Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Chandra Mahto @ Krishna Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.552 of 2018
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and order
of sentence dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned District &
Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.
191 of 2012)
----
Krishna Chandra Mahto @ Krishna Mahto, aged about 41
years, son of late Ghasi Ram Mahto, resident of Mauladih,
P.O and P.S- Kharsawan, District- Saraikella- Kharsawan
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
.........
C.A.V. on 20/03/2025 Pronounced on 23/04/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 191 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the present appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304-B. 2025:JHHC:12183-DB
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :-
As per the written report of the informant namely P.W.-4, who is brother of the deceased and the informant of the instant case, the case of prosecution is like that the marriage of the informant's sister was solemnized with the accused/appellant on 12.06.2012 and after 15 days of the marriage, the accused/appellant and his family members started torturing her (deceased) to bring money of Rs. 20,000/ and a motorcycle from her parent's house but she failed to fulfill their illegal demands.
3. It was alleged that she was assaulted very often. The brother(informant) got information from one Vijay Mahato that his sister was burnt alive after putting clothes in her mouth by the accused persons. On this information, the informant went to the house of his sister and found the dead body of his sister lying there in burn condition and clothes were gagged in her mouth.
4. On the basis of written report of the informant, an FIR being Kharswan P.S. Case No. 50/2012 dated 22.07.2012 was instituted for the offences under section 498A/304(B)/34 of the I.P.C against the accused persons including the present appellant. Thereafter investigation of the said case had been 2 2025:JHHC:12183-DB started by the concerned investigating officer (I.O) who had found the case to be true against the present accused and one Dulali Mahato and thereafter charge-sheet had been submitted against them for the offence under sections 304(B)/34 of I.P.C
5. Accordingly, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was explained to the accused persons and consequently charges under sections 304(B)/34 of I.P.C was framed against the accused persons including present appellant to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses namely P.W.1-Baikunth Mahato, P.W.2- Fagu Mahato, P.W.3- Bijay Mahato @ Vijay Kr. Mahato, P.W.4- Tika Charan Mahato, P.W.5- Kailash Mahato, P.W.6- Ramchandra Mahato, P.W.7- Rupatan Mahato, P.W.8- Dr. Md. Kalique and P.W.9- Animesh Kumar Gupta.
7. The statement of the present appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedural Code, in which he denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent.
8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, found the charges levelled against the present appellant and others proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 2025:JHHC:12183-DB 304-B and 34 of I.P.C and as such, convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 19.05.2017.
9. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
11. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: -
(i) The Learned trial court has failed to appreciate that not a single eye witness has come forward from the village to support the prosecution case with regard to demand of dowry or burning of the deceased by accused or by the mother-in-law of the deceased.
(ii) The learned court has not taken into consideration the material contradiction in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses though there is serious contradiction with regard to manner of occurrence, nature of occurrence and place of occurrence.
(iii) The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and there are no cogent materials against the appellant regarding any illegal demand made by him and on the 4 2025:JHHC:12183-DB aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and requires interference.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent state:
13. Per Contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment of conviction/sentence: -
i. That there is a complete chain of circumstances established against this accused that at the relevant time of occurrence, he was seen along with her mother at the place of occurrence i.e. house of this accused, where he had caused burn injuries to the deceased for the demand of the cash money and motorcycle from her parents and aforesaid fact has been substantiated by the medical evidence wherein it has come that the deceased was died due to extensive burn injuries.
ii. Further the I.O has also found some struggle marks over the surface and also burnt ashes at place of occurrence and further in the inquest report it has been mentioned that burn injuries on person of the deceased.5
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
14. Learned A.P.P., based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned trial Court after taking into consideration the testimony of the prosecution witnesses more particularly the Investigating Officer, since, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction, therefore, the same requires no interference.
Analysis
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record more particularly the testimony of the witnesses and the finding recorded by learned trial Court.
16. This Court, before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction/sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
17. P.W-1 Baikunth Mahato who is resident of village Mauladih, has stated that the occurrence took place about three years ago and on that day, he was in his village and when ploughing his field, the officer-in-charge Anil Yadav called him through his son Vikash Mahato and when he reached in the house of Krishna Mahato, the police showed him the dead body of the wife of the accused Krishna Mahato.
18. He has further testified that thereafter inquest report was prepared and he also put his signature as a witness on the same and exhibited the signature on the carbon copy of the inquest report as Ext.-1. He also identified both the accused Krishna and Dulali.
6
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
19. P.W-2 Fagu Mahato, who is also villager of Krishnapur, has stated that on dated 12.06.2012 the occurrence took place and, on that day, he was on duty at D.C Office, Gaurangdih. He received a phone call saying that his sister has died due to burn injuries. He further testified that his sister's name was Kalpana and the aforesaid news was informed by one villager Vijay Mahato of Mauladih village to him, then on this information he reached at Mauladih.
20. He further deposed that in the house of Krishna Mahato he found some smoking there and when he went inside, he found his sister was lying in burnt condition and clothes were kept in her mouth. He had further stated that he came to know that Krishna Mahato had demanded Rs.20,000/- and one motorcycle and due to his non-fulfillment of demand, he burnt his sister. This witness has identified his signature and signature of informant Tika Charan Mahato on the written report and exhibited the same as Ext.-2 and also identified the accused before the court.
21. During cross-examination, this witness has stated at paragraph-5 that he had not seen the occurrence from his own eyes but he had seen some smoking coming out from the house of accused which was a Khaprail house and in the room, in which the accused and deceased were residing, his sister was lying dead in burnt condition. In para-7 he has stated that he had not seen any injuries on the dead body of his sister but he found burn injuries. He further testified that before marriage of his sister with 7 2025:JHHC:12183-DB Krishna Mahato, the informant's brother Tika Charan Mahato has knowledge about earlier two marriage of the accused Krishna Mahato and earlier also Krishna Mahato had assaulted the wives and knowing this fact, he married his sister with accused. Further, he denied the suggestion of the defence in para 8 that the deceased herself has set her on fire and no demand was made by the accused nor any clothes were kept in her mouth which was extracted later on.
22. P.W-3 Bijay Mahato has also supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief and stated that the occurrence took place about three years ago and at that time, he was in Barabombe, then he received a phone call from village that house of Krishna Mahato caught fire, then he told on phone for opening the door. He has further stated that wife of Krishna Mahato had died due to burn and when he reached at the house of Krishna Mahato, he saw wife of Krishna Mahato was burnt and died.
23. He has further testified that police came there and prepared the inquest report and he had also put his signature on the carbon copy of the inquest report which is marked as Ext.1/1. At para-2 he has stated that villagers told him that Krishna Mahato was torturing the deceased earlier also and attempted to murder her. This witness had given his statement before the police and had stated about the torture and burnt by the accused.
24. This witness in para-3 of his testimony has admitted this fact that Krishna was married with two other ladies before the 8 2025:JHHC:12183-DB marriage of his sister but they had taken divorce and he also stated about the relationship of earlier wives with the accused which was also not good. In para-4 he has stated that when he reached at the house of the accused, he found the door of the house was open and mouth of the dead body was gagged with clothes and the police had also seized the said clothes and accordingly the seizure-list had been prepared and upon the same, peoples who were present there had put their signature but he had not put his signature.
25. Further, in para-5 he has stated that he saw the dead body in burnt condition and the clothes which were worn by the deceased found in burnt condition. This witness had denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused and his mother have not tortured the deceased and the deceased herself set her on fire and died and he also denied the suggestion of the defence that he has falsely stated about the occurrence.
26. P.W.4 Tika Charan Mahato who is informant and brother of the deceased has stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his sister with accused Krishna Chandra Mahato on dated 12.06.2012 and after marriage, her sister went to her sasural in the house of above accused where they started to raise demand of Rs.20000/- cash and one motorcycle. He further testified that on 21.07.2012 on call by his sister, he went to her in-laws house of Mauladih where he saw that the accused and his mother were assaulting his sister. Thereafter, when the informant was 9 2025:JHHC:12183-DB returning in a way, he heard about the occurrence by one Bijay Kumar Mahato regarding assault made by accused and his mother to the deceased and they set her on fire. He had deposed that on this information, when he reached there, he found some smoke coming out from her room and when he entered into her bed-room, the dead body was lying on the floor in burnt condition and saw that the accused and his mother were trying to remove the cloths which were gagged in the mouth of the deceased and on seeing him, they fled away.
27. During cross-examination, at length from the defence side, he has stated in para-4 that his house is situated about seven to eight kilometers from the village Mauladih and on 21.07.2012 he went to Mauladih by his bicycle and on that evening the accused had also assaulted his sister. Further he stated in para 5 that at the place of occurrence where the assault took place, the floor was made with mud and he told the accused that he will fulfill their demands and for that he needs some time but he denied the same.
28. P.W-5 Kailash Mahato, father of the deceased has also supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief that his daughter Anjana Mahato was the wife of Krishna Mahato and their marriage was solemnized on 12.6.2012 and after marriage, she was residing in her in-laws house and on 22.7.2012 when he went for his labour work at Nayadih, his son and one villager Rupatan came there and they took him in the house of accused. He had further testified that when he reached at the place of 10 2025:JHHC:12183-DB occurrence, he saw that his daughter was lying on floor and her mouth was gagged with clothes i.e. Saree, and his daughter was lying dead. He had further testified that he also found some burnt straw there. He deposed that police came there and took the dead body of his daughter and accused Krishna and Dulali were not present there. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
29. P.W-6 Ram Chandra Mahato is the villager of Krishnapur and he has been declared hostile as he has not supported the occurrence.
30. P.W-7 Rupatan Mahato is the villager of Krishnapur and he has also been declared hostile. He has stated in his examination- in-chief that he knew the deceased Anjana Mahato but he does not know her husband, Krishna Mahato. He has testified that he has no knowledge about the said occurrence
31. P.W-8 Dr. Md. Khalique has stated in his examination-in- chief that on 22.07.2012, he was posted as Medical Officer, at Sadar Hospital, Seraikella and on that day, at 4:00 PM he conducted an autopsy upon the dead body of Anjana Mahato aged about 26-27 years female, W/O Krishna Mahato of Village Mouladih and found the following anti mortem injuries on her body: -
1. External Findings: 1. Superficial burn injuries on the whole of the body.
2. Singeing of hair at both eyebrows present,
3. There was blackening of whole body, 11 2025:JHHC:12183-DB
4. A piece of cloth was found in the mouth,
5. One vesicle in upper and later part of right arm, Size 1" x ½" x ½" full with fluid present, slight pugilistic posture present.
Internal Findings:
1. Trachea- few sooty carbon particle present, 2. Heart - All chamber full with red blood, 3. Lungs - Both lungs, congested, edematous- Blackish, oozing of blood on cut, 4.
Abdomen -Stomach little quantity of water present. Intestine, liver, spleen, Kidney - Nad. Urinary Bladder was empty. Uterus- empty.
Opinion: Cause of Injury Burn Cause of Death - Shock due to extensive burn, Time since death - about 24 hours.
32. This witness has also identified and exhibited his handwriting and signature over the postmortem report marked as Ext.-3. This witness could not be cross-examined due to non-turn up of the counsel on behalf of the accused and the accused, had also declined to cross-examine.
33. P.W-9 Animesh Kumar Gupta, I.O. of this case, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 22.07.2012 he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Kharswan P.S and on that day, at about 13:30 hours he received a written information from the informant Tikacharan Mahato and on the basis of same, a case was registered and he himself taken the charge of investigation of the instant case and exhibited the endorsement on the written report of the informant as Ext.2/1 and the formal F.I.R as Ext.-4. He has further stated that during investigation, he verified the place of occurrence at 13:45 Hours and he established the place of occurrence at village Mauladih, in the house of the accused 12 2025:JHHC:12183-DB Krishna Chandra Mahato. He had also prepared the map of place of occurrence which is mentioned in the case diary at para-3 and when he entered into the room of the deceased, he found that the deceased was lying in burnt condition and one cloth was gagged in her mouth. He also found some broken bangles in semi burnt condition in the hands of the deceased and also found some sign of struggle on the ground which is made of soil.
34. Further, he also found Bichali (straw) in western side at the place of occurrence. He had prepared the inquest report of the deceased at the place of occurrence and exhibited the carbon copy of the same as Ext.-5. He further recorded re-statement of the informant and other witnesses and arrested the accused Krishna Chandra Mahato and his mother Dulali Mahato and forwarded them before the court. He has further stated that he had also recorded the statements of the first wife of the accused, namely, Paro Mahato, wherein she had stated that her husband (accused/appellant herein) gave divorce before Panchayat to her and he solemnized third marriage with the deceased who was murdered. She had also stated about demand of cash amount from her parents' house for which several times Panchayati was held and after panchayati she left the house of the present appellant/accused and started residing in her parents' house.
35. This witness has also received the P.M report and supervision note and submitted charge sheet against the accused Krishna and Dulali u/s 304B/34 of the I.P.C and he had also 13 2025:JHHC:12183-DB identified the accused before the court. Further, in para-11 he has stated that during investigation, he recorded the statement of Ram Chandra Mahato wherein he had sated that marriage of deceased was solemnized with the accused Krishna Mahato and Krishna Mahato and his mother Dulali Mahato had demanded Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, they assaulted the deceased and set her on fire. Further he had recorded the statement of witness Rupatan Mahato and during his statement, he also supported this fact that Anjana Mahato (deceased) was murdered by her husband Krishna Chandra Mahato and her mother-in-law for demand of Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry and due to that reason, they set her on fire after assaulting her at Mauladih.
36. After due appreciations of evidences as mentioned above the learned trial court has found the charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and accordingly, convicted the appellant under Section 304-B/34 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal has been preferred.
37. This Court, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant with respect to the culpability of the appellant, for commission of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code vis-à-vis the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal provisions and judicial pronouncements in context of contention raised by the appellant.
14
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
38. At this juncture, it is pertinent to analyses the law on dowry death. Section 304-B IPC, which defines, and provides the punishment for dowry demand, reads as under:
"304-B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry"
shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
39. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that Section 304-B (1) defines "dowry death" of a woman. It provides that "dowry death" is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Sub-clause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death.
40. Thus, it is evident that there are three conditions in the aforesaid statute and if those three conditions are fulfilled then 15 2025:JHHC:12183-DB the case will come under the purview of Section 304-B. Three conditions which culled out from section 304-B are as follows:
i. The death caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise within under normal circumstance.
ii. Death was occurred within seven years of her marriage.
iii. It has been shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.
41. It needs to refer herein that in order to sustain the conviction under Section 304B of the IPC, it is mandatory to establish that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry and death caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise within under normal circumstance within seven years of victim's marriage.
42. In the case of Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guideline wherein it has been specifically observed that in order to sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under :
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:16
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
(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."
43. It needs to refer herein that the cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
44. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain, etched in her memory for a long time.
45. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B IPC cannot be construed to mean "immediately before". It is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to 17 2025:JHHC:12183-DB the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution
46. The aforesaid position was emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held which reads as under:
"15. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what exactly the phrase "soon before"
entails.
17. Therefore, courts should use their discretion to determine if the period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim."
47. When the prosecution shows that "soon before her death such woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry", a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads as under: 18
2025:JHHC:12183-DB "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 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
48. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the word "shall" has been stipulated therein which provides mandatory application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry and as such onus lies on the accused to rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts on the accused.
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying on the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Evidence Act") and Section 304-B IPC, where the words "soon before her death" find mention, the following observations have been made in the case of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 :
"17. Thus, the words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-BIPC. For the presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action, it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is, therefore, important. The question is how "soon before"? This would 19 2025:JHHC:12183-DB obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain, etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept in mind while examining each case of dowry death.
18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term "soon before". The relevant observations are as under : (SCC pp. 222-23, para 15) '15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too long between the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the reasonable 20 2025:JHHC:12183-DB time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non- existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.' Thus, there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines of law."
(emphasis supplied)
50. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Jogendra, (2022) 5 SCC 401 has pithily summarized the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"17. In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 21 2025:JHHC:12183-DB (2021) 6 SCC 108 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 771] that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial under Section 304-BIPC where the law on Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in the following words : (Satbir Singh case [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , SCC p. 13, para 38) "38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
38.2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-BIPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the accused.
38.3. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-BIPC cannot be construed to mean "immediately before". The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
38.4. Section 304-BIPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
51. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion of proposition of law, statute, factual aspect and the submission for learned counsel for parties, this Court in the instant case is to consider following issues: -
22
2025:JHHC:12183-DB
(i) Whether the material/evidence as has come in course of trial is sufficient to attract the offence committed under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether all the prerequisites, as discussed and referred hereinabove, are available in the instant case for invoking the provision of Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code?
52. Since, the aforesaid issues are inextricably interlinked, the same are being decided hereinbelow by considering them together.
53. At this juncture this Court thinks fit to revisit the factual aspects of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition.
54. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between deceased and the accused was solemnized on 12.06.2012, and the death of the lady occurred on 22.07.2012 which was one and half month from the date of marriage. Thus, death of the victim lady was caused within 7 years of the marriage, therefore one of the primary and foremost requisites to invoke the provision of 304 B IPC has been fulfilled herein.
55. Further, with respect to the cause of death, the doctor (PW 8) has opined that Shock due to extensive burn. Further in his testimony he had categorically stated that he found singeing of hair at both eyebrows of the deceased and a piece of cloth was 23 2025:JHHC:12183-DB found in the mouth of the deceased. Therefore, in the present case, the deceased victim succumbed to burns. As the death was relatable to burn injuries within seven years of marriage, it clearly satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence.
56. Further it needs to refer herein that most of the witnesses who had seen the dead body of victim has stated that mouth of the victim was gagged by the cloth and the aforesaid fact has been corroborated by the Doctor (P.W.8) who had found the cloth inside the mouth of the dead body of victim lady. Thus, also from this factual aspect, it is evident that the death of victim lady was not happened due to an accident.
57. Admittedly father of has been declared hostile herein but he has also supported the fact of gagging of mouth of the deceased and he had stated that he saw that his daughter was lying dead and her mouth was gagged with clothes i.e. Saree.
58. It needs to refer herein the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200 wherein it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving his evidence through his chief- examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief- examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not 24 2025:JHHC:12183-DB denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief-examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross-examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact.
59. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief- examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion.
60. further, the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
61. Further in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if a witness is treated as 'hostile' and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony 25 2025:JHHC:12183-DB which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. The Hon'ble Court further laid down that as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
62. Therefore, factum of the gagging of mouth of deceased by the cloth has been fortified by the testimony of P.W.5 (father of the deceased) also.
63. Now on the issue of dowry demand and torture soon before death of the deceased, we find that P.W.2 had stated that he came to know that Krishna Mahato (appellant herein) has demanded Rs.20,000/- and one motorcycle and due to non-fulfillment of this demand, his sister was burnt.P.W.3 at para-2 had stated that villagers told him that Krishna Mahato was torturing the deceased earlier also and attempted to murder her.
64. Further, P.W.4 Tika Charan Mahato who is informant and brother of the deceased had categorically stated that after the marriage, when her sister had gone to her sasural in the house of above accused, they started to raise demand of Rs.20,000/- cash and one motorcycle. He further testified that on 21.07.2012 on 26 2025:JHHC:12183-DB call by his sister, he went to her in-laws house of Mauladih where the accused and his mother demanded Rs.20,000/- and a bike and they also assaulted his sister. In para-4 of his cross- examination he has stated that his house is situated about seven to eight kilometers from the village Mauladih and on 21.07.12 he went to Mauladih by his bicycle and on that evening the accused has also assaulted his sister by slaps. Further he testified that he told the accused that he will fulfill their demands and wants some time but he denied the same.
65. Thus, it is evident from the testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 that the demand of dowry was there and victim lady was subjected to cruelty before her death. It needs to refer herein that the statement of the aforesaid witnesses has been substantiated by the medical evidence wherein it has come that cloth was found in the mouth of the deceased which indicates that the victim was tortured before her death.
66. The prosecution has thus able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of victim lady was homicidal within seven years of marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to dowry demand and torture.
67. On the basis of discussion made herein above it is evident that the prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the deceased due to burn injuries took place within approximately one and half month of her marriage. It has further 27 2025:JHHC:12183-DB been proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry.
68. Since the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stand satisfied, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act operates against the appellant, who are deemed to have caused the offence specified under Section 304-B IPC.
69. The burden therefore shifts on the accused/appellant to rebut the aforesaid presumption. Further, in the present case, the accused/appellant failed to place any evidence on record to prove that the death was accidental or unconnected with the accused persons.
70. Therefore, the presumption adumbrated in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act takes full effect in this particular case, which has not been rebutted by the appellant-accused herein. The appellant has failed to make out a case to interfere in the finding of the learned trial court, convicting the appellant-accused under Section 304-B IPC.
71. In light of the above findings, after perusing the relevant material and the evidence available, we find that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant under Section 304-B IPC as the appellant has failed to discharge the burden under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
72. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove 28 2025:JHHC:12183-DB the charge beyond all shadow of doubts against the present appellant, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this Court.
73. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
74. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd April , 2025.
Birendra / A.F.R. 29