Jharkhand High Court
Amod Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:10908-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
09.08.2017 and 11.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XV, Dhanbad for the offence under section 304-B of IPC in S.T.
Case No.573 of 2009]
------
Amod Kumar, son of Late Shiv Basant Ram resident of M.I.G.R.
10 housing Colony, P.O. and P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.
For the Resp. State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 23/03/2026 Pronounce On 16/04/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.08.2017 and 11.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Dhanbad for the offence under section Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 1 2026:JHHC:10908-DB 304B of IPC in S.T. Case No.573 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been directed to undergo R.I. of 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under section 304B of IPC. Other co-accused persons, who were relatives of the husband(appellant) have been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt due to their separate employment and residence.
Factual Matrix
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Yogita Kumari (since deceased) was married on 14.05.2002 according to Hindu rites and customs with the present appellant, Amod Kumar. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, Rs.5 lakhs cash, one Maruti-800 Car along with other household articles and jewelries were given by the informant. The daughter of the informant joined her matrimonial home and started discharging her conjugal life happily for one year and also blessed with a girl child. Thereafter, the husband, mother- in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law again raised demand of dowry, for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and started taunting and tormenting the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry given by her father. The accused persons were also threatening that if the aforesaid demand will not be fulfilled, they will make her life miserable. The daughter of the informant replied that her Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 2 2026:JHHC:10908-DB father has no means to fulfill the aforesaid demands. Therefore, she was frequently being tortured in various means. It is further alleged that the informant upon telephonic call by his daughter, twice visited the matrimonial home and tried to convince and pacify her husband and in-laws but they did not stop their demand and keep continued torture upon his daughter both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that on 09.10.2005, on the occasion of Dushhara festival, the informant's son and his driver Hafiz went to matrimonial home of the deceased with sweets, toys and clothes for newly born baby, but the accused persons insisted upon their demand of Rs.5 lakhs, otherwise, be ready to face dire consequences. On 18.10.2005, the informant's daughter (deceased) gave a telephonic call and intimated that she has been seriously harassed and tortured at the hands of the accused persons and there is apprehension of her life. Thereafter, in the very next day on 19.10.2005 at about 3:00 pm, the informant got telephonic message at his Ranchi residence that his daughter has been fallen down and admitted in Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that the informant along with his wife went to Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad and reached there at about 9:30 pm and found that his daughter was admitted in ICU in critical situation. The informant raised Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 3 2026:JHHC:10908-DB doubt that his daughter was brutally assaulted by the accused, thereafter, hanged and in course of treatment, she died in the mid night of 19/20.10.2005.
On the basis of written application of the informant, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.656 of 2005 was registered for the offence under section 304-B/34 of IPC against the present appellant including other accused persons.
After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and sections 3/4 of D.P. Act against all the six accused persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No.573 of 2009 was registered.
4. In course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely, P.W.1-Tarun Kumar (brother of the deceased), P.W.2-Sulochna Devi(mother of the deceased), P.W.3-Hafiz Ahmad (driver of the informant), P.W.4-Dr. Shailendra Kumar, P.W.5- S.I. Ram Nandan Singh (Investigating Officer).
The informant, Amrendra Kumar could not be examined due to his death during pendency of the trial of the case.
Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 4
2026:JHHC:10908-DB Ext.1-Written report Ext.1/1-Endorsement on written report Ext.2-Post-mortem report Ext.3-Formal FIR
5. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of defence. However, a document relating to U.D. Case No.01/06-23/05 brought on record marked as Ext. A. The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication and absence from the place of occurrence at the relevant date and time. Initially the unnatural death (UD) case was registered but later on due to anger and under excitement resulting from unnatural death of the deceased, this case was falsely instituted.
6. Learned trial court after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the plea taken by the defence arrived at definite conclusion that there are sufficient evidence against the husband(appellant) constituting the offence under section 304B of IPC and found insufficient evidence against other co-accused persons, who were jointly facing trial merely because they are relatives of the husband and without any specific role either in demand of dowry or consequent torture meted with the deceased, they were implicated, therefore, acquitted them from charges. Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 5
2026:JHHC:10908-DB Submission on behalf of the appellant
7. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly raised following points, which vitiated the findings of the guilt of the appellant recorded by learned trial court:-
(a) All the witnesses of facts, namely Tarun Kumar (P.W.1) and Sulochna Devi (P.W.2) are brother and mother of the deceased and P.W.3 is their driver. Not a single witness of locality where the occurrence took place has been examined in this case to corroborate the prosecution story.
(b) Learned trial court has failed to consider that initially UD case No.23/2005 was registered even on the basis of fardbayan of the informant and just after four days, UD case was dropped and after preparation of inquest report and obtaining post-mortem report of the deceased, the FIR was registered. The deceased was cremated on 20.10.2005 in presence of the informant and his son, thereafter, they returned to their home at Ranchi on 21.10.2005. Till the cremation of the Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 6 2026:JHHC:10908-DB deceased at Dhanbad, there was no complaint of any kind against the appellant or his family members regarding any demand of dowry from the deceased or consequent torture meted with her but after lapse of 4 days on the basis of totally different story with a view to take vengeance, FIR was instituted for the offence under section 304-B of IPC.
(c) The deceased was admitted into hospital for treatment by the family members of the appellant himself. If they could have intended to kill the deceased, they would not have indulged in getting treatment of the deceased.
(d) The prosecution has failed to prove the presence of the appellant on the relevant date and time of occurrence and it is admitted by the witnesses that the deceased had committed suicide by locking door from the inside and the bolt of the door was broken.
Thereafter, the deceased was brought out and sent to hospital but unfortunately the victim died during course of treatment.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 7
2026:JHHC:10908-DB
(e) Learned trial court has failed to get explained in vital incriminating circumstances constituting the offence of dowry death from the appellant and based its judgment on extraneous facts and circumstances. The appellant was an Assistant Engineer in Rural Development, Special-Division and was posted at Mahgama, Sub-Division but due to his conviction, he has been dismissed from the service and now he reached at retiral age.
8. Learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate overall aspects of the case which clearly indicates no involvement of the present appellant in commission of alleged offence and has illegally been convicted for the offence under section 304-B of IPC, which is not sustainable under law and liable to set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges leveled against him, allowing this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the State
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the informant have rebutted the aforesaid arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly taken into consideration overall aspects of the case and arrived at right Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 8 2026:JHHC:10908-DB conclusion. The mere fact that initially UD case was registered and the informant went to see his daughter, who was informed to be admitted in the hospital due to some illness is itself does not affect the core of prosecution story. The FIR was registered by the police closing UD case on proper apprehension that it was not a simply unnatural death case but the involvement of accused persons in commission of dowry death of the deceased. The further argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no independent witness of the occurrence is also not tenable. In view of the fact that such type of incident are taken within four walls of the house, no party wants to spread the same and reveal to any strangers. Therefore, mother and brother of the deceased and the driver of the informant are very natural witnesses of facts, whose testimony has not been discredited in any manner during their examination to cast any doubt on their credibility. The prosecution has proved beyond doubt all the ingredients of dowry death and there is no rebuttal evidence as required under law, adduced by the appellant/defence to turn down the prosecution case. There is simply denial from the occurrence and false implication as well as the presence of the appellant was not proved but the burden has shifted upon the defence to prove the facts which are exculpatory in nature. Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 9
2026:JHHC:10908-DB Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
10. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the both side.
11. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. Before adverting to decide the above points, we have to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial and the relevant provisions of law.
13. It appears that altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1-Tarun Kumar is the brother of the deceased. According to his evidence, his sister, Yogita Kumari was married with the present appellant, Amod Kumar on 14.05.2002 and at the time of marriage, Rs.5 lakhs cash and one Maruti-800 Car was given. His sister went to Sasural and lived Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 10 2026:JHHC:10908-DB happily for one year and also blessed with one female child born on 06.07.2003. He further deposed that after birth of female child, her husband and in-laws started demanding money and made the life of his sister miserable. He has also stated that Amod Kumar, appellant was also demanding money, which was informed by her sister through telephonic call. His father expressed his inability to fulfill the additional demand of Rs.5 lakhs and also tried to convince the accused persons but they continued treating the deceased with cruelty, mentally and physically. This witness went to his sister's matrimonial home on 09.10.2005 on the occasion of Dushahara with clothes, toys and sweets along with his driver, Hafiz Ahmad (P.W.3). At that time, his sister disclosed that due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs, her life has become miserable. He further states that on 18.10.2005, it was informed by Mala Devi (sister-in-law) of the deceased through telephonic call that Yogita Devi has fallen down from the roof and we are taking her to Jalaln Hospital, Dhanbad. Due to engagement in training of this present witness, he did not go to Dhanbad rather his parents went to see his sister at Jalan Hospital on 19.10.2005 and reached at about 9:30 pm, but his sister was admitted in ICU under critical condition. He has further deposed that his father and Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 11 2026:JHHC:10908-DB mother were very much shocked, hence, the FIR was not lodged immediately. His father was also suffering from PSP ailment. He also states that he went to Dhanbad on 19.10.2005 and reached about 11:30 pm then the accused persons were in hurry to cremate the dead body of the deceased. He further proved the written report lodged by his father, who has been died due to shock and hemorrhage, which is marked as Ext.1.
This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elucidated by the defence to discredit his aforesaid testimony. He has also stated that his sister was not suffering from any ailment either prior to her marriage or after marriage. He also admits that on the occasion of cremation of deceased, he along with his father, mausera brother and the driver were present. At the time of cremation, he also noticed scratches on arms and stitches on forehead of the deceased and her teeth have been broken. The simple suggestion has been extended by the defence that after death of his sister, he demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the accused persons and due to non-fulfillment of which, this false case has been instituted after four days to which this witness has denied.
P.W.2-Sulochna Devi is the mother of the deceased. According to her evidence, the marriage of her daughter was solemnized with the present appellant on 14.05.2002 and she Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 12 2026:JHHC:10908-DB was blessed with a female child on 06th August, 2003. She further states that after birth of a female child, her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband and other family members due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and they also stopped her food and clothing and used to drag by hair. She further states that on 19.10.2005, Gotni of the deceased informed through telephonic call that Yogita has fallen down from the roof and she has been admitted at Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad. Just one day before this telephonic call, on 18.10.2005, this witness received telephonic call from her daughter that she was constantly tortured due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and her husband is also not taken care of the female child. She also states that in the month of October itself on the occasion of Dushhara, her son went to matrimonial home of the deceased and she again complained about ill treatment due to non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. After receiving information about admission of her daughter in Jalan Hospital, she went to Jalan Hospital and reached at 9:30 pm on 19.10.2005 and found that her daughter was admitted in ICU under critical condition. There were several scratches marks of her body and her teeth were also broken. Thereafter, her husband lodged Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 13 2026:JHHC:10908-DB this case for commission of dowry death against the accused persons.
In her cross-examination, she admits that she and her husband were interrogated by the police on 19/20.10.2005 after death of her daughter. She also admits that her son-in-law was posted as Additional Assistant Engineer in Godda and mother- in-law was working in railway at Dhanbad and one brother-in- law was working in LIG and another one was working in LIC. She also admits that at the time of cremation of her daughter, they were shocked and under perplex situation, no case was lodged and due to shock, her husband become ill and he was getting treatment from Dr. K.K. Sinha at Ranchi and when her husband recovered, this cased was lodged on 24.10.2005. She has denied the suggestion of the defence that after death of her daughter, she started demanding Rs.6 lakhs, otherwise, the accused persons will be involved in the false case and due to denial by the accused persons for giving of Rs.6 lakhs, this false case has been instituted.
P.W.3-Hafiz Ahmad was the driver of the informant at the time of occurrence. According to his evidence, in the month of October, 2005, he along with elder brother of his employer Amrendra Kumar went to matrimonial home of Yogita Kumari. He has deposed that when Yogita Kumari Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 14 2026:JHHC:10908-DB came out to serve break-fast then she disclosed weepingly that she is being harassed and her husband and other family members were demanding Rs.5 lakhs as additional dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which, she has been harassed and tortured. He further states that after one week, when he returned from Dhanbad, the employer of this witness told him to go Dhanbad. Thereafter, he along with the informant went to Dhanbad at Jalan Hospital where Yogita Kumari died in course of treatment. This witness states that he has not remembered that when he came to Dhanbad along with Tarun Kumar at that time, the husband of the deceased was present in the house or not. He further states that when he again went to Dhanbad when Yogita Kumari was admitted in hospital along with his employer and his wife then they stayed for one day and after cremation of dead body, they returned. There is nothing else in his cross-examination worth mentioning.
P.W.4-Dr. Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following anti- mortem injuries:-
(i)Left upper lateral incisor was found dislocated and missing. Alveoli at the right were located with blood clot at the right. It was 24-36 hours.
Abrasion Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 15 2026:JHHC:10908-DB
(a) Very small three abrasions ½" apart from each other situated under upper part right side front of chest.
(b) Very small abrasion one apart from each other situated under upper part outer aspect of right arm.
(c) Abrasions were 24-36 hours old.
Ligature Mark
(a) About 9.5" long situated between larynx and chin on the upper part front of neck, it was jointing upwards, backwards and obliquely to the both sides, to the back of the neck where there was a gap of 5.5"
The ligature mark was dark brown in colour, hard, leathery and parchment like found on both flanks of neck, but it was light radish brown on the front neck from side to side. Ligature mark was 3/4"x1" wide. On dissection:-
No abnormality detected in the internal structures of neck. Left side of heart was empty and right side was full of dark fluid blood. Stomach contained about 100 cc of Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 16 2026:JHHC:10908-DB blackish fluid. Bladder was empty and uterus was non-pregnant. All the internal organs were found congested.
Cause of death is opined to be hanging. Injury Nos.(i) and (ii) were caused by hard and blunt object.
Time elapsed since death 18 hours (+/-) hrs. He has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased as Ext.2.
P.W.5-S.I. Ram Nandan Singh is the Investigating Officer of this Case. According to his evidence, on 24.10.2005, he was posted as S.I. at Dhanbad police station. On that day, he received written information from one Amrendra Kumar on the basis of which, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.656 of 2005 was registered for the offence under section 304B/34 of IPC. The endorsement was made by the police station literate constable on which Officer-in-Charge, Kundan Ram put his signature marked as 1/1. He further proved the formal FIR as Ext.3. After assuming the charge of investigation of this case, he recorded the re-statement of the informant and visited the place of occurrence, which is situated in Housing Colony Quarter MIGR-10 belonging to accused persons in which the deceased Yogita Kumari used to live. The house has two storeys and in upper storey, the deceased was residing with Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 17 2026:JHHC:10908-DB her husband. He noticed one bed, dressing table, two sofa sets, chair, table in the room. In the roof of the room, there were three hooks and in the middle hook hanging fan was fitted. It was told him that the deceased was found hanging by a scarf from a hook above the bed on the north side and the upper of the door was found broken from inside. It was also informed that the deceased was brought out after breaking opened the door. He has noticed no other material things in the quarter. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses, Tarun Kumar (P.W.1), Sulochna Devi (P.W.2) and Hafiz Ahmad (P.W.3). He further states that initially the case was registered as UD Case No.23 of 2005 and the inquest report was also annexed with the report of UD case. He obtained post-mortem report of the deceased and supervision note of the superior officers and also found that the accused persons, Jyoti Devi and Mala Devi are on bail, obtained sanction order for prosecution under Dowry Prohibition Act. After findings sufficient evidence, he submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons for the offence under sections 498-A and 304B of IPC.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the case was lodged on the basis of fardbayan of Amrendra Kumar, the father of the deceased. At the time of lodging UD Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 18 2026:JHHC:10908-DB case, there was no allegation leveled against the accused persons. He also admits that the room in which the deceased hanged herself was bolted from inside and the bolt was found broken but he fairly admits that during investigation, no one appeared to show as to who has broken the door of the room in which the deceased was found hanging. He has not visited Jalan Hospital where the deceased was admitted. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that his investigation is defective and he has submitted charge-sheet against accused persons without sufficient evidence.
14. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence, however a document relating to U.D. Case No.01 of 2006 brought on record. In his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. the appellant has simply denied the occurrence and pleaded his innocence. No other special plea has been taken by the appellant in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
15. It is here pertinent to scrutinize the evidence, points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant in the light of relevant provisions of law, which are extracted here as under:-
304 B. Dowry Death reads as under:
(i) Whether 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 Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 19 2026:JHHC:10908-DB shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with, in 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.
(ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 498 A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] 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 for her death such woman had been subjected by such person to Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 20 2026:JHHC:10908-DB 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 purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
16. In view of the above provisions, in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the following essentials must be satisfied:-
(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.
When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.
17. The provision of section 304-B of IPC as regards cause of death does not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal or accidental rather any death occurring "otherwise than under normal circumstances" may attract the provision of section 304-B of IPC, if other ingredients are fulfilled.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 21
2026:JHHC:10908-DB
18. It is admitted fact that the deceased was married with the appellant on 14.05.2002 and she has died unnatural death at her matrimonial home under the custody of her husband on 19.10.2005. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 20.10.2005 at 3:30 pm, which clearly goes to show that there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and anti- mortem injuries were also found caused by hard and blunt substance including dislocation of teeth (incisor). It was also admitted by the doctor that it may be a case of suicidal death, therefore, there remains no doubt that the deceased has died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage.
The plea taken by the defence that the Investigating Officer found bolt of the door from inside was broken and the deceased was hanging brought out while she was hanging in the room tying dupatta from ceiling of the roof. Admittedly, the accused persons have brought the deceased to Jalan Hospital in the night itself and it was informed to the informant that the deceased had fallen from the roof and was admitted in the hospital for treatment, therefore, it is the bounded duty of the accused persons to bring on record as to under what circumstances, the deceased was inside the room and after bolting the door from inside, she committed suicide. It is also to be explained by the defence as to who brought out the Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 22 2026:JHHC:10908-DB deceased from the room after breaking the door and admitted her to the hospital. No medical report of Jalan Hospital has been adduced in this case. The further plea of the appellant that the cremation took place in presence of the parents of the deceased and at that time, no case was lodged rather UD case was registered, thereafter the dead body was cremated in presence of parents of the deceased also hold no much water to take any different view. This is brought on record that after the incident, the father of the deceased was very much shocked and mother was also in perplex situation, so they could not raise any objection at the time of death and later on after cremation of the deceased, the FIR was lodged. The above plea even if accepted does not affect the prosecution case from any corner.
The next ingredient regarding demand of dowry is also well proved by P.W.1 and P.W.2 as discussed above, who happens to be brother and mother of the deceased respectively. There was frequent complaint on telephonic talk by the deceased that after birth of a female child, she is subjected to cruelty, torture and harassment both mental and physical due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. The successive events of demand and torture has been proved by P.W.1 and P.W.2, therefore, there is close Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 23 2026:JHHC:10908-DB proximity of time in the demand of dowry and consequent torture meted with the deceased, which proves the ingredient of dowry death that "soon before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of or in connection with demand of dowry. Here in this case, there was demand of Rs.5 lakhs by the appellant from his wife and the demand was also raised before P.W.1 when he had gone to matrimonial home of his sister prior to the occurrence. It appears that learned trial court has considered the evidence of witnesses in threadbare manner and tested their reliability with the materials elucidated in the cross-examination while recording the guilt of the appellant for the offence charged against him.
19. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case. It appears that the prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients of dowry death as defined under section 304B of IPC. Therefore, presumption propounded under section 113-B of Evidence Act, which is rebuttal presumption of law can safely be invoked.
20. Since the prosecution has proved the foundational facts establishing the offence of dowry death therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the accused/appellant to rebut the aforesaid presumption of law but instead of taking any specific stand to falsify the prosecution case, the defence has simply relied upon Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 24 2026:JHHC:10908-DB some trivial issues/facts emanating in the evidence of prosecution evidence. The appellant heavily relies upon the facts that some witness, P.W.3, Hafiz Ahmad, who has stated that the appellant was posted at Godda as Assistant Engineer on the relevant date of occurrence and when he along with P.W.1, Tarun Kumar went to matrimonial home of the deceased, the appellant was not found. It may be that P.W.3 might not have seen the appellant on 19.10.2005 when he went there along with P.W.1 but that itself does not indicate that the appellant was not present on date of occurrence, if the appellant wants to take any plea of alibi, he must prove the same by virtue of Section 105 of Evidence Act but no such evidence has been relied by him.
21. Similarly, it is pleaded that bolt was closed from inside of the room and the deceased was brought out after breaking opened the door also does not affect the prosecution story. It is admitted fact that at the time of relevant occurrence, the deceased was at her matrimonial home not at her parental home. Admittedly, the parents were not present there. It was the accused/appellant and his family members, who were residing in the house, therefore, they have to come with specific defence as to what happened with the deceased in the said night and under what circumstances, she committed Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 25 2026:JHHC:10908-DB suicide but the defence has chosen to keep mum. Initially registration of UD case and later on registration of FIR also does not affect the prosecution case on merits.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find that learned trial court has committed no error of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 304-B of IPC, which is, hereby, upheld and confirmed. We do not find any merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed.
23. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining period of sentence awarded to him, failing which, learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant for serving the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.
24. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
25. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned through FAX/Email for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 16 /04 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 17/04/2026 Cr. A (D.B.) No.1572 of 2017 26