Patna High Court
MD. MANZARUL HAQUE @ MAJRUL HAQUE and ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The convictions under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 IPC are set aside due to failure to prove the essential ingredients, and the appellants are acquitted.
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court for dowry death under IPC Section 304B and for causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 201 and 34, receiving ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. They appealed, contending that the trial court ignored serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence, including testimonies that the deceased died of illness and the lack of any corroborated dowry demand or cruelty "soon before" death. The High Court examined the witness statements, noting that key witnesses were hostile, the investigating officer could not locate the burial site, and no independent evidence linked the accused to the death. Applying the Supreme Court's test for the ingredients of a dowry death, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty, the proximate link, and the statutory presumption under Section 113B. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the essential ingredients of an offence under IPC Section 304B, including cruelty "soon before" death and a proximate link to dowry demand.
- Whether the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be invoked in the present case.
- Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 201 and 34 of the IPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of contradictory witness testimony and investigative deficiencies.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 374(2), 389(1)
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 2
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304B
- Section 201
- Section 34
- presumption under Section 113B
- insufficient evidence
- acquittal
- criminal appeal
- proximate link
- evidence contradictions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.467 of 2011
======================================================
1. MD. MANZARUL HAQUE @ MAJRUL HAQUE and ORS. S/O Late
Md.Madni Resident Of Village- Pachhi, P.S.- Madhepur, District-
Madhubani
2. Md.Mahfazul Haque @ Mahfuzul Haque S/O Late Md. Madni Resident Of
Village- Pachhi, P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani
3. Zohra Khatoon W/O Late Md. Madni Resident Of Village- Pachhi, P.S.-
Madhepur, District- Madhubani
4. Subera Khatoon @ Sobaida Khatoon W/O Manjarul Haque Resident Of
Village- Pachhi, P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 602 of 2011
======================================================
MD. MASUDUL HAQUE @ MASUDUL HAQUE S/O Md. Madni Resident
Of Village- Pachhi, P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 467 of 2011)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, App
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 602 of 2011)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, App
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, learned Senior
counsel along with Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
2/23
374 (2) and 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.03.2011 and
order of sentence dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Madhubani in S.T. No.373/2008 and 374/2008 in
connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 58/07 dated
22.03.2007, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 B and
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant nos. 1 and 2 of
Cr. App. (SJ) No.467 of 2011 along with the appellant
(Masudual Haque) of Cr. App. (SJ) No.602 of 2011 have been
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for
offencce u/s 304-B along with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and
simple imprisonment for one year for offence u/s 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and sentenced appellant nos.3 and
4 of Cr. App. (SJ) No.467 of 2011, RI for seven years for
offence u/s 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and SI for one year
for offence u/s 201/34 of the Indian Penal and directed the
sentences of the appellant and others convicted to run
concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
3/23
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.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Ali
Mohammad gave his statement before the police on 22.03.2007
alleging, inter alia, that his deceased daughter, Mursilah
Parween, was married to Masudul Haque on 21.02.2006 in
accordance with Muslim customs and thereafter resided at her
matrimonial home with her husband and other in-laws,
including Rashid Hussain, where relations remained cordial for
about six months, however, subsequently, the accused persons
allegedly began pressurizing her to bring Rs. 75,000/- and a
motorcycle as dowry, despite the informant having already
provided articles worth more than Rs. 2,00,000/-, and upon non-
fulfilment of such demand, she was subjected to assault and
abuse. In the year 2006 she (deceased) was driven out of her
matrimonial home and returned to her parental house, but
pursuant to a Panchayati, she was sent back where she lived
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
4/23
peacefully for about two months before again being subjected to
cruelty and harassment for the same demand which was made at
the time she was pregnant. On 15.03.2007, one Sabnam Raza
Kamali visited her and she narrated her ordeal and expressed
apprehension that she would be killed, whereupon she had
informed the informant the same day. On 20.03.2007 the
informant along with co-villagers went to her matrimonial
village Pachhi, they learnt that she had been killed in the night
of 16.03.2007 and her dead body had been clandestinely buried
with the assistance of villagers, and upon reaching the house,
they found only Md. Madni present, who disclosed nothing
while the other accused persons had absconded. The accused
persons, including the appellants, being the husband and in-laws
of the deceased, committed her murder and caused
disappearance of evidence by secretly burying her dead body at
some unknown place.
5. On the basis of the statement of the informant,
Madhepur P.S. Case No. 58/07 dated 22.03.2007 was instituted
under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the IPC against the
accused persons, including the appellants Masudul Haque and
Rashid Hussain. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 IPC, cognizance was taken,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
5/23
and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where
charges under Sections 304(B)/34 and 201/34 IPC were framed,
to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are
unsustainable in law as well as on facts, being vitiated by non-
consideration and erroneous appreciation of the materials on
record. It was contended that the Trial Court failed to account
for the inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in the
prosecution case. Prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) did
not support the prosecution case and stated that the deceased
died due to illness (diarrhea and dysentery) and she was treated
and buried in presence of her parental family members, with
PW-2 being declared hostile. PW-3, PW-4 (informant) and PW-
5 supported the prosecution case regarding demand of dowry of
Rs. 75,000/- and a motorcycle, alleging that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty, turned out of her matrimonial home, and
later sent back after Panchayati, but again she was harassed, and
shortly before her death she had expressed apprehension of
being killed. However, material contradictions emerged in their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
6/23
evidence, including non-disclosure of certain facts before
police, inconsistencies regarding visit to the matrimonial home,
and conduct of witnesses. Prosecution witness (PW-6) generally
supported the allegation of dowry demand and murder but
admitted in cross-examination that his knowledge was hearsay
and that he had not previously deposed before the police, while
PW-7, the Investigating Officer, stated that he could not locate
the burial place of the deceased despite efforts and that no
independent witness from the village supported the prosecution
case, further admitting that there existed communal tension in
the village and that he did not investigate the aspect of the
deceased’s alleged illness prior to death, thereby leaving
material gaps in the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer,
has deposed that despite best efforts he could not locate the
alleged place of burial of the deceased and, in cross-
examination, admitted that none of the villagers supported the
prosecution case, that there was communal tension in the village
due to the killing of one Ganga Ram Mahto, and that he did not
investigate the aspect of the deceased’s prior illness, and
admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. There was
no demand of dowry at the time of marriage or for about four
months thereafter, and PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
7/23
that the deceased died due to illness, namely diarrhea and
dysentery, and that her parental family was informed and
participated in the burial, which is also supported by the
Investigating Officer’s admission that villagers did not
corroborate the prosecution version. From the overall evidence,
the relationship between the deceased and her in-laws appears
cordial and the prosecution story seems to be an afterthought,
with material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses,
particularly regarding the date of the informant’s visit, which
were not properly appreciated by the learned trial court, nor was
the real motive behind institution of the case considered. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, and no effort was made by the authorities to ascertain the
place of burial despite alleged disclosure by the accused,
rendering the allegations general and omnibus in nature and
based on mere hypothesis, and the prosecution case stands
falsified by its own evidence, yet the appellants, including
appellant no. 3, an aged lady, who remained on bail during trial
without misuse of the privilege, have been convicted and
sentenced vide judgments and orders dated 31.03.2011 and
04.04.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 373 of 2008.
7. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
8/23
such circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 31.03.2011 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2011 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.T. No.373/2008 and
374/2008 in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 58/07
dated 22.03.2007 is required to be interfered with and the
appellants deserve to be acquitted.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State
while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District
court, after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits
submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has
rightly convicted the appellants for said offences as the offences
alleged against the appellants appears to be serious in nature and
also constitutes cognizable offence.
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 31.03.2011 and order of sentence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
9/23
dated 04.04.2011 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 five witnesses, namely:
(i) (P.W.-1),- Meraj Ali
(ii) (P.W.-2),- Md. Siddique
(iii) (P.W.-3),- Nasim Akhtar
(iv) (P.W.-4) ,- Ali Ahmad (Informant)
(v) (P.W.-5),- Sbabnam Raza Kamali
(vi) (P.W.-6),- Kafil Ahmad
(vi) (P.W.-7),- Komal Ram (Investigating Officer)
13. 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.
14. I find it apt to reproduce the provisions of
Section 304 B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which inter
alia are as follows:
" 304B. Dowry death.—
(1)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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
10/23
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).
(2)Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
201. 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 infor-mation 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."
15. Upon a meticulous examination of the record,
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
summarised as follows:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
11/23
(i) P.W.1 (Meraj Ali- co-villager of the deceased):
This witness has stated that the daughter-in-law of Md. Madni
died on 16.03.2007 and that on the said date there was tension in
the village on account of the murder of Ganga Ram Mahto. He
has further stated that his residence is about 200 yards away
from the house of the deceased and that there was a Panchayati
between the parties held at the house of the informant, though
no document was prepared in that regard. It is pertinent that this
witness was not cross-examined by the defence on the point of
demand of dowry or alleged torture.
(ii) P.W.4 (Ali Ahmad – informant): This witness
has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief
and proved his signature on the written report marked as
Exhibit-1. He has stated that the written report was scribed at
the house of one Sanaullah Saheb. In cross-examination, he has
stated that he cannot say who disclosed to him about the burial
of the deceased and that prior to lodging of the case there was
consultation with others. He has further admitted that at the time
of marriage there was no demand of dowry and that such
demand allegedly started after 3–4 months, but no complaint
was made to any authority. He has also stated that he did not
visit the place of burial and has denied the suggestion that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
12/23
deceased died due to illness and that the case is based on false
allegations.
(iii) P.W.5 (Shabnam Raza Kamali – brother of
the deceased): This witness has supported the prosecution case
as stated in the written report (Exhibit-1) and has deposed
regarding demand of dowry and torture meted out to the
deceased. In cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased
was pregnant at the time of death and that he had visited her
matrimonial home 2–3 times, last on 15.03.2007, when the
family members behaved cordially, but the deceased disclosed
to him about the alleged torture and dowry demand. He further
stated that upon return he informed others about the same. He
has denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to vomiting
and diarrhoea.
(iv) P.W.6 (Kafil Ahmad- hearsay witness): This
witness has stated that the accused persons killed the deceased
on 16.03.2007 and hurriedly buried her body. He has further
stated that after receiving information, he along with others
went to the house of the accused on 20.03.2007 and learnt about
the occurrence. He has also deposed that prior to her death,
there was demand of Rs. 75,000/- and a motorcycle, for which a
Panchayati was held, after which the deceased was sent back to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
13/23
her matrimonial home. He has stated that no information
regarding the death was given to the villagers or the police. In
cross-examination, he has stated that he is a Madrasa teacher for
the last 30 years and has no blood relation with the informant,
that he did not talk to Md. Fakruddin regarding the occurrence,
and that he did not visit the place of burial. He has admitted that
no document of Panchayati was prepared and that whatever was
decided therein was accepted by both parties. He has further
stated that no assault ever took place in his presence.
(v) P.W.7 (Komal Ram – Investigating Officer):
This witness has stated that he took up investigation on the basis
of the written report dated 22.03.2007 and inspected the place of
occurrence, namely the house of Md. Madni, describing its
structure and boundaries. He has further deposed that despite
serious efforts, he could not locate the place where the dead
body of the deceased was buried, as the villagers only indicated
village Umri without specifying the exact place, and therefore
the body could not be exhumed for post-mortem examination.
He has proved the formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-2) and endorsement on
the written report. In cross-examination, he has stated that the
villagers did not support the prosecution case, that there was
communal tension in the village due to the murder of Ganga
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
14/23
Ram Mahto around the relevant time, and that he did not
investigate the aspect of illness of the deceased prior to her
death.
16. The record reveals PW-2 was declared hostile
during the trial as nothing transpired from his testimony during
the trial which may be said relevant for the purpose of
corroborating or contradicting the version of other prosecution
witnesses, who supported the crime in question during the trial.
Therefore, the testimony of the PW-2 is not relevant qua
establishing guilt of the accused/appellants.
17. 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
obligated to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
15/23
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.
18. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
16/23
(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.
19. 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.
(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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
17/23
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)
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
18/23
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
19/23
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
20/23
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
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.”
20. 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
21/23
21. 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 prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,
the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under
Section 304-B IPC, particularly the existence of cruelty or
harassment “soon before the death” of the deceased in
connection with any alleged demand for dowry and the
existence of a proximate and live link between such alleged
cruelty and the death; on the contrary, the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-2, who have categorically attributed the death to illness,
namely diarrhea and dysentery, coupled with the hostile nature
of material witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and
the deficiencies in investigation as admitted by the Investigating
Officer, creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case and also
the prosecution case, when read in light of the depositions of
PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7, suffers from serious inconsistencies and
lack of corroboration on material particulars, thereby entitling
the appellants to the benefit of doubt. PW-4 admits that there
was no dowry demand at the time of marriage and that the
alleged demand began only after 3–4 months, yet no complaint
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
22/23
was ever made to any authority, and he did not visit the alleged
place of burial, rendering the allegations doubtful. PW-6, an
independent witness, does not support the prosecution at all, as
he states that no information of the death was given to villagers
or police, he neither visited the burial site nor witnessed any
assault, and he admits that no document was prepared regarding
the alleged Panchayati, thereby making it unsubstantiated. The
Investigating Officer (PW-7) further weakens the case by
admitting that the place of burial could not be ascertained, the
dead body was never exhumed for post-mortem, the villagers
did not support the prosecution, and that he did not investigate
the possibility of illness of the deceased, leaving a plausible
alternative cause of death unexplored. Thus, there is no reliable
evidence of cruelty or dowry demand, no proof of homicidal
death, and no confirmed recovery of the body, and the chain of
circumstances remains incomplete and broken, making it unsafe
to sustain the conviction and entitling the appellants to acquittal.
in such circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section
113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in a mechanical
manner, and the prosecution case, resting on general and
omnibus allegations, fails to inspire confidence.
22. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.467 of 2011 dt.09-04-2026
23/23
23. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
31.03.2011 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2011 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.T. No.373/2008 and
374/2008 in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 58/07
dated 22.03.2007, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the above-
named appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges
levelled against them. Since the appellants are 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.
24. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District
Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 30.03.2026
Uploading Date 09.04.2026
Transmission Date 09.04.2026
Checking your session…