Patna High Court

Raj Kishore Ram and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 29 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of a dowry death and therefore set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellants.

Summary

The appellants Raj Kishore Ram and Nand Kishore Ram were convicted for dowry death under Section 304B, murder under Section 201 and common intention under Section 34 after their daughter‑in‑law was alleged to have been killed following a dowry demand. The prosecution relied on the victim’s alleged statements and the claim of a dowry demand but offered no documentary proof and the post‑mortem report showed no external injuries. The defence contended that the three essential ingredients of a 304B offence – death caused by injury, death within seven years of marriage, and prior dowry harassment – were not established and highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies. The Patna High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act did not arise, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants of all charges and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the three essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304B IPC (dowry death).
Whether the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies in the present case.
Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 201 and 34 IPC.
Whether the contradictions in witness statements create reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34

Subjects

dowry death
Section 304B IPC
presumption under Section 113B
burden of proof
acquittal
circumstantial evidence
criminal appeal
Indian Penal Code
Evidence Act

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.8 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2012 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Raj Kishore Ram
2. Nand Kihore Ram S/o late Binda Lal Ram Both Resident of Village- Pakari
Pakohi,P.s Karja, District Muzaffarpur.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2015 and order of sentence

dated 18.12.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 741 of 2012

arising out of Karja P.S. Case No. 31 of 2012 whereby these

two appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201

and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Appellant No. 1, namely

Raj Kishore Ram, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years under Sections 304B and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years

and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Sections 201 and 34 of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
2/9

Penal Code and in case of default of fine, to further undergo

simple imprisonment for six month and Appellant No. 2,

namely Nand Kishore Ram, has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for eight years under Sections 304B and

34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for

three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Sections 201 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of fine, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for six month. All sentences have

been directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of

daughter of informant, namely Seema Devi, was solemnized

with Appellant No. 1, namely Raj Kishore Ram, on 12.06.2006

and thereafter, she went to her in-laws house. It is alleged that

after few days of marriage, husband of daughter of informant

and his family members started assaulting and torturing

daughter of informant and repeatedly demanded Rs. 40,000/-. It

is further alleged that on 03.03.2015 at about 10:55 PM,

daughter of informant called him and told that she has brutally

been assaulted and requested to be taken away or otherwise, her

in-laws would kill her. On the next day, i.e. on 04.03.2012 at

about 11 AM, informant, along with his brother-in-law, went to

the matrimonial village of his daughter, however, they could not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
3/9

find his daughter nor any family members were present in the

house. Informant suspects that all the in-laws of the daughter of

informant, including these appellants, have killed his daughter

due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, dispose of her dead

body and fled away from the house.

4. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the

accused person, the prosecution has examined altogether eight

witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Ram Bachan Ram, P.W. 2, namely

Mahadeo Ram and P.W. 3, namely Devenda Ram, are co-

villagers and have been declared hostile. P.W. 4, namely

Ramesh Ram, is brother of the deceased/victim. P.W. 5, namely

Ram Agaya Ram, is informant and father of the

deceased/victim. P.W. 6, namely Dr. Bipin Kumar, is the doctor

who held autopsy of the deceased/victim. P.W. 7, namely

Mithlesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 8, namely Vinay Kumar Das,

are the Investigating Officers of this case.

5. On the other hand, the defence has produced two

defence witnesses, i.e., D.W. 1, namely Aditaya Kumar and

D.W. 2, namely Mohan Kumar.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in the

opening paragraph of this order.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
4/9

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

assails the order of conviction and sentence on multiple

grounds. He contends that Appellant No. 1 is husband of the

deceased and Appellant No. 2 is elder brother of Appellant No.

1 and brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the deceased. He further

contends that in order to convict a person under Section 304B

of the Indian Penal Code, three essential ingredients are

necessary to be present, which are:-

a. Death of a woman is caused by any burn or

bodily injury otherwise than under normal

circumstances,

b. Such death of the woman should occur within

seven years of her marriage and

c. Soon before her death, she should be subjected

to cruelty or harassment by the accused in

connection with any demand of dowry.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in

this case, there is no evidence or chit of paper to substantiate the

allegation that there was any demand of dowry soon before

death of the deceased. Though, it is alleged that there was

demand of dowry and a Panchayati was also convened in this

regard, however, the same has not been proved on the basis of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
5/9

any documentary or oral evidence. It is further contended that as

per post mortem report, no external injury were found on the

person of the deceased. Thus, the key ingredients to convict a

person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are not

present in the instant case. As a matter of fact, the deceased

went to attend the call of nature and did not return and for the

same occurrence, these appellants informed the police, prior to

lodging of the present F.I.R., which has been produced during

trial as Exhibit “A” and has also been supported by both the

defence witnesses. It is further contended that there is material

contradiction in the statement of the informant (P.W. 5). In the

F.I.R., the informant has alleged that his deceased daughter

informed him over phone call that these appellants have

assaulted her, however, during cross examination, he has stated

that Appellant No. 2 called him and informed about the fact that

his daughter is missing. Further, in the F.I.R., the informant has

alleged that when he reached the matrimonial house of his

daughter, no one was present there, however, in the cross-

examination, he has stated that Appellant No. 1 was present in

the house. It is further submitted that P.W. 4, who happens to be

brother of the deceased, in his statement, has categorically

stated that he used to frequently visit the matrimonial house of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
6/9

his sister and her in-laws used to greet him with warm

hospitality. It is highly doubtful that since the in-laws of the

victim were having good relations and showing great hospitality

to P.W. 4 whenever he used to visit the matrimonial house of his

sister, the in-laws would commit any torture or harassment with

the victim or demand dowry, that too after six years of marriage.

Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contends that since

there is material contradiction in statement of the prosecution

witness and informant, fact that no injuries were found on the

person of the deceased and absence of necessary ingredients to

convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code

goes to show that it is a case of no evidence and prosecution has

failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence,

these appellants are fit to be acquitted.

9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

submitted that there is no need of any interference in this appeal

since the prosecution witnesses have supported the corroborated

the prosecution story and there is no reason to differ with the

findings of the learned trial court and the judgement of

conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.

10. From going through the evidence and perusal of

the records, it appears that none of the two independent
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
7/9

prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence and are related

to the victim/deceased and are highly interested witnesses. The

prosecution has not brought on record any proof with regard to

the torture or demand of dowry prior to death of the deceased.

11. It is also pertinent to mention here that in order to

establish the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove the three essential

ingredients, as discussed above. If the prosecution, proves all

the three essential ingredients, then the presumption under

Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. Such

presumption is rebuttable and the onus to rebut shifts on the

accused person. If the prosecution fails to establish the aforesaid

ingredients, then the presumption under Section 113B of the

Evidence Act does not apply and in such cases, the burden does

not shift to the accused persons to rebut the presumption under

the law.

12. In this case, it is evident that there is nothing on

record to show that soon before the death of the deceased, there

was any demand or torture by the appellant, which is a

necessary ingredient to bring guilt of the accused under Section

304B of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, as per post mortem

report, no injuries were found on the person of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
8/9

Since two of the essential ingredient of Section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code is absent on record, in my view, the

appellants cannot be convicted under Section 304B of the Indian

Penal Code. Moreover, in this case, there is material

contradiction in the statement of the two independent

prosecution witnesses.

13. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case, as discussed above, it is not sufficient to come to a

conclusion that these appellants committed dowry death due to

non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

14. It is well established rule of law that in case of

circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete to

establish the guilt of the accused person. Hence, the prosecution

has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of all

reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to get the

benefit of doubt.

15. In that view of the matter, the judgment of

conviction dated 16.12.2015 and order of sentence dated

18.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III,

Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 741 of 2012

arising out of Karja P.S. Case No. 31 of 2012 are hereby set

aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.8 of 2016 dt.29-04-2026
9/9

16. Appellants are acquitted of all the charges and are

discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection

with this case.

17. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

18. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall

also stand disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.04.2026
Transmission Date 30.04.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…