing foul smell, froth on
cutting. Heart- left chamber empty, right little blood.
Abdomen: All the internal organs congested.
Stomach contain cream colour pasty material about 100
gms. Bladder empty. Uterus – normal
Thermo-epidermal burn involving lower face,
neck, front and back of chest and abdomen, left upper
limb including palm, right upper limb eexcluding hand
and left thigh. Dark brown crusts were present at places.
Burn areas were infected with pus. Sperficial sloughs
were present at places.
Opinion:- 1. The above noted burn injuries
were ante mortem
2. caused by flame burn
3. death was due to burn and its complications
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
15/22
4. Time elapsed since death was within 24
ours (approx) from the time of post mortem examination
5. A tuft of hair and body swab was preserved
for FSL examination to detect any inflammable
substance, if any. The preserved sample was handed to
the police Agencies.”
44. It is noteworthy that the doctor (PW 7) could not
give any definite opinion with regard to the use of inflammable
substance and, therefore, viscera was preserved for chemical
examination. The post mortem report stands proved as Exhibit-5.
No finding, on the viscera, which had been preserved, has been
brought to the evidence on record.
45. In the backdrop of what has been pointed out above,
it is not only difficult, but wholly impossible to infer, far less hold,
that the death of appellant’s wife was homicidal in nature with
kerosene oil.
46. PW 6, Sri Dinesh Prasad Singh, is the Investigating
Officer of this case. He, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed
that on 11.11.2017, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at
Halsi Police Station. On that day, the fardbeyan of informant
Jitendra Kumar was received at Halsi Police Station from
Pirbahore Police Station, Patna. After that, a formal F.I.R. was
registered by the then Station House Officer, Raj Kumar Prasad,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
16/22
based on the said fardbeyan. Based on the said formal F.I.R., Halsi
Police Station Case No. 112 of 2017, dated 02.12.2017, was
registered under Section- 04B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After
the registration of the formal F.I.R., the investigation of this case
was handed over to this witness.
47. This witness (PW 6) has further deposed that the
place of occurrence of this case is the house of the deceased,
which is made up of bricks and asbestos sheet, where the incident
of the deceased catching fire was stated.
48. This witness (PW 6), in his cross-examination on
behalf of appellant Mukesh Paswan, has deposed that he did not
find any inflammable substance or the smell of any flammable
substance at the place of occurrence. I did not prepare any sketch
map of the place of occurrence of this case. This witness has
recorded the statements of witnesses, namely, Subelal Paswan,
Dwarika Paswan. Shivnath Mandal. Ramkhelawan Paswan, at the
place of occurrence and witnesses, namely, Dwarika Paswan,
Subelal Paswan, Ramkhelawan Paswan, and Shivnath Mandal
gave statement at the place of occurrence that at the time of the
incident, the deceased was cooking food on a straw stove and
while cooking food, she burnt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
17/22
49. This witness has further disclosed that there is no
mentioning of any station diary entry in the case diary from the
date of burning of the deceased till her death in the hospital. After
burning, the deceased was treated at Sheikhpura and PMCH,
Patna, but no where the deceased has recorded her statement.
50. Four witnesses from the vicinity of the place of
occurrence, namely, Dwarika Paswan, Subelal Paswan, Shivnath
Mandal and Ramkhelawan Paswan, gave statements before this
witness that dowry was not demanded by the in-laws' side from
the deceased and her family.
51. In the cross-examination on behalf of accused
Rajesh Paswan, this wetness has deposed that he did not find any
remains of burning at the place of occurrence because the place of
occurrence had been cleaned and plastered.
52. After going through the evidence of the informant
(PW 2), it is evident that he got information of burning of his
daughter on the date of occurrence itself. At one place, this
witness has deposed that neither he nor any other from his family
went to see the deceased, on the other hand, he deposed that his
brother went to the see the deceased while she was admitted in the
hospital at Sheikhpura. When this witness went to Patna Medical
College and Hospital, Patna, to see the deceased, the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
18/22
disclosed before him that Mukesh Paswan (the appellant), Suresh
Paswan, Suma Devi, Lagni Devi, Baby Devi, Satyendra Paswan,
and Upendra Paswan, all set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil
upon her.
53. I find it quite improbable and unbelievable that a
father will get information of burning of his own daughter at the
hands of her in-laws and still he did not bother to inform the
Police about the occurrence. It is also improbable that if there is
demand of dowry by the deceased, torture was also there soon
before the occurrence and later on, she was burnt, yet the father
(PW 2) and/or his family members will not visit her at once and
went to see her ailing daughter on the third day of the occurrence.
54. After going through the entire deposition of this
witness (PW 1), I find glaring contradictions in the deposition of
this witness (PW 1) and also the deposition of the informant (PW
2). This witness (PW 1) stated that he, along with father of the
deceased and one or two other women had gone to the in-laws'
house in the night, whereas the informant (PW 2) had clearly
deposed that he or any other member of his family had not gone to
the matrimonial home of the deceased in the night.
55. Though this witness (PW 1) has deposed that the
appellant, the informant and others took the deceased to the Patna
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
19/22
Medical College and Hospital, Patna, in a Bolero vehicle; wheres
the informant (PW 2) has stated that the appellant and his family
members had taken the deceased to the Patna Medical College and
Hospital, Patna, and he did not go to Patna Medical College and
Hospital, Patna, in the night.
56. I find it quite improbable and unbelievable the
statement of the informant (PW 2) that after getting information of
burning of the deceased at the hands of her in-laws, this witness,
who is the own uncle of the deceased, did not inform the Police
about the occurrence when there was earlier demand of dowry and
kept mum till the death of the deceased.
57. The alleged occurrence took place on 02.11.2017,
and the fardbayan was recorded by the police at the Patna Medical
College and Hospital, Patna, on 11.11.2007, i.e. after 8-9 days of
the alleged occurrence, without any explanation, and after the
death of the deceased, though the informant side had full
knowledge of the occurrence. This also creates serious doubt on
the prosecution version.
58. I also find that the evidence of PW 3, a neighbour of
the appellant and eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, is in tune
with the earlier statement given before the police and he has not
been declared hostile by the prosecution. The deposition of PW 3
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
20/22
cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is the neighbour of
the appellant.
59. From the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2, it is
evident that the deceased was in a position to describe the entire
occurrence, which she did to her uncle (PW 1) and father (PW 2).
Had this part of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 is treated to be
reliable and the deceased was in a position to describe the entire
occurrence, she would have obviously disclosed it before the
doctor, who initially treated her at Sheikhpura Hospital and later
on, at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, where her
treatment continued for about 10-11 days, and knowing the factum
of burn at the hands of her in-laws, the doctors, without any
hesitation, would have obviously informed the police about the
occurrence at the initial stage of treatment itself.
60. The prosecution has not produced any such
documents, which would go to show that the deceased had ever
informed the doctors, either at Sheikhpur, or at Patna Medical
College and Hospital, Patna, that her in-laws had put her on fire
after pouring kerosene oil upon her.
61. In the opinion of this Court, this part of the evidence
of the uncle (PW 1) and father (PW 2) of the deceased is also not
reliable.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
21/22
62. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
am of the considered opinion that the appellant has successfully
proved that the essential ingredients required to constitute an
offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. the
existence of cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the
deceased in connection with the demand of dowry and the
existence of a proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty
and death, are missing in the present case.
63. Because of what have been discussed and pointed
out above, I am satisfied that the evidence on record is grossly
inadequate and did not meet the standard of proof, which is
insisted in a criminal trial, and, in a case of present nature, the
appellant could not have been convicted of the offence, which he
stood charged with. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, specially PW 1 and PW
2, which I have discussed above, ought to have accorded, at least,
benefit of doubt to the appellant.
64. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above,
this appeal succeeds. The impugned conviction of the appellant by
the judgment, under appeal, and the consequential sentence, passed
under the impugned order, are hereby set aside. The appellant is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2666 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
22/22
held not guilty of the offence, for which he stood convicted, and is
acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt.
65. The appellant is in custody. He is directed to be
released forthwith from custody unless he is required to be
detained in connection with any other criminal case.
66. The Registry is directed to return the Lower Court’s
Record forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 21-04-2026
Uploading Date 12-05-2026
Transmission Date 12-05-2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.