Jharkhand High Court
Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:13961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 261 of 2005
------
Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah son of Shri Sitaram Sahu, R/o
Village:- Sitala Chowk, Parshudih, Jamshedpur, P.S.:- Parsudih,
District:- East Singhbhum ......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Hira Lal Sah, S/o late Daulat Sah, R/o Village:- Bangali Para
Bazar, P.S:- Parsudih, District:- East Singhbhum
.......Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V On : 30.09.2024 Pronounced On: 28.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2005 and sentence dated 16.02.2005 passed by Sri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Session Trial No. 353/03 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven (07) years.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Hiralal Sah recorded on 22.03.2003 at 11 hours 1 2025:JHHC:13961 in T.M.H police camp which has been registered as F.I.R being Parsudih P.S. Case No. 37/03 on 22.03.2003 at 19 hours. It has been alleged therein that the informant's daughter namely Punam Devi was married to Kailash Sah about 7 years ago. After the marriage the infomant's daughter was residing in her Sasural along with her husband and she had been blessed with two daughters namely Priyanka aged about 4 years and Riha aged about 2 years. It has been further alleged that the informants daughter used to come her Naihar and used to say that her mother-in-law, Bhaisur (elder brother of the husband) and Jethani (wife of elder brother of the husband) used to demand money for the construction of the house. The informant told to his daughter to say to the in-laws people that the informant had got no money. Since, the informant did not give money as such his daughter was burnt on 19.03.2003 at 10 P.M in the night in the house and she was hospitalized at T.M.H in BCU for treatment on 20.03.2003.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has wrongly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case under Section 304-B/34 of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C. It is evident from the evidence on record that the death of the deceased had not occurred 2 2025:JHHC:13961 within seven (07) years of her marriage and also there is no evidence that the deceased was being tortured for or in connection with demand of dowry.
It is further submitted that the independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution and they have been purposely withheld by the prosecution. It is submitted that P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-9 have not supported the case of the prosecution although, they have also not been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is further submitted that P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W- 6, P.W-7 and P.W-8 are brothers, father and mother of the deceased and they are highly interested witnesses. It is submitted that the informant had fetched Rs. 1 lakh from Kailash Sah after lodging of the F.I.R has blackmailed and cheated Kailash Sah.
It is further submitted that the informant had demanded Rs. 2 Lakh from Kailash Sah for not lodging the case and further when Rs. 1 lakh was paid then he filed a petition for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C for saying true facts that the accused persons had not committed any offence, they had never tortured the deceased and had demanded any money from the deceased and her Naihar people but subsequently, the Informant did not appear in the Court purposely. It is submitted that the informant lodged false case alleging false allegations after inordinate delay and prior to the death of the deceased, he had not alleged any allegation nor had stated before anybody about the alleged demand and torture by the members of in-laws family of the deceased.
It is further submitted that the accused Sanjay Sah @ Bhola Sahu and Geeta Devi, the Jaith and Jethani were named in 3 2025:JHHC:13961 the F.I.R as the accused by the informant and the police after investigation had submitted final report against them. It is submitted that P.Ws have made most contradictory statement to each other on several vital points but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that P.W-3 is a child witness and he is tutured witness.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments which are as follows:-
(i) In the case of Appasaheb and Another versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 EastCrC (SC) 5,
(ii) In the case of Baljeet Singh and Another versus State of Haryana reported in (2004) 3 SCC 122,
(iii) In the case of Baijnath and Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101,
(iv) In the case of Ramaiah @ Rama versus State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 9 SCC 365,
(v) In the case of Major Singh and Another versus State of Punjab reported in (2015) 5 SCC 201,
(vi) In the case of Saro Rana versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2004) 3 JLJR 270,
(vii) In the case of Sukhdev Singh @ Sikha versus State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 PLJ(Cri) 350 and hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no 4 2025:JHHC:13961 interference is required. It is submitted that this is a case of dowry death and the deceased Punam Devi had committed suicide due to illegal acts of the appellants. It is submitted that P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-6, P.W-7 and P.W-8 namely Vijay Kumar Sah, Hiralal Sah, Sanjay Sah, Ajay Kumar Sah, Anjay Kumar Sah and Smt. Devi have fully supported the prosecution case and further submitted that torture was given by the accused appellant upon the deceased lady. It is submitted that evidence of P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W- 5 and P.W-7 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are family members and interested witnesses.
It is further submitted that P.W-11 is the Doctor who has conducted post-mortem of the deceased and P.W-10 is the I.O of this case who has corroborated and supported the prosecution case and had submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 304-B/34 of the I.P.C and hence, this Criminal Revision may be dismissed.
6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides.
7. It appears that the informant namely Hiralal Sah had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant and two others namely Chinki Devi and Sitaram Sah on 22.03.2003 giving rise to Parsudih P.S Case No. 37 of 2003 under Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C on account of death of his daughter Punam Devi who had married with the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah about seven (07) years ago.
8. The police, after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and two others namely Sita Ram Sah and Chinki Devi under section 304-B/34 of I.P.C on 5 2025:JHHC:13961 31.08.2003. Thereafter, the learned C.J.M, Jamshedpur had taken cognizance on 02.09.2003 against the appellant and two others namely Chinki Devi and Sitaram Sah under section 304-B/34 of I.P.C.
9. After supplying the police papers to the appellants the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
10. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellant and two others namely Sita Ram Sah and Chinki Devi for the offence under section 304-B/34 of I.P.C on 07.02.2004 by Sri R.P Ravi, learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. During trial, the prosecution got examined eleven (11) witnesses, who are as follows:
(i) P.W-1 is Vijay Kumar Talukdar,
(ii) P.W-2 is Kapildeo Lal,
(iii) P.W-3 is Vijay Kumar Sah,
(iv) P.W-4 is Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant,
(v) P.W-5 is Sanjay Sah,
(vi) P.W-6 is Ajay Kumar Sah,
(vii) P.W-7 is Anjay Kumar Sah,
(viii) P.W-8 is Smt. Devi,
(ix) P.W-9 is Smt. Chandrawati Devi,
(x) P.W-10 is Amarjit Prasad,
(xi) P.W-11 is Dr. Lallan Choudhary.
12. The prosecution has got marked the following documents in support of its case, which are as follows:-
62025:JHHC:13961
(i) Exhibit-1 is the signature of Parsudih Officer-in- Charge Ashok Kumar on fardbeyan.
(ii) Exhibit-1/1 is the signature of S.B Pandey, S.I, Bistupur on fardbeyan.
(iii) Exhibit-2 is the Post-mortem Report.
13. Thereafter the appellant and two others namely Sita Ram Sah and Chinki Devi were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C on 12.01.2005 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them.
14. The defence in support of its case got proved the following documents as Exhibits which are as follows:-
(i) Exhibit-A is the petition dated 07.04.2003,
(ii) Exhibit-B is the Vakalatnama dated 09.04.2003.
15. Thereafter, the learned Court below after hearing both the sides had convicted the appellant and two others namely Sita Ram Sah and Chinki Devi under Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Appeal has been filed.
16. Perused the F.I.R and considered the submissions of both the sides.
17. It reveals from the F.I.R that the informant Hiralal Sah had lodged the F.I.R against Smt. Chinki Devi (Original Appellant No.3) who died, Bhaisur namely Sita Ram Sah and Jethani namely Geeta Dev and the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. husband of the deceased Punam Devi was not made an accused in the F.I.R by the informant lodged on 22.03.2003.
18. It further reveals that mother-in-law, Jethani and Bhaisur used to demand money from the deceased Punam Devi for 7 2025:JHHC:13961 constructing the house.
19. It has also been alleged in the F.I.R that Punam Devi deceased daughter of the informant aged around 25 years was married with Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah (i.e. the appellant, not named in the F.I.R) and she was living with her husband in her matrimonial home and got two children namely Priyanka and Rhea aged around 2 years. However, sometime, his daughter used to inform him that her Jaithani, Bhaisur and mother-in-law used to demand money from her for constructing the house and upon which he advised her daughter to inform her in-law members that they have no money.
20. It is further alleged that as the informant could not pay money to the in-law members of his daughter and hence, his deceased daughter has been burnt to death on 19.03.2003 in the night at 10.00 P.M and his daughter was referred to treatment in injured condition on 20.03.2003 at T.M.H, B.C.U.
21. So far as the evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, P.W-1 is Vijay Kumar Talukdar, who is a businessman and who stated during his evidence that on the day of Holi in the year 2003, he was in his residence and next day when he went to open his shop then, he learnt that Punam Devi i.e. the deceasd had died due to bursting of stove.
22. During cross-examination, he stated to be acquainted with the family of Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant who is his neighbour. He neither seen any quarrel between Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e the appellant and deceased Punam Devi nor had heard any quarrel between them. He further stated that the deceased Punam Devi never complaint before him against her 8 2025:JHHC:13961 matrimonial home. He had also gone to see Punam Devi in hospital and had met with Hiralal Sah who is the father of Punam Devi.
He further stated that Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant had not disclosed any person in the hospital that in-law members of Punam Devi have committed murder or had tortured her. He further stated that Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant had demanded half of the share of the house or to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to him and had threatened Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant to lodge the case, if half of the share is not given to him.
During further cross-examination, P.W-1 also stated that he used to open his shop between 8 A.M to 12 Noon and thereafter, from 4 P.M to 9 P.M in the night and his house is situated at 1/4 KM from his shop. He had gone to T.M.H to see the deceased Punam Devi on 20th and 21st date. He also stated that he is living in Parsudih for the last 20 years.
23. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-1, it is evident that the deceased Punam Devi had died due to stove bursting and she had never complaint against her in-laws members before him at any point of time while she was living in her matrimonial home and he had also not seen any quarrel between the deceased Punam Devi and appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah. Even, he admitted to have gone to hospital twice on 20th day and 21st day (i.e. 20th March and 21st March 2023). He stated that the informant had not disclosed any person in the hospital that the deceased had made complaint against the appellant and other in-law members for quarrelling with her rather, he stated that the informant had demanded half of the share of the property of the 9 2025:JHHC:13961 appellant or alternatively Rs. 2,00,000/- from him.
Thus, P.W-1 has not supported the prosecution case and hence, the evidence of P.W-1 supports the defence version.
24. P.W-2 is Kapildeo Lal who is also a businessman and stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place on the day of Holi in the night and on the next day when he went to his workshop then, he heard that deceased Punam Devi i.e. wife of appellant had been burnt to death and she was taken to T.M.H where she died on the next day.
25. During cross-examination, he stated to be living in Parsudih for the last 30-40 years and acquainted with the family members of Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant. He further stated that he had neither seen any quarrel between Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant and deceased Punam Devi nor had heard any quarrel. He also stated that both of them were having very good relationship and the deceased Punam Devi had never complaint against her in-laws members before him. Even, prior to death, the Informant Hiralal Sah had not stated any fact regarding this. However, he had heard that the informant Hiralal Sah had demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the family members of Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant and his family members.
26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-2, it is evident that he is neighbour of the appellant and he has not supported the prosecution case. It is also evident that the deceased Punam Devi had never complaint against her in-laws members before him at any point of time while she was living in her matrimonial home and he had also not seen any quarrel between 10 2025:JHHC:13961 the deceased Punam Devi and appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah. He stated that the informant had demanded half of the share of the property of the appellant or alternatively Rs. 2,00,000/- from him. Thus, P.W-2 has not supported the prosecution case and hence, the evidence of P.W-2 is not reliable.
27. P.W-3 is Vijay Kumar Sah i.e. the son of Hiralal Sah aged around 11 years on the date of evidene and a student of Class-4. He was tested by the learned Court below before giving evidence before putting certain questions and the Court below found him to understand the questions and able to answer. However, P.W-3 stated that his sister Punam Devi was tortured by her in-law members and used to demand vehicle. He had named the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jethani for torturing the deceased Punam Devi.
He further stated that the occurrence took place on the day of Holi and matter was informed in his house by Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant in the night of Holi that deceased Punam Devi had died and had been admitted to T.M.H. Thereafter, he along with his father had proceeded to T.M.H to see his didi but she died during treatment at T.M.H.
28. During cross-examination, he could say his date of birth but stated that they have four brother and one sister and he is the youngest. He could not say about the date of marriage of her sister Punam Devi i.e. the deceased. However, he stated that deceased Punam Devi has left two daughters Priyanka and Rhea who are living in his house after the death of his sister Punam Devi.
He further admitted that his father Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant does not have motorcycle and travel with cycle but they 11 2025:JHHC:13961 had gone to T.M.H by taking the vehicle on rent. However, he had not talked with his didi in the hospital. He identified one Choubey Ji to be present in the Court and who is the friend of his father and who is looking after this case.
He further admitted that one criminal case was instituted against his father but he is not aware of its details. He further stated that police has never recorded his statement. Choubey Ji was looking after the said case which was instituted against his father. Although, he denied the suggestion that since his didi had not died at the time of making food but stated that Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e. the appellant and father of Priyanka had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Priyanka and Rhea (i.e. daughters of appellant and deceased Punam Devi) to his father i.e. the informant.
29. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-3, it is evident that he is a child witness and his statement was not recorded by the police. However, he stated that his father i.e. the informant had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah in the name of Priyanka and Rhea who are the daughters of appellant and the deceased Punam Devi. He also identified one Choubey Ji for conducting this case. Thus, P.W-3 is a tutured witness and a child witness and hence, his evidence is not reliable.
30. P.W-4 is Hiralal Sah i.e the informant himself and stated during his evidence that the deceased Punam Devi was his daughter and she was married with Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah 7 years ago and his daughter was living at her matrimonial home in village Parsudih and living properly for two (02) years in her 12 2025:JHHC:13961 matrimonial home. Thereafter, her husband Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah, Bhola Sahu, Geeta Devi and mother-in-law Chinki Devi and father-in-law Sitaram Sah started assaulting and torturing her and used to demand money. On the day of Holi his son Sanjay Sah and Ajay Kumar Sah i.e. P.W-5 and P.W-6 have gone to the matrimonial home of their sister and he had sent both of them to brought his dead didi and upon which Jija ji i.e. the appelant had made comment and had demanded vehicle and money.
He further stated that on the day of Holi, his son-in-law came in the evening at about 4 P.M and when he asked about the daughter then he stated that vehicle is not moving. He also had not taken breakfast and demanded money and threatened of dire consequences. He further stated that in the night of Holi Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e the appellant and Bhola Sah (Bhaisur) came to his house and asked him to accompany to hospital by informing that his daughter is burnt and asked him to come to hospital with Rs. 1,000/- as they have less money. However, he could not see his daughter in T.M.H Hospital. During course of treatment his daughter died in T.M.H. He alleged that his daughter had been burnt to death due to non-fulfillment of money by her in-laws members. His statement was recorded by the police in T.M.H and he had put his L.T.I.
31. During cross-examination, he stated that appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah used to threatened and assault his daughter but he is not informed this fact to anyone but he had stated this fact before the police that Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah had demanded money. But he is not aware as to what was written by the police. Even his beyan was not read to him by Ramdular 13 2025:JHHC:13961 Choubey.
He admitted that between 19thday to 22nd Day (i.e. 19 March to 22 March) he had not informed to police about the death of his daughter by burning and he had not even informed the matter in police station of T.M.H. His daugher Punam Devi died at 7 P.M in the evening and then he went back to his house and on the next day he had not gone to police station by Choubey Ji for not instituted the case. However, after cremation of dead body they went to the police in the evening at 6-7 P.M. He further admitted that one criminal case was instituted upon him for committing rape. He denied for receving Rs. 1,00,000/- from Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah for maintenance of daughters Priyanka and Riha.
He denied to have given any statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before C.J.M Court but there is signature of his advocate Amitabh came on the said application and he had put his L.T.I and he had also filed affidavit. The said application was marked as Exhibit-A on behalf of defence side.
He denied to have recognized one Mohan Kumar Sharma as well as Basanti Balamaity and also Chandrawati Devi. However, he admitted to have stated before the police that Punam Devi was married with Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah 7 years ago.
He denied the suggestion that Punam Devi had died due to cooking.
32. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-4, it is evident that he is the father of the deceased and there is contradictions in his evidence from the evidence of P.W-3 and also P.W- 1and P.W-2 namely Bijay Kumar Talukdar and Kapildeo lal 14 2025:JHHC:13961 respectively. It is further evident that there is contradiction in his evidence from the F.I.R. The informant has not alleged anything against the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah rather he merely stated in the F.I.R that mother-in-law, Bhaisur and Jethani used to demand money for construction of the house. However, during course of evidence before this Court he has stated that the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash sah i.e. the husband was aggrieved that his daughter was tortured for neither giving vehicle nor the money. Even he has concealed the fact while lodging the F.I.R on 22.03.2003 that he had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from Kailash Sahu in the name of his two daughters namely Priyanka and Riha. Even, he had not stated the fact of arrival of the appellant Kailash Sahu and her brother Bhola Sahu to his house at 7 P.M for giving information of burning of his daughter. Even during his statement while examining as P.W-4, he had not stated anything that the appallant Kailash Sahu had demanded any dowry and due to non-fulfillm ent of the demand of dowry, others committed the death of his daughters. The F.I.R was lodged after delay of three (03) days after cremation of the dead body of the deceased Punam Devi and hence, the evidence of P.W-4 is not convincing for convicting the appellant. He has not stated any specific over against the appellant prior to the occurrence.
33. Thus, the evidence of P.W-4 is also not reliable.
34. P.W-5 is Sanjay Sah who is the another son of the informant and brother of the decased Punam Devi and he stated that marriage of his sister Punam Devi was performed with the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah 7 years ago prior to her death and his sister has got two daughters Priyanka and Riha. After two (02) years of marriage, her in-law members started demanding 15 2025:JHHC:13961 money and she used to inform him regarding demanding money whenever, she comes on the occasion of festival and holiday.
On the day of occurrence, his Jija Ji i.e. the appellant Kailash Sahu and his brother came in the night at 12 noon to his house and informed his father about the burning of his sister and she is admitted to T.M.H, then they went to T.M.H to see the condition of his sister but as she was admitted they could not met her. He alleged that Father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jethani of his sister have burnt his sister to death.
35. During cross-examination, he stated that his sister was married in the year 1997 but they had never made any complaint with regard to torture of his sister. His sister died one day after admitted to T.M.H but they have not informed the police between admission of his sister to T.M.H and death of his sister in the nearby police station of T.M.H with regard to burning of deceased Punam Devi by her husband and in-law members. His sister died on 21.03.2003 at around 7 P.M at that time, he was in his house but he had not gone to hospital because his mother was crying and on the next day, his sister was cremated. His father informed to police station after death of his sister.
He admitted that family members of Kailash Sahu had got cremated his didi i.e. sister and his father along with Ramdular Choubey had gone to T.M.H, Police Station.
He has shown ignorance about the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the appellant Kailash Sahu for maintenance of the deceased daughters Priyanka and Riha. He also shown ignorance about the filing of an application by his father in the Court with regard to death of his sister Punam Devi while she was in the 16 2025:JHHC:13961 Court. The police had recorded his statement in T.M.H.
36. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-5, it is evident that he has tried to support the allegation made by his father Hiralal Sah as P.W-3. But his statement is contradictory from the fardbeyan given in the F.I.R by his father. He has not named the appellant. He has merely stated that in-law members used to demand money after two (02) years of her marriage but he had not shown any purpose of demanding money. He has simply stated that in-law members of his sister were demanding money without naming any person including the appellant specifically. He also stated that F.I.R was lodged after cremation of his sister Punam Devi.
It is further evident that except making the bald allegation of demanding money from the accused persons, no specific allegation of dowry and torture has been pointed by the witness P.W-5 and no specific overt act of torture is alleged and hence, the evidence of P.W-5 is not reliable.
37. P.W-6 is Ajai Kumar Sah i.e minor boy aged around 16 years and who stated during his evidence that his sister was married with Kailash Sahu i.e. the appellant 7 years ago and stated that whenever he used to vist the matrimonial home of sister, then, he heard of demanding money from his sister. On the day of Holi in the year 2003 his Jija Ji i.e. the appellant and his brother came to his house and informed that his sister had burnt then in the morning they had gone to visit to see his sister and had seen her full burnt and on the next day, his sister had died.
During cross-examination, he could not say the date of marriage of his sister but stated that his sister has two daughters 17 2025:JHHC:13961 Priynaka and Riha and both of them are aged around 3-4 years. Presently, Priyanka and Riha are living with them. He has shown ignorance that his Jija Ji had handed over Rs. 50,000/- in the name of the deceased two daughters before his father i.e. the informant. His statement was recorded by the police in T.M.H after the death of his sister.
He had also shown ignorance as to who got admitted his didi to T.M.H. He admitted to have not stated before the police that her in-law members used to assault her. He has also shown ignorance for institution of a case upon his father i.e. the informant.
38. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-5, it is evident that he is the brother of the deceased and has stated about burning of his sister by the accused persons including the appellant during course of his evidence. However, his evidence is contradictory to the statement given in the F.I.R as well as from the evidence of the witnesses examined as P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 namely Bijay Kuamr Talukdar, Kapildeo Lal and Vijay Kumar Sah respectively and hence, the evidence of P.W-5 is not reliable.
39. P.W-7 is Anjay Kumar Sah who is also aged 10 years and stated during his evidence that his sister Punam Devi was married with Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah i.e the appellant and she was living in her matrimonial home with her husband i.e. the appellant but she was burnt to death.
During cross-examination, he stated that his sister was married with the appellant 7 years ago. The appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah and his elder brother had informant about burning of his sister in his house. There is no Moped vehicle in his house.
182025:JHHC:13961 They have not instituted any report with the police after death of his sister. He had shown ignorance that his mother and father had informed about the torturing of his sister in the police station or not. His sister has two daughters Priyanka and Riha. He also shown ignorance about the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah for maintenance of two daughter of the appellant. The police have recorded his statement in T.M.H.
40. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-7, it is evident that he is also a minor boy and also given incorrect picture of the version and has stated that she was burnt to death by the accused persons including the appellant. His evidence is also full of contradiction. The evidence of P.W-7 further contradictory from the evidence of P.W-3 who had stated that his father had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah for maintenance of his two Bhagini Priyanka and Riha.
41. P.W-8 is Smt. Devi who is the mother of the deceased Punam Devi and stated during her evidence that his daughter was married with the appellant Kailash Sahu 7 years ago and she was living in her matrimonial home after marriage in village Parsudih. However, her daughter was harassed by in-law members i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband, Jethani and they used to demand money from her daugher. Whenever, her daugher arrived she used to inform her with regard to demand of money.
During cross-examination, she stated that her husband is a vegetable seller. The evidence of P.W-8 is torn in the last sentence. She could not say the name of person who got married her daughter as the said person has left her house. She could say those 19 2025:JHHC:13961 persons who attended the marriage of her daughter.
She admitted that her daughter has never informed the neighbours about the torture which was committed upon her by her in-laws. She further admitted in Para-9 that her son-in-law Kailash Sahu i.e. the appellant had remained in her house from the date of burning to the date of death of her daughter.
She admitted that her son-in-law got admitter her daughter to hospital. She has not informed about the demand of money in the police station. She further stated that in-law members of her daughter used to demand money for constructing the house. Her daughter was married with the appellant Kailash Sahu 7 years ago. She could not say the month and year of marriage of her daughter. Her son-in-law i.e. the appellant had not given Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of his two daughters.
42. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-8, it is evident that she is the mother of the deceased Punam Devi. However, she has supported the allegation made out in the F.I.R regarding demand of money by the cheque etc. Thus, the evidence of P.W-8 has not supported the prosecution case.
43. P.W-9 is Chandrawati Devi who is the house wife and stated during his evidence that she is acquainted with the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah and his mother. Kailash Sahu i.e the appellant was married 8 years ago but she cannot tell the name of his wife. The wife of Kailash Sahu had died of burning in her matrimonial home.
During cross-examination, she stated that her house and house of Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sahu are adjacent to each other and she has visiting terms with the family of Kailash Sahu @ 20 2025:JHHC:13961 Kailash Sah. She never learnt that Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah and others used to demand money and used to torture the deceased.
Thus, from scrutinzing the evidence of P.W-9, it is evident that she is also a neighbour of the deceased as well as the appellant and she has not heard about torture and demand of dowry. Thus, P.W-9 had not supported the prosecution case.
44. P.W-10 is Amarjeet Prasad i.e the I.O of Dumaria P.S who stated during his evidence that on 22.03.2003 he posted as A.S.I in Parsudih P.S. Then, S.I Ashok Kumar had obtained original fardbeyan. After recording the fardbeyan of informant, the officer- in-charge handed over investigation of this case to him. He proved the signature of Ashok Kumar, S.I and one S. B Pandey as the document which was marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1 respectively. After arrving at the place of occurrence on 22.03.2003 he inspected the place of occurence and informed the nearby places. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of independent witnesses namely Kapildeo Lal i.e. P.W-2, Vijay Kumar Talukdar, i.e. P.W-1, Mohan Kumar Sharma (not examined), Basanti Balmaity (not examined) and Chandrawati Devi i.e. P.W-9. Therafter, he arrested the accused persons and submitted charge sheet. He also obtained the post-mortem of the deceased.
During cross-examination, he stated and admitted that witness Kapildeo Lal i.e P.W-2 had stated during his evidence that the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah was married with the deceased Punam Devi around 7-8 years ago. He had also stated that no quarrel was ever occurred and Punam Devi i.e.the deceased 21 2025:JHHC:13961 was very happy in her matrimonial home. The independent witnesses had not stated about the demand of dowry. He also admitted that witness Vijay Kumar Talukdar i.e. P.W-1 had also stated that there was no quarrel and dispute between the appellant and the deceased. They have stated that Punam Devi was not burnt by anyone. Even, witnesses Basanti Balmaity and witness Chandrawati Devi had stated that the appellant Kailash Sahu was married with the deceased 7-8 years ago and Jethani and mother- in-law had not committed any mistake and everything was perfect.
He also admitted that witness Vishwanath Prasad had stated in his statement that the deceased herself died of burning and her husband had also sustained burning injury while trying to extinguish the fire and there was no dispute between them prior to the occurrence. Later on, the informant had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from Kailash Sahu i.e. the appellant after instituting a case and had also obtained the entire articles and he has been falsely implicated. He further admitted the even witness Ram Kumar Pandey submitted in his statement that deceased after quarrelling with her husband, set herself on fire and a case has been instituted upon Jethani and others to extract money and the informant Hiralal Sah had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- to withdraw the case. He further stated that Chokidar Gopal Prasad had stated in his statement that Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant had taken Rs. 1,00,000/- earlier and had sent the application for giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C through the police station. But later on, he has changed his statement to extract more money.
The I.O further submitted in Para-15 of his cross-examination that he has submitted final report in favour of 22 2025:JHHC:13961 Sanjay Sah and Geeta Devi by showing lack of evidence. He admitted that Superintendent of Police had called for report regarding investigation and for which, he has submitted final report showing lack of evidence against Sanjay Sah and Geeta Devi but he submitted charge sheet against the remaining accused. He also admitted to have obtained the statement of independent witnesses namely Dilip Kumar Gupta, Din Dayal Prasad, Gopal Kumar Sharma, Vaidhnath Gupta, Chandrawati Devi, Bijay Kumar Talukdar and Dayashankar Sharma. He also admited that the informant Hiralal Sah had submitted an application in the Court for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C but later on, the informant did not appear and hence, his statement was not recorded.
45. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-10 i.e. the I.O, it is evident that several independent witnesses namely Dilip Kumar Gupta, Din Dayal Prasad, Gopal Kumar Sharma, Vaidhnath Gupta, Chandrawati Devi, Bijay Kumar Talukdar and Dayashankar Sharma have not supported the prosecution case for demanding of dowry and torture against the appellant and others. He also admitted to have submitted final report against Sanjay Sah and Geeta Devi showing lack of evidence against them. It is also evident that the evidence of P.W-10 does not support the prosecution case rather, new picture has been projected and there is no demand of dowry by the accused persons including the appellant. Thus, the evidence of P.W-19 is not sufficient to convict the appellant.
46. P.W-11 is the Dr. Lallan Chowdhari who had conducted post-mortem of the deceased in M.J.M, Medical College Hospital, 23 2025:JHHC:13961 Jamshedpur and found following injuries:-
(i) Ante-mortem dermo apidermic burn extending from fore head to lower abdomen, front of both thigh, inner aspect of right upper limb, left upper limb, back of left shoulder and outer aspect of left knee.
(ii) One longitudial incision over left fore arm and fore longitudinal incision over left hand.
Present, wound is infected mildly.
(iii) On Dissection:-
Skull:- Right side of forehead contused '8cm x 7cm', left side fore head contused '7cm x 5 cm', brain highly congested.
Chest and Abdomen:- Lungs odinmatus and frothy. Neck:- Larings and tracheal glucosa conjusted and contains froth.
(iv) Case of Death:- percentage of burns 50% approximately contusions of scalp are caused by hard and blunt object. Time since death 18hrs to 24hrs approximately.
He has proved the post-mortem report in his signature which is marked as Exhibit-2.
During cross-examination, he admitted to have not mentioned P.S Case number in post-mortem report as it was not mentioned in inquest report. It was also not mentioned in Exhibit-2 that to whom it was handed over. He has not mentioned in his report whether burn was accidental or homicidal. However, it is mentioned in Column-6 of the report 24 2025:JHHC:13961 that upper limb was bandaged and all wounds were infected. He had not found any smell of burning substance.
47. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W-11, it is evident that he has merely conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased and has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased as Exhibit-2. However, he has stated that the deceased had sustained 50% burning injury due to which she had died. However, he had not mentioned P.S Case Number in his Post-Mortem Report.
48. So far as the defence witness is concerned, D.W-1 is Abhitav Kumar who is an Advocate in Civil Courts, Jamshedpur and has stated during his evidence that he is practicing in Civil Courts since in the month of September, 1998. On 09.04.2003 he was present in the Court and on that day, Hiralal Sah i.e. the Informant, Ramdular Choubey (not examined) and Sanjay Sah (i.e. P.W-5) had arrived before him and stated that Punam Devi daughter of informant Hiralal Sah had died in T.M.H and when they arrived at T.M.H to see the deceased girl then the policed has taken their signature on the blank paper and the signature of Ramdular Choubey and Sanjay sah who has taken as witnesses. Later on, they learnt to Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant that the paper on which his thumb impression was taken is used in F.I.R. They have written application and the contents of the same was read over to Hiralal Sah. Thereafter, he had taken thumb impression of the informant Hiralal Sah and the witnesses had also proved their signature and he had also put his signature which was marked as Exhibit-A. 25 2025:JHHC:13961 During cross-examinatioin, he stated to be acquainted with Hiralal Sah 2-3 days as he came before him.
49. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W-1, it is evident that the defence on behalf of the appellant and other accused person shows that Hiralal Sah i.e. the informant had agreed to give statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
50. It is well settled that demand for construction of house cannot be treated as demand of dowry.
51. It is also well settled that the prosecution has to prove the date of marriage in order to draw presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act to infer the basic ingredients of Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C and the death of the deceased was done within seven (07) years of marriage and dowry was demanded soon before death and the deceased had tortured due to demand of dowry.
52. It has been held in the case of Baljeet Singh and Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 122 at Para Nos. 17 and 18 as follows:-
"Para-17:- Having noticed the requirement of law both under Section 304-B IPC as also under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, we are of the considered opinion that both the courts below erred in drawing an adverse presumption against the accused by shifting the onus on them to prove the date of marriage, which, in our opinion, is not the requirement of law. On the contrary, the law requires the prosecution to establish first by cogent evidence that the death in the case occurred within seven years of the marriage. Therefore, we will have to consider whether the prosecution has established the factum of Darshana having died within five years of her marriage as contended by PW 4. A perusal of his evidence shows that according to him marriage of Darshana was solemnized in the year 1982 but he was not aware which samvat it was. He says it was the month of Jaistha but was not sure whether it was 26 2025:JHHC:13961 Samvat 2035. He specifically states that a bahi entry was made by his nephew Satbir in regard to the date of marriage and expenses incurred in connection therewith, but this document was not produced in the court. Existence of such a document is established not only from the evidence of PW 4 but also from the evidence of the investigating officer, PW 10 who says that he was made known of the existence of such a document but he did not either seize the said document or verify the date of marriage from the said document. He also states that he made an inquiry about the year of marriage of Darshana and nobody was able to tell the date but the year of marriage was told to him. He goes further to state that he did not record the statement of those persons who told him about the year of marriage. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to produce the available evidence regarding the date of Darshana's marriage and thereby failed to discharge its initial onus of proof. The defence in this case has unequivocally challenged the correctness of the date of marriage, as stated by the prosecution. It even examined defence witnesses in this regard. Be that as it may, the question whether the defence has been able to establish its version of the date of marriage is immaterial because in the first instance it was for the prosecution to establish this fact which for reasons stated above, it has failed to do. Both the courts below, thus, have clearly erred in shifting the onus of proving the date of marriage on the defence and drawing a presumption against it. This is evident from the finding of the trial court which is as follows:
"Accused Baljeet in this case has not been able to rebut the mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act thus prosecution has been able to prove his guilt."
This finding which is concurred to by the High Court, in our opinion, is wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. Para:-18. We will now consider whether the prosecution has established its case dehors the presumption available under the Evidence Act. In this process, we should bear in mind the fact that the complaint in question was filed nearly eight days after the incident and a perusal of the said complaint shows that it was a well-thought, deliberated and typed document which even mentions the sections relating to the offences of which the accused persons were said to be guilty. Though PW 4 has denied that this was a document prepared after consultation and on the advice of outsiders, we must note that he admittedly is an illiterate and, in our opinion, this denial is wholly false. The narration of facts in the complaint enumerates even the ingredients of the offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and the sections under which the offences fall. This undoubtedly goes to show that this is a document which has come into existence after lots of deliberation and consultation. In this context, the admission of the informant that he had gone to the court where the report to be lodged was prepared, is 27 2025:JHHC:13961 significant".
53. It has been held in the case of Baijnath and Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 at Para Nos. 29, 30, 33, 34 and 35 as follows:-
"Para:- 29. Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith.
Para:-30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the abovereferred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.
Para:-33. Tested on the judicially adumbrated parameters as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, cruelty or harassment to the deceased for or in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code under which the accused persons had been charged. Noticeably, the alleged demand centres around a motorcycle, which as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would evince, admittedly did not surface at the time 28 2025:JHHC:13961 of finalisation of the marriage. PW 5, the mother of the deceased has even conceded that there was no dowry demand at that stage. According to her, when the husband (who is dead) had insisted for a motorcycle, thereafter he was assured that he would be provided with the same, finances permitting.
Noticeably again, the demand, as sought to be projected by the prosecution, if accepted to be true had lingered for almost two years. Yet admittedly, no complaint was made thereof to anyone, far less the police. Apart from the general allegations in the same tone ingeminated with parrot-like similarity by the prosecution witnesses, the allegation of cruelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on the confidential communications by her to her parents in particular and is not supported by any other quarter.
Para:-34. To the contrary, the evidence of the defence witnesses is consistent to the effect that no demand as imputed had ever been made as the family of the husband was adequately well-off and further Appellant 1 Baijnath had been living separately from before the marriage. According to them there was no occasion for any quarrel/confrontation or unpleasantness in the family qua this issue. Significant is also the testimony of DW 3, the sister-in-law of the deceased who indicated abandonment of the matrimonial home by her with the son of Thoran Singh, the Sarpanch of the village for which she understandably had incurred the displeasure of the in- laws. DW 4, the father of DW 3 who had given his daughter in marriage in the same family had deposed that he did not ever encounter any demand for dowry. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW 3 and PW 7 fully consolidate the defence version.
Para:-35. A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the facet of dowry, leaves us unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charge qua the accused persons. The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code against them".
54. It has been held in the case of Major Singh and Another 29 2025:JHHC:13961 versus State of Punjab reported in (2015) 5 SCC 201 at Para Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 19 as follows:-
"Para:-7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, the father and brother of the deceased cannot be relied upon as both are interested witnesses. It was submitted that absolutely there is no evidence to establish that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and in the absence of proof of essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, the courts below erred in convicting the appellants. It was further submitted that the daughter of the deceased who is now 18 years of age is under the care and protection of the appellants and that they are the only persons to take care of the daughter of the deceased.
Para:-8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State contended that deceased Karamjit Kaur died in connection with demand of dowry within 2½ years of marriage. It was contended that even though PWs 1 and 3 are the father and brother of the deceased, their evidence is consistent and credible and amply establishes that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and based on their evidence, the courts below rightly convicted the appellants under Section 304-B IPC and the concurrent findings cannot be interfered with. Para:-10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.
Para:-11. If any death is caused in connection with dowry demand, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act also comes into 30 2025:JHHC:13961 play. Both these sections, Section 304-B IPC and Section 113- B of the Evidence Act were inserted by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B reads as follows:
"113-B.Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860."
It is imperative to note that both these sections set out a common point of reference for establishing guilt of the accused person under Section 304-B IPC, which is "the woman must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment 'for or in connection with the demand of dowry'".
Para:P-16. To attract conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution should adduce evidence to show that "soon before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. There must always be proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. In Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 8 SCC 80 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016 : AIR 2003 SC 2865] it was observed as under : (SCC pp. 86-87, para 9) "9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be 31 2025:JHHC:13961 laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A reference to the expression 'soon before' used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession'. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence."
Para:-17. Same principle was also expressed in State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa [(2004) 4 SCC 470 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1306 : (2004) 3 SCR 32] ; Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) 7 SCC 724 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2057] ; Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N. [(2004) 9 SCC 157 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1417] ; Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 511] ; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006) 1 SCC 463 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 417] ; Biswajit Halder v. State of W.B. [(2008) 1 SCC 202 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] and Narayanamurthy v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 16 SCC 512 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 322] . Para:-18. Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that there is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment "soon before her death". Except the demand of scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was 32 2025:JHHC:13961 demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the husband Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry "soon before her death"
by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court and the High Court have not analysed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is liable to be set aside.
Para:-19. In the result, conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B IPC is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Appellant 2 Mohinder Kaur is on bail and her bail bonds stands discharged. Appellant 1 Major Singh who is in custody is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
55. It has been held in the case of Ramajah @ Rama versus State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 9 SCC 365 at Para Nos. 23 and 25 which are as follows:-
"Para:-23. Let us test the veracity of the version of these persons from another angle. If there was harassment and cruel treatment given to Laxmi by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the accused persons after receiving the news of unnatural demise of Laxmi, they would have perceived the same to have happened in mysterious circumstances. In such a situation, they would not have kept quiet and informed the police immediately. They would have also insisted on the post-mortem of the body of Laxmi to find out the cause of death. That would be the natural reaction of any such persons who believe that their daughter had faced harassment on account of non- fulfilment of the dowry demand and it would be fresh in their mind, if their version is to be believed that just 5 days before the death, Laxmi had complained of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws. No such thing happened, on the contrary, body of Laxmi was cremated in their presence and after performing the last rites, they turned back to 33 2025:JHHC:13961 their home quietly. It is 4 days thereafter that they thought of lodging the complaint to the police.
Para:-25. We may hasten to add here that many times in such type of cases, there can be reasons for keeping quiet at the given time and not reporting the matter immediately. Therefore, we are conscious of the legal position that delay per se may not render prosecution case doubtful as there may be various reasons for lodging the FIR with some delay (see Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 9 SCC 794 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 408] ). Thus, there is no hard-and-fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. However, what is emphasised is that if that was so, it was necessary for the prosecution to at least come forward with the explanation as to why the complainant kept quiet and why he did not report the matter to the police immediately. No such explanation is coming forward in the present case. Moreover, in the instant case, the delay is seen as fatal when examined in juxtaposition with other material that has come on record and discussed above, which shakes the veracity of the prosecution case, bringing it within the four corners of doubtful prosecution story.
56. It transpires that the appellant along with two others namely Sitaram Sah and Chinki Devi had filed the instant Criminal Appeal on 01.03.20015 and the appellant no. 1 Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah was enlarged on bail on 01.04.2005 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ramesh Kumar Merathaia, as then His Lordship was) of this Court.
57. It further transpires that during pendency of this Criminal Appeal before this Court the original Appellant No. 2 Sitaram Sah had died on 09.11.2011 and whose name was deleted vide order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ravi Nath Verma, as then His Lordship was) of this 34 2025:JHHC:13961 Court. Thereafter, Chinki Devi i.e original appellant no. 3 had died on 03.04.2018 and her name was deleted vide order dated 13.12.2023 passed by this Court and thus, the appellant Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah is the sole appellant in this case pursuing this appeal.
58. It is also evident that there are two (02) sets of witnesses the first set of witnesses are independent who are examined as P.W-1, Mohan Kumar Sharma (not examined), Kapildeo Lal i.e. P.W-2 and Chandrawati Devi i.e. P.W-9 who have not supported the proseuction case whereas, the other set of prosecution witnesses are P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-6, P.W-7 and P.W-8 namely Vijay Kumar Sah, Hiralal Sah, Sanjay Sah, Ajay Kumar Sah, Anjay Kumar Sah and Smt. Devi respectively have supported the prosecution version but there evidence are contradictory to the F.I.R as they have not alleged Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah in the F.I.R and including the other original Appellant No. 2 and 3 Sitaram Sah and Chinki Devi resepectively who had died during pendency of this case.
59. It is further evident that there is no specific date of demand of dowry and even the month and year of demand of dowry has not been stated.
60. It is further evident that several independent witnesses namely Vijay Kumar Talukdar i.e. P.W-1, Kapildeo Lal i.e. P.W-2 and Smt. Chandrawati Devi i.e. P.W-9 and one Dilip Kumar Gope (not examined), Din Dayal Prasad (not examined), Gopal Kumar Sharma (not examined), Vaidhnath Gupta (not examined) had not supported the prosecution case and they had clearly stated that the deceased was living 35 2025:JHHC:13961 properly in her matrimonial home and there was neither any quarrel nor any demand of dowry.
61. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt against the appellant.
62. Under the circumstances and in view of the laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2005 and sentence dated 16.02.2005 passed by Sri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Session Trial No. 353/03 is set aside and the petitioner namely Kailash Sahu @ Kailash Sah is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C and the appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
63. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 261 of 2005 is allowed.
64. Let the original Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/ N.A.F.R 36