Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 May, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 453 of 2020
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 4th March, 2020
and order of sentence dated 18th March, 2020, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa in Sessions
Trial No.15 of 2016)
------
1.Santosh Ram, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Adhina
Ram, resident of Village-Gamhariya, P.O. & P.S. Ramna,
District-Garhwa (Jharkhand).
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP
.....
C.A.V. on 17/04/2025 Pronounced on 02/05/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 4th March, 2020 and order of sentence dated 18th March, 2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of each fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months for each default.
Prosecution Case:
2. Prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, Shankar Ram, the father of the deceased, is that the informant Shankar Ram has married his daughter Raj Kumari Devi with Santosh Ram (the appellant). After marriage Santosh Ram along with his wife started residing at the house of his maternal uncle at Gamhariya, P.S. Ramna, District-Garhwa.
3. It is further stated that on the direction of Adhina Ram (father of the accused/appellant) and Jagdish Ram (brother of the accused/appellant), appellant started demanding money after five years of her marriage.
When his daughter used to refuse him (the accused/appellant), he used to assault her. He also pressurized her by connecting her illegal relationship with another person and used to threaten her that he would throw her out of the house.
4. It is further alleged that whenever the informant talked with appellant-Santosh Ram, he used to abuse them and also used to threaten them. This was known to Adhina Ram, Jagdish Ram, Deonath Ram. He has 2 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) talked with Santosh Ram and his family members 5-6 times in this respect. He was told not to inform the police and was asked to convince (make her understand) his daughter. Adhina Ram and others will convince Santosh Ram (make him understand). In this way the matter was hushed up all the time.
5. On 13.06.2015 at about 09:00 p.m., appellant poured kerosene oil and put her on fire. Prior to the occurrence Santosh Ram has put his children Pallavi and Ujjwal at the house of his maternal uncle so that they could not know about the occurrence. He was not informed about the occurrence by the family members. At the last moment they took her(deceased) to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa.
6. Since the victim was serious, she was not treated at Garhwa hospital and was referred to Ranchi. However, because of call of Jharkhand 'Bandh', they proceeded for Banaras but since the victim was in serious condition she was admitted at Renukut Hindalko hospital at 01:40 hours at night and in course of treatment she died at 03:00 a.m. at night.
7. Informant alleged that they were demanding dowry and for that reason Santosh Ram, Jagdish Ram, Adhina Ram were torturing his daughter Raj Kumari Devi and put kerosene oil over her and put her on fire. 3
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
8. On the basis of this written report, an FIR was registered as Ramna P. S. Case No.76/15, dated 14.06.2015 under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Police investigated the case and submitted charge- sheet. On the basis of charge-sheet, case diary and other materials available on record, cognizance of offences were taken against the accused under Sections 498A, 302 of the IPC.
10. The police papers were supplied to the appellant on 02.01.2016. After complying with the requirements, the case record was committed to the court of Sessions.
11. The appellant appeared at the Court of Sessions. Charges against the accused were framed under Sections 498A, 302 of the IPC, which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. In course of trial, sixteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On the basis of evidence recorded in course of trial, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. He denied the evidences and claimed to be innocent.
13. On behalf of the defence four witness were examined. Some documents were also proved and got marked exhibited.
4
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
14. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross- examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons, and found the charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been convicted under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of each fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months for each default, which is the subject matter mater of instant appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:
15. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the following grounds:
I. Prosecution has miserably failed in proving the charge, which is evident from the testimony of witnesses, who has given contradictory testimonies. 5
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) II. Submission has been made out of the 16 witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution none of the witnesses are eye-witness.
III.Elaborating his submission, it has been submitted that P.W. 1- Shiv Kumar at paragraph 25 of his cross-examination and P.W.2 Lilawati Devi in paragraph 3 of her cross-examination have in unequivocal term has deposed that they have not seen the occurrence. Likewise, P.W.3 Ganesh Ram and P.W.4 Rajesh Kumar are the hearsay witness and they did not claim to have seen the occurrence. III. Even, prosecution witnesses, P.W.5 Umesh Ram @ Umesh Paswan in his statement has deposed that at para-1 that there was good relationship in between the couple. At para-9, of his deposition, he has stated that the death was accidental. Likewise, P.W.6 Radhika Ram has stated in para-3 that he saw the flame over body and Santosh Ram was trying to save her and he too sustained burn injury. In para- 10, he has stated that Santosh Ram is not responsible for putting fire and she caught fire while she was cooking. In para-13, he has stated that accused sustained injury.
IV. It has been submitted that P.W.7, Lallu Ram has stated that he went at the place of occurrence and 6 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) extinguished fire and said Santosh Ram also received injury. P.W.8 Ramchandra Ram has stated that he went at the place of occurrence and took Raj Kumari Devi and Santosh Ram to hospital and reason for her death is negligence of Doctor. He has further stated in para-6, that deceased started weeping seeing her husband and she stated that there is no fault on his part. In para-7, he also stated that there was good relationship between the couple.
V.P.W.9 Vishwanath Yadav, who was not declared hostile, has stated in examination-in-chief that she caught fire during course of preparing food. He also saw injury on the person of accused which was caused in course of saving his wife. In para-3, he has stated that there was good relationship in between them. In para-6, he has stated that Santsoh Ram has no hand in the death of his wife.
VI.P.W.11 Shanti Devi is mother of the deceased and is hearsay witness. In para-14, she admitted that Santsoh Ram received injury while saving. P.W.12 Sunesh Ram @ Suresh Ram is also hearsay witness and in para-19, he has stated that he saw injury on abdomen and hands of son-in-law.
VII.P.W.13 Shankar Ram is informant and he is also not the eye witness of the case. In para-15, he has 7 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) stated that P.W.14 Pallavi Kumari has stated that her 'Papa'(father) along with Pintu and Mantu killed Raj Kumari Devi.
VIII.P.W.14, Pallavi Kumari the daughter of the accused. It is stated that she is child witness who always lived at the house of her Nana (maternal grand father - P.W.13 Shankar Ram). She has stated, in para-4, that her father sent her to the house of Bua (father's sister). She came back and saw her mother crying there. She saw her mother injured and father and others were washing. It has emphatically been submitted that this witness has nowhere has stated that she saw her father pouring kerosene oil and putting her on fire. In para-29, of her cross- examination she admitted that she has not stated to the police that her father killed her mother. Therefore, her presence at the place of occurrence is clouded with doubt because FIR states that prior to the occurrence they have sent the children to the house of maternal uncle of the accused. Further, she is under custody of Nana and she is bound to obey his order. Further, she has given altogether different version from FIR and she has made departure from her earlier version.
8
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) IX. Further submission has been made all the defence witnesses have supported the case of the defence.
VII. Submission has been made that it is apparent that the conviction is based solely upon the testimony of P.W. 14, who is daughter of the appellant and victim. Even if the testimony of P.W. 14 will be taken into consideration, it would be evident that she has not deposed that she has seen her father pouring kerosene oil on her deceased mother and putting her on fire rather at paragraph 29 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she has not stated to the police that her father killed her mother.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the backdrop of aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since is not based upon cogent evidence and as such it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
Submission of the learned APP for the state
17. Per Contra, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the ground that the impugned 9 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) judgment has been passed based upon the testimony of witness who have supported the prosecution version
18. It has been submitted that P.W. 14, who is the daughter of the appellant and victim, who in her examination-in-chief has stated that her father has killed her mother in June 2015 and at the time of occurrence she and her brother Ujjawal Kumar were watching the television. On that day her father came and started quarreling with her mother. and earlier also her father used to quarrel with her. She has further stated that when her mother has got burnt, her father and his friends were putting water on her at the hand pump. Thereafter, her Bua took them to her house.
19. Further, submission has been made that so far as the contradictions/discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses as has been raised on behalf of appellant is concerned, submission has been made even if contradictions/discrepancies, but they are not fatal for the case of the prosecution.
20. It has been submitted that the date of occurrence, the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence have been established by the eye-witness, the informant, the doctor and the investigating officer of the case have been examined. Further, the cause of death by burning has been established.
10
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
21. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Analysis
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order.
23. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by formulating following questions to be answered by this Court:
(I).Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt?
(II).Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant as the fact of the given case is?
(III).Whether the discrepancies, which is alleged to have been found in the testimony of witness is sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version in the facts of given case?
(IV).Whether the present case comes under the fold of suicidal or accidental or homicidal? 11
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
24. Since all the issues are inter-linked with each other and as such they are being taken together by taking into consideration the facts of the given case including the testimony of witnesses.
25. This Court, in order to answer the issues framed by this Court, first deems it fit and proper to go through the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution:
"I.P.W.1 is Shiv Kumar, the brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that his sister Raj Kumari was married with Santosh Ram as per Hindu rites and customs about 14 years ago. After marriage she was residing at Gamhariya P.S. Ramna. After 4-5 years of marriage, the accused started threatening his sister and also used to assault her. He was demanding money etc. from his father. In the January 2015, at 10:00 p.m., after having been assaulted his sister was thrown out from the house. When they came to know about this fact, they came to the place of Adhina Ram(father of the accused). On the following day his(accused's) father Adhina Ram, brother Jagdish Ram(accused's) and maternal uncle Deonath Ram assured his father that such type of occurrence will not take place.
They were going to file case at the police station but they were stopped from doing so. After sometime 12 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) again this started. His sister was assaulted in her private parts and was threatened. On 13.06.2015 they put kerosene oil over her and put her on fire. When he returned from his duty and called them, they did not receive his call. After sometime some other person informed him that his sister has got burnt and was being taken to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. On account of her serious condition, she was referred to Ranchi. Because of Jharkhand 'bandh' they did not take her to Ranchi rather she was taken to Banaras. On considering her serious condition she was admitted at Renukut hospital where she died in course of treatment. His sister has got fully burnt and there was no cloth on her body. When Santosh Ram was asked about occurrence he told that she has caught fire because of bursting of gas cylinder. They reached Ramna police station from Renukut and asked the officer-in-charge B.N. Ojha to visit place of occurrence. He visited the place. He found kerosene oil, clothes and burnt rope. The gas cylinder has not bursted. The dead body was taken to the house of Santosh Ram at Vindhamganj and last rites were performed. He used to demand money from his sister. Santosh Ram was not doing job. His sister used to work. He identified the 13 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) accused present in the court. In his cross- examination, in para-3, he has stated that for the first time he met Santosh Ram at Renukut hospital. In para-6, of his cross-examination, he admitted that his brother-in-law was treated at Renukut. He was given primary treatment. In para-10, of his cross- examination, he has admitted that no case was filed in respect of demand of dowry and vehicles. In para- 12, of his cross-examination, he admitted that there is no paper of panchayati in respect of assault. In para-13, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not say the date and time of demand money and vehicle. In para-16, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not put his signature over written report but he has read the written application. In para-22, of his cross-examination, he has stated that there are two children from wedlock of the deceased and the accused. Their daughter is residing with them while the son is residing with his grand parents. In para-24, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the occurrence. In para-25, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the killing of deceased. He has been cross-examined at length.
14
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) II.P.W.2 is Lilawati Devi. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that deceased was her younger sister. She was married with Santosh Ram about 14-15 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs. She was properly maintained for about six months and thereafter quarrel started between the two. Her husband used to demand vehicle and money. He also used to assault Raj Kumari Devi. His sister was assaulted with hot 'sabal'(iron rod) on the thigh and others parts of the body. Because of quarrel her father and brother has visited the place. They have gone to the place. Deonath Ram (maternal uncle) and Adhina Ram (father) and his elder brother has prevailed upon them and the matter was hushed up.
Deonath Ram and Adhina Ram used to give assurance that such type of occurrence will not take place in the future. She had talk with her sister and her sister used to tell her everything. Her sister used to tell that since her parents were making her understand, for that reason she was keeping patience. Finally on 13.06.2015 at 09:00 p.m. her sister was burnt by Santosh Ram and his family members. She identified the accused persons present in the court. She further stated that her sister died of burning. In her cross-examination, in para-3, she 15 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) has stated that she has not seen the occurrence with her own eyes. Further she could not say the distance between her matrimonial house and of the house of the deceased. In para-3, of her cross-examination, she also stated that about 2-3 years ago from the date of occurrence she and her sister has performed Chhat Puja together. In para-5, of her cross- examination, she has stated that her statement was recorded by Dy.S.P.. In Para-7, of her cross- examination, she admitted that in the chhat puja Santosh Ram has helped her deceased sister. In para-9, of her cross-examination she admitted that she does not know what is written in the written application.
III.P.W.3 is Ganesh Ram. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi is his Bhagini(sister's daughter). She was married with Santosh Ram as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage she went to her sasural. She has two children. After marriage Santsoh Ram came with his wife at the place of his maternal uncle and started living there. Santosh Ram used to demand dowry from his Bhagini. On being refused he used to threaten her. Many times compromise was reached in this respect. He also used to torture her saying 16 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) that she has got illicit relationship with other person. On 13.06.2015 she was put on fire by pouring kerosene oil. Her children were sent to the place of maternal uncle prior to the occurrence. After the injury she was being taken to Ranchi but because of Bandi(closure) she was taken to Renukut where she died.
In the occurrence besides Santosh Ram, Adhina Ram, Jagdish Ram etc. were also involved. He identified the accused present in the court. On repeated call learned counsel for the accused did not appear and accordingly the witness could not be cross-examined. Accused was given opportunity to cross-examine witness but he could not cross- examine and the witness was discharged. IV.P.W.4 is Rajesh Kumar, the brother of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that deceased was married with Santosh Ram. He used to visit the house of his sister. Santosh Ram was not working and he was in the habit of gambling. He used to demand money from his sister and when she refused money he used to sale goods. When he used to visit the place, he(the accused) also used to demand money from him(the witness). On one occasion he was sitting with his Bhanja(sister's 17 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) son) outside the house and he(the accused) was asking his sister inside the room (after closing the door) for money for doing business. When his sister used to forbade, Santosh Ram used to assault her.
When his guardian came to know about this fact, his father visited the place. They asked Adhina Ram, Jagdish Ram, Deonath Ram about the fact. They did not give attention to this fact saying that it is natural to have some quarrel in between the wife and the husband. The maternal uncle and the guardian of accused told his father that they will make him understand and he(the informant) should make his daughter understand. Thereafter, they were sent back. Again they started assaulting her. Thereafter, again his father visited the place and told that he will get the case instituted. Santosh Ram got agitated and told that his wife has got illicit relationship with other and also abused his parents. His parents returned and his sister was not allowed to go with her parents. She was properly maintained for sometimes. On 13.06.2015 at 09:00 p.m., they received phone call that the milk was being boiled and gas cylinder bursted. His daughter and son-in- law has got burnt. They have been taken to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. At the hospital doctors told them 18 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) that they are not in a position to treat her. They asked them to took her to some other place. On that day, there was Jharkhand 'Bandh'. For that reason they could not take her to Ranchi and they left for Banaras. Since her injury was serious and it was deteriorating, she was admitted at Hindalko at Renukut at 01:30 a.m.. At 03:00 a.m., she died. The dead body was sent to Dudhdhi for postmortem. After postmortem the dead body was brought to Ramna. Thereafter, persons from police station and he went to the place of occurrence to inspect the place. When they opened the door, they found smell of kerosene oil. The gas cylinder was intact. The last rites were performed at the Sasural(of deceased) at Vindhamganj. He further stated that the matter was reported to the police. He proved the written report which was written by him and his father has put his signature and it was marked Ext.1. He identified the accused present in the court. In his cross- examination, in para-6, he admitted that at the time of marriage of his sister, he was aged about 5-6 years. In para-8 and 9, of his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn towards the statements given to the police u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. and his statement in the court. In para-10, of his cross- 19
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. He has also stated that at the time of death he was present at the hospital. He does not have any talk with the deceased Raj Kumari Devi. In para-15, of his cross-examination, he has stated that when his sister was called to Hindalko hospital, he was present there. His sister was accompanied by accused Santosh Ram, Jagdish Ram (brother of Santosh Ram), mother of Santosh Ram etc. and in all about ten persons have come with the victim. In para-18, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not informed any police officer regarding the assault in respect of demand of dowry. He has been cross-examined at length.
V.P.W.5 is Umesh Ram @ Umesh Paswan. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi was married with Santosh Ram as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage she was residing at her sasural. They have two children from wedlock. She was properly maintained. No quarrel used to take place between them. About two years ago, there was hallah at 08:00 p.m. He reached near the house of Santosh Ram and found that Raj Kumari Devi was raising alarm Bachao-Bachao. Santosh Ram was trying to save her and hands of Santosh Ram was 20 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) also burnt. When he reached the place, he found that Raj Kumari Devi has been burnt more than half and her children were sleeping. The children got up after lapse of much time. The victim was brought to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa from where she was referred to Ranchi. On that day there was Jharkhand 'Bandh' and they decided to take her to Banaras. On way she was got admitted at Renukut hospital. He has accompanied them up to Ramuna. He has identified the accused present in the court. In para-7, he has stated that he knows that when two daughters were born, there was no quarrel between them. In his cross-examination, in para-8, he has stated that he is his neighbour. In para-9, of his cross-examination, he has stated that Santosh Ram and his wife have good relationship. She caught fire while she was cooking food but no person is involved in her death. In para-10, of his cross-examination, he has stated that even in their presence also no allegation was levelled against the deceased. In para-11, of his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was conscious, even after getting fire, for a long time. He has been cross-examined at length.
VI.P.W.6 is Radhika Ram. In his examination-in- chief he has stated that he knew the deceased and 21 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) the accused Santosh Ram. The deceased was married with Santosh Ram about 16 years ago as per Hindu rites and custom. They have two children from wedlock one son and one daughter. They were having good relationship between them. About two years ago, she was raising alarm at 08:00 p.m. The people assembled there and found that the wife of Santsoh Ram has caught fire and Santosh Ram was trying to save her. He also got burnt. Thereafter, she was brought to Garhwa hospital. He does not know how she caught fire. He identified the accused present in the court. He was brought to Garhwa from where she was referred. They were taking victim to Banaras when Shankar Ram asked them to bring her to Renukut. At Renukut she was treated and Raj Kumari Devi died. In his cross-examination, in para- 9, he has stated that he said same thing to the police which he has stated in the court. In para- 10, of his cross-examination, he has stated that he has accompanied the victim up to Garhwa when she has come for treatment. She has not put any complaint against any persons. She has stated that her husband was innocent and she caught fire while she was preparing the food. Santosh Ram and his wife has good relationship. Santosh Ram is not involved 22 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) in the occurrence. While Santosh Ram was trying to save her, he caught fire in his hand. His chest and both hands were burnt. The children of the deceased and accused is residing at Vindhamganj with his grand parents. In para-15, of his cross-examination, he has stated that deceased was conscious when she reached Renukut. In para-16, of his cross- examination, he has stated that the deceased died at Renukut because of the negligence committed by doctor and the case has been filed to blackmail Santosh Ram and extort money from him.
VII.P.W.7 is Lallu Ram. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari was married with Santosh Ram as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage she went to her sasural where she got burnt. They have reached the place of occurrence and doused the fire. Thereafter Raj Kumari Devi was brought to Garhwa hospital. She could not be treated at Garhwa. Her father called her to Renukut. At that time she was alive and was talking to people. In his cross-examination, in para-2, he has stated that on hallah they have reached the place and Raj Kumari Devi was in a condition to speak. She was not putting blame on any person. In para- 4, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he is neighbour 23 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) of Santosh Ram and he has not seen the quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The deceased and the accused have good relationship. They have two children from wedlock who are being looked after by Santsoh Ram. They are residing with grand parents. When he has gone to rescue Raj Kumari Devi, he saw that both hands of Santosh Ram and chest was burnt while he was trying to save her. In para-8, of his cross-examination, he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi has not put blame on any person and has stated that she has caught fire while she was preparing food. He has been cross-examined at length VIII.P.W.8 is Ramchandra Ram. In his examination- in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi was married with Santosh Ram as per Hindu rites and custom. Raj Kumari Devi caught fire. Santosh Ram raised alarm and they went to the place and doused the fire. Clothes of Raj Kumari Devi was burnt. Santosh Ram and Raj Kumari Devi were brought to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. After primary treatment they were referred to Ranchi. On that day, they did not go to Ranchi because of call of 'bandh' by extremists. They were taking her to Banaras when her father called them to Renukut. At Renukut she 24 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) was treated and thereafter she was referred to Banaras. She was advised to be taken in AC vehicle. She died at 05:00 a.m. He identified the accused Santosh Ram present in the court. In his cross- examination, in para-3, he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi died because of unavailability of AC vehicle and because of lack of proper treatment by the doctor. When they have reached the place she was in a position to speak. They have talked with her. She has not alleged anything against Santosh Ram. In para-6, of his cross-examination, he has stated that on seeing Santosh, Raj Kumari Devi started weeping and told him not to weep as he has not committed any mistake. She would become well after treatment. In para-7, of his cross-examination, he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi and Santosh Ram has good relationship. No quarrel used to take place. Santosh Ram received burn injury while he was trying to save the deceased. He has been cross- examined at length.
IX.P.W.9 is Vishwanath Yadav. In his examination- in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi was married with Santsoh Ram. Raj Kumari Devi was doing work of 'Sahiya'. Raj Kumari Devi has two children. While Raj Kumari Devi was cooking food, 25 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) she caught fire. On hearing hallah they reached the place and found that his both hands were burnt. He identified the accused present in the court. In his cross-examination, in para-3, he has stated that Santosh Ram and Raj Kumari Devi have good relationship. There was no quarrel in between them and Santosh Ram never tortured his wife. In para-5, of his cross-examination, he has stated that when Santosh Ram was trying to douse the fire he has reached the place. In para-6, of his cross- examination, he has stated that Santosh Ram has got no involvement in the death of deceased. X.P.W.10 is Surya Dayal Yadav. In his examination- inchief he has stated that accused Santosh Ram is his neighbour. He was married about 12 years ago. On 13.06.2015 at about 09:00 p.m., he was at his house. He heard hallah and went to the place of Santosh Ram and found crowd. Wife of Santosh Ram has been burnt and both hands of Santosh Ram was also burnt. The villagers brought the commander jeep and the victim was brought to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment. He also accompanied them. On considering serious condition, the Doctor asked them to take her to some other place. Santosh Ram was crying and weeping. His wife told that everything 26 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) will be fine. Thereafter, she was being taken to Banaras and he got down at Ramna. Subsequently, he heard that father-in-law of Santosh Ram, who was doing job at Renukut, called them to Renukut. At Renukut in course of treatment she died. Subsequently, he came to know that she has caught fire while she was boiling milk. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and his attention was drawn towards the statements given to the police. In his cross-examination, in para-11, he has stated that there was good relationship between his wife and husband. He has not seen any quarrel between them. He has been cross-examined at length. XI.P.W.11 is Shanti Devi, the wife of informant as also mother of deceased. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that her daughter Raj Kumari Devi was married with Santosh Ram about 15-16 years ago. After marriage she went to her Sasural. They have two children out of the wedlock. For about 1-2 years she was properly maintained. Thereafter, her daughter was tortured and assaulted by her son-in- law Santosh Ram, Adhina Ram (father-in-law) and Jagdish Ram. They kept on demanding money about 5000/-, 10,000/-. Sometime they used to give money, sometime they were not able to give. He used 27 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) to assault her. On the day of occurrence when they were trying to contact her daughter, they were not able to contact. Subsequently, driver informed them that they were bringing the victim to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa. Driver told that Santsoh Ram has been burnt. They did not come to Garhwa. Again driver called them and stated that both the son-in-law and the girl have been referred to Ranchi. They did not go to Ranchi. Her husband has talked with Deonath Ram who told him that she has been burnt. Her husband called them to Renukut for treatment. They came to Renukut. She could not be treated at Renukut because it was Sunday. She died there. Her daughter was fully burnt. The smell of kerosene oil was coming from body. They used to torture her. Santosh Ram, Pintu, Mitu, Deonath Ram, Adhina Ram burnt her daughter. At the time of occurrence her daughter was at her sasural. Her daughter used to tell her that members of her sasural were not maintaining her properly. She identified the accused present in the court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she could not say the date of occurrence (para-8). In para-13, of her crossexamination, she admitted that she has not seen the occurrence. In para-14, of her cross- 28
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) examination, she admitted that she has come to know that Santosh Ram has received burn injury at hand and chest while he was trying to rescue her. In para-18, of her crossexamination, she admitted that Ujjawal the son of the deceased and accused is residing with her grand parents. She has been crossexamined at length.
XII.P.W.12 is Sunesh Ram @ Suresh Ram. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that Raj Kumari Devi was his Bhagini(sister's daughter). She was married with Santosh Ram about 16-17 years ago. After marriage she went to her sasural. They have two children from wedlock. Prior to birth of children, she was properly maintained. After the birth of child, dispute started. Raj Kumari Devi has told him that members of her sasural were demanding money and on the non fulfillment they used to assault her. About three years ago Shiv Kumar informed him that Raj Kumari Devi has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil on her body. On getting the information, he along with his son jitendra Kumar and one more person went to sasursal of the deceased. They found the house locked. Further he came to know that the girl was being taken to Garhwa Sadar Hospital from where she was referred to Banaras. Subsequently, he 29 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) came to know that Shankar Ram has called his daughter to Renukut. They went to Renukut. Raj Kumari Devi died at Renukut. He saw the dead body after removing the cloth and found that she was fully burnt. Raj Kumari Devi has told that they were demanding money and dispute was taking place in this regard. He identified the accused present in the court. In his cross-examination, in para-11, he has stated that he is deposing first time in the court. In para-16, of his crossexamination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. In para-18, of his cross-examination, he has stated that child born out of wedlock is residing with his grand father. In para- 19, of his crossexamination, he has stated that stomach and both hands of accused was burnt. XIII. P.W.13 is Shankar Ram, the informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that he has married his daughter Raj Kumari Devi with Santosh Ram about 15 years ago as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage, Raj Kumari Devi resided at her matrimonial house properly for about 4-5 years. His son-in-law (the accused) used to assault and abuse her. He used to demand money from his daughter. He (the accused) used to ask her to bring money. Thereafter, he went to the house of Adhina 30 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) Ram who resided at Vindhamganj. There he met Samdhi(father-in-law of her daughter). Jagdish Ram(brother of the accused) and their family members were also present. He told them that Santosh Ram has assaulted her and has thrown her out from house. She has informed them on phone. He along with his Samdhi went to Gamhariya where his son-in-law resided. At the place they started discussing the matter with Deonath Ram (maternal uncle), Adhina Ram(father of the accused). On hearing both sides the father of the accused and his (accused's) maternal uncle hold Santosh Ram guilty. When they(the informant) tried to inform the police, they(accused side) told them that this petty matter should not be reported to the police. They will make Santosh Ram understand and he should make his daughter understand. The compromise was reached on 18.01.2015 and Deonath Ram assured that such kind of occurrence will never be repeated and took the responsibility for this. Thereafter, they returned. On 13.06.2015 his daughter was burnt by pouring kerosene oil. They did not have any information in between 09:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on the day of occurrence. Thereafter, some other person who was driver of the vehicle, who has phone of Deonath, 31 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) called him. Driver told him that they have come to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa as his(witness's) daughter has got burnt. Thereafter, he has talk with Deonath Ram who told that she has been referred to Ranchi from Garhwa hospital. On that day there was Jharkhand 'Bandh' and for that reason she was taken to Banaras for treatment. At that time he was working at Hindalko. He asked them to come to Renukut Hindalko hospital where she could be treated. They reached Hindalko hospital at 01:45 hours at night. She was taken for emergency treatment. After primary treatment Doctor told that the injury was serious and she could not be treated there and asked them to take her to some other place. In the meantime his daughter died at 03:00 hours in the morning and she was declared dead by the doctor. The matter was reported to the local police. Thereafter, police asked them to put the dead body for the postmortem. At about 08:00 a.m., the police came and inquest report was prepared. The dead body was sent to Dudhdhi government hospital for postmortem. Thereafter, after conducting postmortem the dead body was handed over to him. He brought the dead body to Ramna police station since the Ramna police station has jurisdiction for 32 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) instituting the case. He filed the written report at the police station. He proved the written report and it was marked Ext.1. Thereafter, police visited Gamhariya village and inspected the place of occurrence. His son Rajesh Kumar was asked by police to take the photographs of the place of occurrence. Thereafter, his son took photographs and he has filed these photographs. There are 14 photographs and they were marked Ext. X to X/13 for identification. Accused Adhina Ram, Jagdish Ram, Deonath Ram and Santosh Ram after organizing themselves burnt his daughter on non fulfillment of demand of dowry. When his grand daughter Pallavi Kumari came to his house she told that in the commission of occurrence her father was not alone but was helped by Pintu and Mantu who are resident of Gamhariya. He has further stated that he has full belief that they have killed his daughter on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. He identified the accused present in the court. In his cross- examination, in paras-19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, his attention has been drawn towards the statements given to the police u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the statement given in the court. In para-24, of his cross- examination, he has stated that he came to know 33 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) after two days of occurence that Pintu and Mantu were also involved in the occurrence. In para-26, of his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. In para-27, of his cross- examination, he has stated that his daughter was alive when she was brought to Renukut hospital. In para-28, of his cross-examination, he admitted that prior to this case no case was filed in respect of demand of dowry. In para-29, of his cross- examination, he admitted that after 18.01.2015, he has not visited the sasural of his daughter since compromise has been reached. In para-31, of his cross-examination, he admitted that after the occurrence he has not visited the sasural of her daughter. In para-32, of his cross-examination, he admitted that after the occurrence he has not inquired from neighbours at the sasural of his daugther. In para-35, of his cross-examination, he has stated that accused Santosh Ram along with ten persons have brought the victim to Renukut hospital. In para-36, of his cross-examination, he admitted that he has got Santosh Ram treated for the burn injury on the chest and the hand. In para-37, of his cross-examination, he has stated that the last rites of his daughter was performed at the house of Adhina 34 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) Ram. In para-38, of his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of cremation and last rites family members of both sides were present. In para- 42, of his cross-examination, he admitted that Ujjawal Kumar the son of the accused is residing with his grand parents. He has been cross-examined at length.
XIV.P.W.14 is Pallavi Kumari, the daughter of the deceased as also the daughter of accused. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that her father has killed her mother in June 2015. At the time of occurrence she and her brother Ujjawal Kumar were watching the television. On that day her father came and started quarreling with her mother. He demanded money. Earlier also her father used to quarrel with her. Her father sent them to the house of Bua (father's sister's house) which was nearby. When she reached with her Bua to the place of occurrence, she found that her father, friends of her father namely Pintu Biyar, Mantu have taken her mother in the room and there was smoke. Her mother was crying/ raising alarm. Her grand father and other persons came and tried to open the door but door could not be opened. When her mother has got burnt, her father and his friends were putting 35 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) water on her at the hand pump. Thereafter, her Bua took them to her house.
Thereafter, she met her mother at Vindhamganj when she was not alive. She identified the accused present in the court. She has stated that door was open when she was at the house of her Bua. In her cross-examination, in para-11, she has stated that she used to visit her parents place only during summer vacation. She was residing with her maternal grand parents and was studying there. In para-20 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she, her younger brother and parents used to sleep in the same room on two beds. In para-29, of her cross-examination, she admitted that she has not stated before police that her father killed her mother. In para-36 of her cross-examination, she has stated that the chest and hands of her father was burnt while he was trying to douse the fire of her mother. Her father was trying to put off the fire by putting black blanket. In para-37, of her cross- examination, she has stated that he has not tried to save her. She has been cross-examined at length. P.W.15 is Renson Bakhla, the investigating officer of the case. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on 14.06.2015 he took over the charge of 36 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) investigation of Ramna P.S. case no.76/15 from ASI Baijnath Ojha. In course of investigation, he perused the FIR and recorded the statement of informant. Thereafter, he proceeded for the place of occurrence. He has given detailed description of place of occurrence in para-2 and 3 of his examination-in- chief. In course of investigation, he has stated that he was getting the smell of kerosene oil from place of occurrence. He was told that at this place Raj Kumari Devi has been killed by pouring kerosene oil and was burnt. When he reached the place of occurrence, the deceased Raj Kumari Devi has been taken to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment from where she was taken to Renukut for better treatment. At Renukut they were advised to go to Banaras for treatment. They were preparing to move for Banaras but she died at Renukut. Thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence to village Gamharia where he recorded statements of witnesses Surya Dayal Yadav, Umesh Paswan, Lallu Ram, Ramchandra Sao, Radhika Paswan who supported the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, he also recorded the statements of Pallavi Kumari, Lilawati Devi, Rajesh Kumar Ram, Shiv Kumar Ram, Suresh Ram, Ganesh Ram and they also supported the case 37 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) of the prosecution. On 25.07.2015 he received the postmortem report which is attached with record. He admitted the postmortem report on record. In course of investigation he came to know that accused Santosh Ram has surrendered in Garhwa Civil Court on 28.07.2015 and has been sent to judicial custody. On completion of investigation he submitted charge- sheet u/s 498A/302 IPC vide charge-sheet no. 87/15 dated 31.07.2015. He identified the accused Santosh Ram present in the court. He proved the formal FIR and it was marked Ext.2. He has been cross- examined at length. In his crossexamination, in para-13, contradiction has been taken in respect of P.W.1 Shiv Kumar whose statement has been recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and his statement in the court. In para-14, of his crossexamination, contradiction has been taken in respect of P.W.2 Lilawati Devi in between the statement recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of witness in the court. Similarly, in para- 15 of his cross- examination, contradiction has been taken in respect of P.W.3 Ganesh Ram whose statement has been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and his deposition in the court. Similarly, in para-16, of his cross- examination, contradiction has been taken in 38 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) between the statement of P.W.4 Rajesh Kumar recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of witness in the court. In para-17, of his cross- examination, his attention has been drawn towards the statement of P.W.11 Shanti Devi recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition in the court. In para-18, of his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn towards the contradiction in between the statement of P.W.12 Sunesh Ram @ Suresh Ram recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and his deposition in the court. In para-19, of his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn towards the statement of P.W.13 Shankar Ram recorded by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C and his deposition recorded in the court. In para-20, of his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn towards the statement of witness P.W.14 Pallavi Kumari whose statement has been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the deposition recorded in the court. In para-21, of his cross-examination, he has stated that in course of investigation he did not come across any fact regarding demand of dowry. None of the witnesses have stated about the demand of dowry. In para-22, of his cross-examination, he has stated that there is no eye witness of the case. In para-23, of his cross-examination, he admitted that 39 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) prior to the occurrence no case regarding torture for demand of dowry was got instituted at the police station. Further while accused Santosh Ram tried to save his wife he also received burn injury on the chest and hand. In para-25, of his cross- examination, he has stated that he has recorded the statement of Pallavi Kumari, the daughter of deceased, at her maternal uncle's house. P.W.16 is Dr. Umesh Prasad Pandey. He conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found following-
External Examination:-
(I) Dead body age was about 30 years. Female, rigor mortis was present on whole body, no putrid faction.
Eye were closed, mouth was open, nails pale, length of body was 152 cm. It was medium built and average body.
Ante mortem injury:-
(II) Deep burn involving whole body, head, neck, trunk and legs only, sole of foot was separated. There was peeling of skin at many places. Total burn area estimated was about 98% deep burn and fresh burn.
The burn was ante mortem in nature.
Internal examination:-
40
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) (III) Scalp and skull was intact, brain 1300 g.
congested.
Teeth all intact, mouth and pharynx contents secretion larynx and vocal cord was intact, trachea hyoid bone was intact. In chest skin was burnt, trachea and bronchial secretion was present. Pleura was congested, both lungs were congested, right lung 400g. Left 350 g. Heart pericardium heart with right chamber full, left empty.
In Abdomen:-
(IV) Skin burn, peritoneum congested, stomach empty, gall bladder full congested, spleen congested, liver weight 1200g. Congested. Urinary bladder, uterus - empty, kidney both congested, pelvic bones all intact. Time since death- from time of postmortem was about 14 hours. Cause of death- syncope shock due to 98% deep burn fresh.
He proved the postmortem report and it was marked Ext.3. In his cross-examination, in para-6, he has stated that death may be instantly or it may not be instantly when burn is 98%. In para-7, of his cross-examination, he has stated that in such cases patient may remain alive for two hours. In para-8, of his cross-examination, he has stated that except burn injuries no other injury was found over the 41 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) body. In para-9, of his cross-examination, he has stated that burn may be accidental or suicidal. In para-10, of his cross-examination, he has stated that the patient Santosh Ram was referred on 23.07.2015 as per photocopy attached or physiotherapy for old burn injuries.
26. On behalf of defence, four witnesses were examined. For ready reference, the same is discussed as under:
"I.D.W.1 is Ujjwal Kumar, the son of the accused as also deceased. He was aged about nine years. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that his mother died on 14.06.2015. At the time of the death of his mother, he was at the house and his sister Pallavi Kumari was at maternal grand father's house at Renukut. His sister was residing at maternal grand father's house since childhood. Occurrence took place at about 8-9:00 p.m. and his father was sleeping. They were in the habit of taking milk prior to going to bed. While his mother was heating milk, she caught fire. He and his father tried to save her. His father also received burn injury on the hand and chest and he started weeping. In his cross- examination, in para-5, he has stated that at the time of occurrence he was sleeping with his father. In para-8, of his cross-examination, he has stated that 42 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) no other person was present at the house except he, his father and mother.
II.D.W.2 is Mukhlal Yadav. In his examination-in- chief he has stated that on hearing hallah he went to the place and found that Raj Kumari Devi has caught fire and Santosh Ram was trying to save her. He was also badly burnt. They put off the fire. Santosh Ram and Raj Kumari Devi have good relationship. There was never any quarrel. Pallavi Kumari, the daughter of the accused and the deceased was residing with her maternal grand parents at Renukut. He has never seen Pallavi Kumari at village Gamhariya. He has also stated that on the day of occurrence Pallavi Kumari was not present at Gamhariya. In his cross- examination, in para-5, he admitted that he could not say how the occurrence took place. III.D.W.3 is Raja Ram. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that on hearing hallah he went to the place and found that Raj Kumari Devi has caught fire and Santosh Ram was trying to save her. He was also badly burnt. They put off the fire. Santosh Ram and Raj Kumari Devi have good relationship. There was never any quarrel. Pallavi Kumari the daughter of accused and the deceased was residing with her maternal grandparents at Renukut. He has never 43 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) seen Pallavi Kumari at village Gamhariya. He has also stated that on the day of occurrence Pallavi Kumari was not present at Gamhariya. In his cross- examination, in para-5, he admitted that he could not say how the occurrence took place. IV.D.W.4 is Amrendra Kumar Prajapati. In his examination in- chief he has stated that on hearing hallah he went to the place and saw that Santosh Ram was rescuing his wife. Santsoh Ram also received injury while he was trying to rescue her. Santsoh Ram and his wife have good relationship between them. They have two children from wedlock- Pallavi Kumar and Ujjwal Kumar. Pallavi Kumari is residing at Renukut with her maternal grandparents since her childhood. She never visits Gamhariya and he has never seen her at Gamhariya. In his cross- examination, in para-12, he has stated that when he reached place, he found that Raj Kumari Devi has been burnt and hands and chest of Santosh Ram was also burnt."
27. This Court, on the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses, has found that the learned trial Court has considered the testimony of P.W.14 as vital piece of evidence and further taken in to consideration the 44 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) consistent demand of dowry had convicted the present appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.
28. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and testimony of the witnesses, some relevant facts has been emerged which are as follows:
(i) In the case on hand, the victim deceased has suffered 98% burn injuries and the post- mortem report also says that from neck to waist the victim has sustained grievous injuries.
(ii) It is not in dispute that the incident in question occurred in the house when the appellant was present. In other words, the appellant was the person present at the time of incident in the house with the deceased.
(iii) In these circumstances, it was the appellant who could give some plausible explanation as to how and in what manner the incident in question occurred.
(iv) From the evidence of I.O. has proved that kerosene oil was found on the body of deceased in the room.
(v) Further, it is nobody's case that the deceased tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and then put herself on fire.
(vi) As per the testimony of P.W. 1 to P.W.4 and P.W.13 the relations between the appellant and 45 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) deceased were not cordial and the appellant always used to demand money from the deceased.
In contrary to that as per the testimony of P.W.5 and 6 who are the neighbors of the appellant has testified that there was cordial relationship between the appellant and deceased.
(vii) had this been a case of accident as suggested by the defense then burn injuries sustained by the deceased would have been more on the lower part of her body rather on the upper part of the body, the post-mortem report, however, showed that the burn injuries were from upper to bottom and 98 percent of burn was on the deceased.
29. In the backdrop of the aforesaid relevant facts this Court is now going to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
30. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is contradiction in testimonies among the prosecution witnesses as P.W.5 Umesh Ram @ Umesh Paswan in his statement has deposed that at para-1 that there was good relationship in between the deceased and appellant and P.W.6 Radhika Ram has stated in para-3 that he saw the flame over body of the deceased and Santosh Ram was trying to save her and he too sustained burn injury. But contrary to that 46 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.13 has testified that appellant had strained relationship with the deceased and due to demand of dowry the alleged occurrence was caused by the appellant.
31. Per contra the learned counsel for the state has submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.13 have unanimously supported the case of prosecution and further the P.W.14 who is daughter of the deceased was present at the relevant time and has categorically stated about the direct complicity of the appellant in the alleged commission of the crime.
32. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that not every discrepancy or contradiction matters for assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness, unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material that it destroys the substratum of the prosecution case.
33. Law is settled in this regard that merely because there is some contradiction and discrepancies in the testimonies, the same cannot be enough to vitiate the prosecution story, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2015) 17 SCC 694, wherein, at paragraph-8, it has been held as under: -- 47
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) "8. ---- minor discrepancies, embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses do not destroy the essential fabric of the prosecution case, the core of which remains unaffected. Even if we have to assume that there are certain unnatural features in the evidence of the eyewitnesses the same can be reasonably explained on an accepted proposition of law that different persons would react to the same situation in different manner and there can be no uniform or accepted code of conduct to judge the correctness of the conduct of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs 1 and 2. The relation between PWs 5 and 6 and PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased, in our considered view, by itself, would not discredit the testimony of the said witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which makes their version unworthy of acceptance and their testimony remains unshaken in the elaborate cross- examination undertaken."
34. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646, wherein, at paragraphs-46 & 49, it has been held as under:
"46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these witnesses have given different timing as to when they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the deceased by the accused. It is true that there is some variation in the timing given by PW 8, PW 17 and PW 19. Similarly, there is some variation in the statement of PW 7, PW 9 and PW 11. Certain variations are also pointed out in the statements of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 6 as to the motive of the accused for commission of the crime. Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of 48 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine the statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a rational conclusion. No statement of a witness can be read in part and/or in isolation. We are unable to see any material or serious contradiction in the statement of these witnesses which may give any advantage to the accused.
35. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled position of law now we are adverting to testimony of the prosecution witness in order to find out that whether the testimony of eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient enough to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant or suffer with the contradiction as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
36. P.W.1 is Shiv Kumar, the brother of the deceased has stated that after 4-5 years of marriage, the accused started threatening his sister and also used to assault her. He was demanding money etc. from his father. His sister was assaulted in her private parts and was threatened. He has further testified that when Santosh Ram was asked about occurrence, he said that she (deceased) has caught fire because of bursting of gas cylinder. He further deposed that he along with others reached Ramna police station from Renukut and asked the officer-in-charge B.N. Ojha to visit place of 49 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) occurrence. He visited the place and he found kerosene oil, clothes and burnt rope. The gas cylinder has not exploded. Further, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 had deposited on the same line on point of continuous assault and dowry demand.
37. Thus, from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses it is evident that on the point of dowry demand and assault with the deceased the said prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.1 had stated that appellant used to assault the deceased and demand money from his father and deceased was assaulted in her private parts and was threatened. Thus the continuous demand of dowry and assault has fully been established by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
38. Now we perused the testimony of P.W.5 Umesh Ram @ Umesh Paswan wherein he had stated that no quarrel used to take place between them. About two years ago, there was hallah at 08:00 p.m. He reached near the house of Santosh Ram and found that Raj Kumari Devi was raising alarm Bachao-Bachao. Santosh Ram was trying to save her and hands of Santosh Ram was also burnt and children were sleeping. The children got up after lapse of much time. In para-9, of his cross-examination, he has stated that Santosh Ram and his wife have good relationship. She caught fire while she was cooking food. 50
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) In para-11, of his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was conscious, even after getting fire, for a long time.
39. P.W.6 is Radhika Ram has stated that there was having good relationship between accused and deceased and about two years ago, the people assembled there and found that the wife of appellant/accused has caught fire and appellant Santosh Ram was trying to save her and chest and both hands of the appellant were burnt.
40. Admittedly both the aforesaid witnesses who are neighbours of the appellant has stated that there was cordial relationship between accused and deceased and at the same time they have stated that appellant was trying to save the deceased.
41. Admittedly both the witness are co-villagers of the appellant and it is natural that the dowry demand or any matrimonial dispute is the internal matter of the family and no family want to divulge the illegal demand of dowry to neighbour rather the demand is directly made to the family members of the married girl, therefore on point of dowry demand the testimony of these witnesses is not fit to be fully reliable.
42. So far as the injury sustained by the husband appellant is concerned, much emphasis has been put on the fact that the accused was trying to save the deceased 51 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) and during said course he had sustained burn injuries. But this Court is of the considered view that that merely the husband appellant has sustained the burn injuries cannot absolve him to explain sufficiently that in which circumstances the alleged occurrence was happened as he was present with his wife at the time of alleged occurrence. Further it is evident from the testimony of P.W.1 which has been substantiated by the testimony of the other prosecution witness that the appellant used to assault the deceased and one time he assaulted in private parts of the deceased. Further it has come in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that appellant has stated that due to explosion of cylinder the occurrence was happened but when investigating officer had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. house of the appellant, has found that there was no explosion of gas cylinder and further he found the kerosene oil, clothes and burnt rope at the place of occurrence.
43. In a case where an accused husband claimed to have sustained burn injuries while saving his wife, the court may consider that whether the injuries were sustained during an attempt to save the wife or were inflicted upon her, and whether the husband had any prior involvement in causing harm to her. Further it is evident from the testimony of P.W.1 which has been substantiated by the 52 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) testimony of the other prosecution witness that the appellant used to assault the deceased and one time he assaulted in private parts of the deceased. Further it has come in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that appellant has stated that due to explosion of cylinder the occurrence has happened but when investigating officer had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. house of the appellant, has found that there was no explosion of gas cylinder and further he found the smell of kerosene oil, clothes and burnt rope at the place of occurrence.
44. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid fact it is beyond to imagination that while trying to save his wife he had sustained injuries. Therefore, it is the considered view of this Court that explanation tendered by the husband for having sustained burn injuries is even farthest from truth and probably, such an explanation is tendered so as to obviate the criminal liability for a gruesome offence.
45. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the conviction is based solely upon the testimony of P.W. 14, who is daughter of the appellant and victim. The testimony of P.W. 14 will be taken into consideration, it would be evident that she has not deposed that she has seen her father pouring kerosene oil on her deceased mother and putting her on fire rather at paragraph 29 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated 53 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) that she has not stated to the police that her father killed her mother.
46. It needs to refer herein that a child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he or she has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virendra alias Buddhu & Anr. Vs. State of Uttat Pradesh [(2008) 16 582], relevant paragraph of which is quoted as under:
19. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he or she has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon.
20. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5 SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 685] it was held as follows : (SCC p. 343, para 5) "5. ... A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that 54 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
21. Subsequently, in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 1 SCC 64 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 7] wherein one of us (Dr. Arijit Pasayat) was a member the Bench held that (SCC p. 67, para 7) though "[t]he decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath."
but "[t]he decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his conclusion was erroneous".
The Bench further held as under : (Ratansinh case [(2004) 1 SCC 64 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 7] , SCC p. 67, para 7) "7. ... This precaution is necessary because child witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaken and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their 55 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness."
47. Now in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law at this juncture it would be apt to reiterate the testimony of P.W.14, Pallavi Kumari the daughter of accused. At the time of alleged occurrence, she was minor and therefore the learned trial court had enquired about her intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers by following the procedure as stipulated in statute and after being satisfied has recorded her testimony.
48. She has stated that her father has killed her mother in June 2015. At the time of occurrence, she and her brother Ujjawal Kumar were watching the television. On that day her father came and started quarreling with her mother. Earlier also her father used to quarrel with her. Her father sent them to the house of Bua (father's sister's house) which was nearby and when she reached with her Bua to the place of occurrence, she found that her father, friends of her father namely Pintu Biyar, Mantu have taken her mother in the room and there was smoke. Her mother was crying/ raising alarm. Her grandfather and other persons came and tried to open the door but door could not be opened. When her mother has got burnt, her 56 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) father and his friends were putting water on her at the hand pump. Thereafter, her Bua took them to her house. In her cross-examination, in para-11, she has stated that she used to visit her parents place only during summer vacation. In para-20 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she, her younger brother and parents used to sleep in the same room on two beds.
49. Thus, it is evident that this witness has categorically stated that her father has killed her mother in June 2015. However no where it has come in her testimony that he had seen that her father had poured kerosene upon her deceased mother but the circumstance as stated by her is indicative of the complicity of the appellant in alleged crime. This witness had stated that on that day her father came and started quarreling with her mother. Earlier also her father used to quarrel with her. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that there was strain relationship between the accused and deceased.
50. She has further testified that when she reached with her Bua to the place of occurrence, she found that her father, friends of her father namely Pintu Biyar, Mantu have taken her mother in the room and there was smoke. Her mother was crying/ raising alarm. Her grandfather and other persons came and tried to open the door but door could not be opened.
57
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
51. Further, P.W.13 Shankar Ram who is the informant and of the case has stated in para-15 that P.W.14 Pallavi Kumari stated that her 'Papa'(father) along with Mintu and Mantu killed Raj Kumari Devi. Thus, the testimony of P.W.13 has been substantiated by the testimony of P.W.14.
52. However, the learned counsel for the appellant while referring the testimony of the defence witness particularly D.W.1 has created doubt about the presence of the P.W.14 at the place of occurrence.
53. In the aforesaid context this Court is conscious with the fact that as per settled proposition of law, the defence witness is also to be given equal weightage as is to be given to the prosecution witnesses as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 351 at para 3 which reads hereunder as:--
3. Without attributing any motive and taking the evidence on its face value, therefore, it appears that the place of occurrence was at 400-500 yards from the place of Panchayat and it is on this piece of evidence, the learned advocate for the State heavily relied upon and contended that the distance was far too short so as to be an impossibility for the accused to be at the place of occurrence -- we cannot but lend concurrence to such a submission : a distance of 400-500 yards cannot possibly be said to be "presence elsewhere" -- it is not an impossibility to 58 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) be at the place of occurrence and also at the Panchayat meet, the distance being as noticed above : the evidence on record itself negates the plea and we are thus unable to record our concurrence as regards acceptance of the plea of alibi as raised in the appeal. Before drawing the curtain on this score, however, we wish to clarify that the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses on a par with that of the prosecution -- a lapse on the part of the defence witnesses cannot be differentiated and be treated differently than that of the prosecutors' witnesses."
54. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the same view in a judgment rendered in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 7 SCC 157.
55. Now in the aforesaid backdrop of the settled position of law, at this juncture this Court revisited the version of defence witnesses particularly D.W.1 who is the son of the appellant and time of the alleged occurrence he was minor. In his testimony he had stated that at the time of the death of his mother, he was at the house and his sister Pallavi Kumari was at maternal grand father's house at Renukut and his sister was residing at maternal grand father's house since childhood. Occurrence took place at 59 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) about 8-9:00 p.m. and his father was sleeping. They were in the habit of taking milk prior to going to bed. While his mother was heating milk, she caught fire. He and his father tried to save her. His father also received burn injury on the hand and chest and he started weeping.
56. It has come in the testimony of this witness that his sister (P.W.14) was not present at the place of the occurrence and he further deposed that while his mother was heating milk, she caught fire and he and his father tried to save her.
57. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that this witness tried to claim himself as the eyewitness of the occurrence. But the claim of D.W.1 as an eyewitness does not inspire confidence because P.W.5 had stated that when he reached near the house of Santosh Ram had found that Raj Kumari Devi was raising alarm Bachao- Bachao and Raj Kumari Devi has been burnt more than half and her children were sleeping and the children got up after lapse of much time. Thus, from the aforesaid part of testimony of the P.W.5, the testimony of D.W.1 appears to be doubtful as such his testimony is not fit to be relied upon.
58. Further it needs to refer herein that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution 60 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which burden of proof would lie upon accused. Reference in this regard may be taken from Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 5 SCC 626] .
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 14 SCC 415] has held as under: --
"23. So far as the circumstance that they had been living together is concerned, indisputably, the entirety of the situation should be taken into consideration. Ordinarily when the husband and wife remained within the four walls of a house and a death by homicide takes place it will be for the husband to explain the circumstances in which she might have died. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that although the same may be considered to be a strong circumstance but that by alone in the absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive. It may be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the husband and the husband alone was responsible therefor."
60. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that some of the witnesses of the prosecution did not support the prosecution case fully, rather they had supported the case of defence. It is for this reason, learned counsel 61 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) submitted that the prosecution case should be discarded.
61. We do not agree to this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of P.W.1 to 4 as well as PW.13 and P.W.14 which we have detailed above, fully proves the case of the prosecution. In this view of the matter, even if, some witnesses might have not supported the case of prosecution fully, yet it would be of no significance and nor it would adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
62. Admittedly some witnesses had stated they never saw physical violence, this fact does not conclusively prove that cruelty did not happen within the privacy of the matrimonial home and minor child's testimony clearly establishes prior abuse.
63. Further ,on the basis of the discussion made herein above this Court is of the view that , deposition of the defence witnesses has rightly not been given any undue weightage by the trial Court. It is the considered view of this Court that though the defence witnesses are also entitled to similar treatment as is being given to the prosecution witnesses, deposition of those defence witnesses cannot throw away the otherwise voluminous evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. 62
( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB )
64. On the basis of discussion made herein above the very factum of demand of dowry and assault has been established and the same has been corroborated by witnesses namely P.W.1 Shiv kumar (brother of the deceased), P.W.2 Lilawati Devi (sister of deceased), P.W.3 Ganesh Ram, P.W.4 Rajesh Kumar(brother of the deceased), P.W.11 Shanti Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W.12 Sunesh Ram @ Suresh Ram, P.W.13 Shankar Ram (father of the deceased) .
65. In the instant case there is no dispute that deceased died due to burn injuries. Doctor (P.W.16) has stated in his evidence that he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and he found 98% burn injuries on the body. As per his opinion, cause of death was shock due to extensive burns. An accused/appellant husband claimed to have sustained burn injuries while saving his wife but in the preceding paragraph this Court has observed that appellant had a history of assault, harassment and demand of dowry towards her deceased wife as such an explanation as tendered by the appellant is nothing but just an exercise to obviate the criminal liability for a gruesome offence.
66. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by 63 ( 2025:JHHC:13292-DB ) the learned trial Court, is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubts against the present appellant, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this Court.
67. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
68. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Alankar / A.F.R.
64