Patna High Court - Orders
Vicky Kr. Choubey @ Jyoti Raman Chaubey vs The State Of Bihar on 19 January, 2026
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 533 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
======================================================
Sumant Chaubey @ Sumant Kumar Chaubey Son of Gauri Shankar Chaubey
Resident of Village - Parsauni Baij, P.S.- Piprahi, District - Sheohar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sujit Kumar Son of Awadhesh Pandey Resident of Village - Bira, Chhapra,
P.S.- Shyampur Bhatta, District - Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 532 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
======================================================
Nilam Devi W/o Sumant Chaubey R/o vill - Parsauni Baij, P.S- Piprahi,
Distt.- Sheohar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 541 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
======================================================
Vicky Kr. Choubey @ Jyoti Raman Chaubey S/o Sumant Kumar Chaubey
R/o Village- Parsauni Baij, PS- Piprahi, Distt- Sheohar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sujit Kumar S/o Awadhesh Pandey R/o vill - Bira, Chhapra, P.s.- Shyampur
Bhatta, Distt.- Sheohar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 533 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Neetu Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 532 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Neetu Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 541 of 2025)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026
2/18
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Neetu Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
10 21-01-2026Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Neetu Jha and the Ld. APP for the State, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha.
2. The aforesaid three appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.02.2025 and 24.02.2025, respectively passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Sheohar in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2021 (arising out of Piprahi P.S. Case No.119 of 2021) whereby and whereunder the appellants of the aforesaid three appeals, have been convicted under Sections 304B/34, 302/34 & 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in default of payment of the same, they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years U/s. 201/34 of the IPC with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of the same, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 3/18 they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 304-B of the IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The records of the aforesaid appeals have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellants for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of these appeals.
4. Short facts of the case, according to the written report dated 07.06.2021, filed by the informant, namely Sujit Kumar (PW-4), i.e. the brother of the deceased is that the marriage of her sister, namely Priyanka Kumari was solemnized on 03.07.2014 with Vicky Chaubey (the appellant of third case) and in the said marriage, the father of the informant had given cash amounting to a sum of Rs.1,51,000/-, furniture, clothes, silver and gold jewellery to Vicky Chaubey and his father, namely Sumant Chaubey (appellant of the first case) and had also spent huge sums of money. The informant has further stated that after the marriage, things were normal for few days, however thereafter, the in-laws and the husband of the deceased started demanding money by way of dowry and used to harass the sister of the informant leading to panchayati being held at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 4/18 the door of the house of Shaligram Singh in the year 2016. Thereafter, for some time the husband and in-laws of the deceased had kept her properly but one year back Vicky Chaubey and Sumant Chaubey started demanding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purposes of business and upon non- fulfillment of the said demand, they used to beat the sister of the informant, nonetheless the elder brother of the informant used to send some money to Vicky Chaubey regularly. The informant has next stated that on 06.06.2021, information was received that his sister has been killed by her husband and father-in-law by strangulating her neck and burning her and when they had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased, they found that in-laws of the deceased were hurriedly trying to cremate the dead body of the deceased. The informant has also stated that when they said that they would call the police, the appellants had locked Punam Devi (PW-1) and Nitu Kumari (sister of the informant) in a room and had also threatened the informant that they would kill him, after which they had cremated the dead body of the sister of the informant in a hasty manner with a view to erase the evidence. The informant has stated that her sister has got three children, namely Ansh Raj, aged about 5½ years, Himani Kumari, aged about 3½ years and Ananya Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 5/18 Kumari, aged about 1½ years. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant dated 07.06.2021, Piprahi P.S. Case No.119 of 2021 was registered on 07.06.2021 at 2:15 p.m. U/s. 304-B and 34 of the IPC against Vicky Chaubey and Sumant Chaubey.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that while the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, the defence has examined nine witnesses. It is stated that the deposition of the prosecution's witnesses are full of contradictions and none of them are eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, except PW-7. As far as PW-1, namely Punam Devi is concerned, she is mother of the deceased and a hearsay witness. She has stated in her deposition that her deceased- daughter had given birth to twin sons, however after six months one died and since then, her daughter used to be beaten by her husband and in-laws. She has also stated that on 4 th she had talked to her daughter normally, however on 5 th she did not talk with her daughter and on 6th the incident in question had taken place. In paragraph no.7 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the face of her daughter was partly burnt and it is said that the same had happened on account of burning by gas stove and an empty cylinder and pipe was lying there. In para No.17 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 6/18 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after marriage, her daughter along with her husband had come to her house several times and her daughter used to regularly talk to her on phone. In paragraph no.28 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that there was no transaction in between Vicy Chaubey and her son. In para No.31 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that information about the said occurrence was given by her son-in-law, namely Vicky Chaubey to her son, namely Anuj. In paragraph No.34, PW-1 has replied to the Court's question by saying that the cremation of the deceased was not done in presence of her or her family members. In paragraph no.40 of her cross-examination, PW-1 has replied to the Court's question by saying that gas pipe was kept after burning the same with diya (earthen lamp) and an empty cylinder was lying there, inasmuch as if the deceased was burnt by cylinder, then how her tongue came out, thus deceased was killed by strangulating her neck.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has next referred to the evidence of PW-2, namely Awadesh Pandey, who is the father of the deceased and he has more or less repeated the story as has been narrated in the FIR, however he has stated in paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination that whatever amount Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 7/18 he spent in the marriage was voluntary. In paragraph no.17 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that in the cremation of his daughter, he along with his son Sujit Kumar (PW-4) had participated and the pyre was lit by his son-in-law. In paragraph no.18 of his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that information about the occurrence was given by his son-in-law to his younger son Anuj. In paragraph no.26, PW-2 has stated that after the death of his daughter, he is keeping her children along with his family. As regards PW-4 (Sujit Kumar), who is the informant, reference has been made to his deposition, wherein he has stated that he received information that his sister has been killed by strangulating her neck, whereafter he along with his younger sister, mother and father had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased where they found that her sister was completely burnt and her tongue and eyes had come out as also the husband and in-laws of his sister had cremated her dead body in haste. In paragraph no.21 of his cross- examination, PW-4 has stated that he was forcibly made to participate in the cremation of his sister. PW-5 is the investigating officer of the connected case, however he is the second investigating officer and had taken up investigation on 26.07.2021 from the previous investigating officer, namely Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 8/18 Mithlesh Kumar Singh, as such he has not stated anything of significance in his evidence.
7. Now coming to PW-6 Mithlesh Kr. Singh, who is the main investigating officer, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had inspected the place of occurrence and found that floor was plastered, which was absolutely in a neat and clean condition and in the kitchen gas cylinder and stove had been kept and the end of pipe joining the cylinder with stove was brunt. In paragraph no.10 of his cross- examination, PW-6 has stated that he arrested Vicky Chaubey, who has stated in his confessional statement that on the date of occurrence at about 1 p.m. he was at his shop when his son Hansraj, aged about 5 years, came running and told that his mother has caught fire, whereafter he had gone running to his house and found his wife to have got burnt and was lying dead and she had caught fire while making food on a gas stove. In para no.11 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that pipe of gas stove had caught fire resulting in the occurrence, which has been mentioned in paragraph no.16 of the case-diary.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has next referred to the deposition of PW-7 Hansraj, minor son of the deceased, who is a child witness. However, it is submitted that it Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 9/18 was imperative upon the learned Trial Court to have recorded its satisfaction to the effect that the minor is able to understand the questions put to him and is able to respond and provide rational answers to the questions asked. It is also submitted that such satisfaction of the learned Trial Court is required to be based on certain preliminary questions which ought to be put to the witness to gauge the capability of the witness to understand the questions and answering the same with some amount of rationality in terms of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, in the present case a bare perusal of the questions put to PW-7 would show that the same are sketchy in nature and the learned Trial Court has definitely not recorded its satisfaction, hence giving scope for doubting the credibility of such witness. It is next stated that in paragraph no.6 of his deposition, PW-7 has cooked up a different story and has stated that in the morning at 8:30 a.m. on 06.06.2021, her mother had prepared tea and given to his grandfather, grandmother, father and two uncles, and finding that no sugar had been put in the tea, the said persons had thrown tea on the face of the deceased and then they started beating her (deceased) with lathi, danda and belt, whereafter the father of PW-7 had pressed the neck of the deceased while the grandfather, grandmother and two uncles Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 10/18 of PW-7 had caught hold of her and then they had sprinkled kerosene oil and burnt her in toilet by lighting fire with match stick.
9. At this juncture itself, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were not granted proper opportunity to cross-examine the minor witness, i.e PW- 7, who was living with his maternal grandfather and his family members, after death of his mother. In fact, a petition dated 28.05.2024 under Section 311 of CrPC was filed for recalling PW-7 so that defence could cross-examine him but the same was rejected by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 04.06.2024. It is also submitted that after the learned Trial Judge had started recording the deposition of PW-7 in his chamber in presence of the defence lawyer, the learned Public Prosecutor and two accused persons, he had provided a plain paper through his staff to the defence lawyer to write questions over the same relating to cross-examination of PW-7, however the defence lawyer was not given sufficient time to cross-examine PW-7, inasmuch as the Ld. Trial Judge had discharged PW-7 by simply asking the defence lawyer to write and give questionnaire, however what answers were given in response to the questionnaire was not supplied to the defence lawyer. Thus, it is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 11/18 submitted that deposition of PW-7 is not credible and fit to be discarded.
10. The Ld. counsel for the appellants has next referred to the defence witnesses and has submitted that 9 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence and most of them have stated that the informant & his family members were demanding money and land from the accused persons for absolving them of the charge of murder leading to a sale deed dated 06.09.2022 being executed by the appellant of the first case, namely Sumant Kumar Chaubey in favor of the son of the deceased. The defence witnesses have further stated that though incident is of morning of 06.6.2021, however the case was lodged only in the 2nd half on 7.6.2021 after premeditation, when the demand being made by the prosecution could not materialize and moreover, photography/videography of cremation was also done which would reveal that the informant and his family members were present in the cremation of the deceased. Some of the defence witnesses have also stated about the deceased having died on account of being burnt by catching fire due to bursting of gas pipe. In nutshell, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is dearth of evidence with regard to demand of dowry as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 12/18 also pertaining to accusation of torture/ cruelty upon the deceased for sustaining conviction U/s. 304-B of the IPC, inasmuch as all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses on the point of demand of dowry and torture in lieu thereof. It is submitted that the neighbors, who had arrived at the place of occurrence, being independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution for reasons best known to them which leads to an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also pointed out that there has been investigational lapses on the part of the police and there are material omissions on the part of the investigating officer, which has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story which are impossible to mend. Thus, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts as it has not been able to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC, since it has neither been able to prove the existence of demand of dowry nor the factum of cruelty meted out to the deceased soon before her death.
11. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and has submitted that PW-7 being eye witness to the alleged occurrence has fully substantiated and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 13/18 corroborated the alleged occurrence, in his testimony, before the learned Trial Court, thus the solitary testimony of PW-7 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons/appellants herein beyond all reasonable doubts.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having cursorily perused the evidence on record, we prima facie find that the evidence of PW-1 (mother of the deceased) and PW-2 (father of the deceased) shows that the deceased and her husband used to come to their house regularly before the said incident and that their daughter used to talk to them regularly as also no money transaction had taken place in between the husband of the deceased and the son of the said witnesses. The essential ingredients for the purposes of applicability of Section 304-B of the IPC is that the death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, death must have occurred within seven years of marriage, soon before her death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relatives of her husband and cruelty or harassment must have been inflicted in connection with any demand for dowry, however in the present case, we prima facie find that the evidence on record do not show that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 14/18 deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative soon before her death in connection with any demand for dowry. We further find from the evidence on record that the informant and his father had participated in the cremation with regard to which photography was also done and in fact, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 (informant) have all stated that the husband of the deceased had informed the younger son of PW-1 and PW-2, namely Anuj about the incident, whereafter the informant and his family members had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and then cremation was held which is quite normal, however on the next day, the FIR was lodged which creates a suspicion with regard to the motive of the prosecution. We further find from the evidence of the investigating officer, i.e. PW-6 that he has categorically stated in paragraph no.11 of his cross-examination that the pipe of gas stove had caught fire leading to the occurrence in question having taken place, which has been recorded in paragraph no.16 of the case-diary, hence we find that nothing is left to imagination and prima facie the cause of death of the deceased was on account of bursting of pipe of gas stove. We further find that the story propounded by the prosecution's witnesses in their testimony regarding the neck of the deceased having been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 15/18 pressed leading to her death has not stood substantiated in absence of any medical evidence on record.
13. Now coming to the evidence of PW-7, we find that he was aged about 5-5 ½ years at the time of occurrence, i.e. on 06.06.2021 and his evidence has been recorded by the learned Trial Court on 23.02.2024 after two years and nine months approximately and during the said period, PW-7 was staying with his maternal grandfather, grandmother and the informant, hence his evidence will have to be evaluated with greater care and caution, inasmuch as a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. In a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 21, it has been held that it would be hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of a child witness in case the same has not been made immediately after the occurrence, giving scope to possibility of tutoring him. In the present case also, the evidence of PW-7 had been recorded after about 2 years and 9 months while he was at the home of maternal grandfather, grandmother and the informant, thus the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out. In fact, we would gainfully refer to yet another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Panchhi & Ors. vs. State of U.P., Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 16/18 reported in (1998) 7 SCC 177. In the present case, PW-7, in his examination-in-chief has altogether propounded a new story and has stated that not only his mother was strangulated by his father but the accused persons had also sprinkled kerosene oil and put her on fire, however the same has not stood substantiated from any other source much less any ocular/medical evidence on record. Thus, prima facie the possibility of PW-7 having been tutored cannot be ruled out and moreover, vacillating nature of his evidence by way of substantial improvements and embellishments appearing in his evidence would also show that there are traces of tutoring in his evidence. Another factor in connection with the reliability of the evidence of a child witness which is to be considered is that the learned Trial Court must record its satisfaction that the minor is able to understand the questions put to the witness who is able to respond and provide rational answers to the questions asked. The satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court should be based on certain preliminary questions which ought to be put to a child witness to gauge the capability of the witness to understand the questions and answering the same with some amount of rationality. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep vs. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 17/18 State of Haryana, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 777. In the present case, we find upon perusal of the questions put to PW-7 by the learned Trial Court that the same are sketchy in nature and the learned Trial Court has prima facie not satisfied itself with regard to capability of PW-7 of understanding the questions and giving rational answers, thus giving the scope of doubting the credibility of such witness.
14. Thus, taking a holistic view of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and for the foregoing reasons apart from having considered the fact that the appellant of the third case, namely Vicky Kumar Choubey, i.e the husband of the deceased, has undergone custody for 4 years and 8 months while the other two appellants have undergone custody of about two years, we prima facie find that the impugned judgment of conviction might not be sustainable, hence we are of the view that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeals.
15. Accordingly, we direct suspension of order of sentence dated 24.02.2025 qua the appellants of the aforesaid three Appeals as also direct to release them on bail, during the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.533 of 2025(10) dt.21-01-2026 18/18 pendency of the aforesaid appeals, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Sheohar in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2021 (arising out of Piprahi P.S. Case No.119 of 2021).
16. It is clarified that the observation made hereinabove are prima facie and tentative in nature for the purposes of consideration of the prayer of the appellants of the aforesaid appeals for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties at the time of hearing of the main appeal.
17. List these appeals for hearing in their own turn.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Praveen Kumar, J) Kanchan/.-
U T