2026:JHHC:19045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 ------ 1. Pipashi Devi @ Sona Devi @ Pyasi Devi, wife of Late Bifan Bhagat Mali, 2. Sanjay Bhagat Mali, Son of Late Bifan Bhagat Mali, Both resident of village-Kishunpur, P.S. Patan, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand … .... …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Aditya Raman, Amicus Curiae For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 10.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026 1. It is pertinent to mention, at the very outset, that Bifan Bhagat Mali has died therefore the appeal preferred by Bifan Bhagat Mali stood abated vide order dated 10th June, 2026 of this Court. 2. Heard the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned P.P. 3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No. 270 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellants who were standing charged for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the IPC has been held guilty for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC instead of holding the guilt for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 6,000/- each with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 2 Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s sister Gayatri Kumari (since deceased) was married with Sanjay Bhagat (appellant No.2) on 09.05.1997 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, informant’s sister joined her matrimonial home. When she returned to her parental home, she disclosed that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are demanding Rs. 10,000/- and one T.V. as additional dowry. The informant again sent his sister to her matrimonial home but the said demand could not be fulfilled. Then, accused persons started assaulting and torturing his sister. When informant came to know about the assault and torture meted to his sister on account of non-fulfillment of above demand of dowry, then he went to her matrimonial home on 03.12.1997 for Vidai of his sister. It is alleged that till two days, the accused persons were lingering but on 06.12.1997, in the morning, Sanjay Bhagat (husband of the deceased) started saying to the informant that unless and until, he would give Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V., Vidai of his sister would not take place. It is further alleged that upon insistence of the informant for Vidai, he was threatened and his brother-in-law went inside the house and came about 1:00 pm and told that his sister Gayatri Devi has committed suicide by hanging. The informant desired to lodge report at Police Station, then, husband and father-in- law of the deceased also started threatening him to be killed. The informant has claimed that his sister has been killed by hanging by the accused persons. 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 3 On the basis of above written report of the informant, Patan P.S. Case No. 173 of 1997 was registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the above accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions, where S.T. No. 270 of 1999 was registered. The learned Sessions Judge, Palamau after hearing the prosecution and defence, framed charge under Section 304B/34 of the IPC against all the accused persons vide order dated 07.09.1999. The accused persons denied the charge leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from occurrence and false implication and defence has examined one witness i.e. D.W.- 1 Laxmi Chaudhary and no documentary evidence have been adduced by the defence. 7. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record arrived at a definite conclusion that it was a case of dowry death but since the deceased has committed suicide as proved by the prosecution, the offence comes under Section 306/34 of the IPC and instead of holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC. 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 4 Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 8. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the deceased has committed suicide due to refusal of Vidai to her parental home. It is submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry and consequent torture has not been specifically proved by the prosecution but the prosecution has also failed to prove that the appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide for any reason whatsoever. The learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC and there is no evidence constituting the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Hence, appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled against them. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State 9. On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, submitted that although no appeal has been preferred by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances proved in this case, there emerges a question of law that mere commission of suicide by the deceased following all the ingredients of demand of dowry and subjected her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the same, soon before her death, the offence will fall under Section 306 of the IPC. It is submitted that for constituting the offence under Section 304B of the IPC, there is no difference as to death is homicidal, suicidal or 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 5 accidental. Therefore, in the case of suicidal death also, if other ingredients are proved, the commission of offence does not come out of the ambit of Section 304B of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC is proved in this case by cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution which has been dealt with by the learned trial Court in detail but due to misconception and wrong understanding of the learned trial Court, the conviction has been passed for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC in this case. It is further submitted that it is within the powers of the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence and pass the judgment in accordance with law whatever offence have been proved by the prosecution. The charge was also framed under Section 304B of the IPC and the appellants have faced trial thereunder with full contest. Therefore, the conviction of appellants requires modification from offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC to section 304B of the IPC without interfering in the sentence. Analysis, reasons and decision: 10. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 11. The only point for determination in this appeal is firstly “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” and secondly, “as to whether the conviction under Section 306/34 of the IPC may be altered or 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 6 modified to the offence under Section 304B of the IPC by the appellate Court particularly where the accused persons have faced trial only for the offence under Section 304 B IPC?” 12. Before embarking to decide the above points, it is pertinent to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced, during trial. The most important witness in this case is P.W.-4 Vijay Bhagat who is informant-cum-brother of the deceased. This witness has consistently proved the contents of written report and has deposed that his sister Gayatri Devi was married with Sanjay Bhagat on 09.05.1997. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and after sometime on Vidai came to her parental home, then, she disclosed that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were demanding Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V. as dowry. He has further deposed that on 03.12.1997, he went to Sasural of his sister for her Vidai for 15-20 days, then, her mother-in-law suggested to talk with his brother-in- law in this regard. He also stayed there for two days. When he asked his brother-in-law (appellant No. 2) for Vidai of his sister, then, he said in specific terms that unless Rs. 10,000/- Cash and one T.V. would not be given by him, his sister would not be allowed to go her parental home and declined for Vidai. He has further deposed that thereafter, his sister was assaulted by her mother-in-law and husband. He also attempted to save her but later on returned to his home and reached near Bus-Stand, in the meantime, he got information about the death of his sister. He again went to the 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 7 matrimonial home of his sister and saw her dead body. He has further deposed that his brother-in-law has killed his sister by assaulting on neck by Lathi due to which she fell down and died. Thereafter, this witness returned to his home and along with his uncle went to Police Station and on his behalf, his uncle scribed the written report which was signed by him and presented before police station. He has proved his signature on written report which was scribed by his uncle. He has identified all the accused persons behind the Dock. In his cross-examination, he admits that written report was lodged at police station on 07.12.1997. This witness has been examined at length but barring some minor discrepancies, nothing has been elicited by prosecution touching the core of prosecution case. He has further submitted that mother-in-law of the deceased told that his sister has committed suicide by hanging. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not go to matrimonial home of his sister on 03.12.1997, rather, his father had gone for Vidai. He also admits that prior or at the time of marriage, there was no talk of any dowry. He also admits that at the time of first Vidai of his sister, his uncle, his elder brother Dineshwar Bhagat and younger brother Sandeep had also gone to matrimonial home of his sister, at that time, Vidai took place very happily and his sister stayed at her parental home about 10 days and her brother-in-law came for Vidai and his sister went to her matrimonial home. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he has not gone for Vidai of his sister, 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 8 rather, his father had gone for Vidai and he has also denied the suggestion of the defence that his sister has committed suicide because she did not desire to live at her Sasural. He has expressed no knowledge that in the post-mortem report of his sister, it was opined by Doctor that she has committed suicide by hanging. P.W.-1 Kedar Sao, P.W.-2 Girbar Bhuiyan and P.W.-3 Ashok Prasad Kashyap came to know that wife of Sanjay Bhagat has committed suicide but they have not seen the dead body and declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-5 Dr. Kundan Prasad was posted as C.A.S. at Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj and on 07.12.1997, he conducted the postmortem examination of Gayatri Devi, wife of Sanjay Bhagat at 11:45 AM and found the following injuries:- i. Blood mixed froth together with salvia coming out from the angle of the mouth. ii. A dark brown ligature mark is seen around the neck placed obliquely interrupted backwards. iii. There is ecchymosis and slight abrasions about the ligature mark. On dissection i. There is laceration of the intimae of the carotid arteries with extra Vissersion of blood with the walls. ii. Rigor mortis was present in both the upper and lower limbs. 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 9 The cause of death in my opinion is asphyxia due to hanging. Time of death is within 48 hours. The PM report has been proved by this witness as ex.-2. P.W.-6 Manoj Kumar is a police constable who has proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.-3 bearing signature of the then officer-in-charge Sri Ram Sahay Tigga. P.W.-7 Ram Sahay Tigga is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R. and endorsement on formal F.I.R. in his signature as Ext.4 and formal F.I.R. as previous Ext. 3. He also admits that prior to registration of F.I.R., on application of Sanjay Bhagat (husband of deceased) U.D. case No. 16/1997 was registered for commission of suicide by his wife. In the course of investigation of this case, after registration of F.I.R., he recorded restatement of informant and visited the place of occurrence at village Kisunpur which is the house of the accused Sanjay Bhagat Mali. The place of occurrence of this case is the house of the accused Sanjay Bhagat Mali where he also recorded statement of witnesses Kedar Saw (P.W.-1), Girbar Bhuiyan (P.W.-2) and Ashok Prasad (P.W.-3). He also sent the dead body for post-mortem at the time of registering U.D. Case, thereafter, he was transferred and further charge of investigation was given to S.I. S.P. Sinha. His attention has been drawn towards the statement of witness Kedar Saw (P.W.-1) who has stated before him that Sanjay Bhagat killed his wife by hanging. He also stated that Sanjay Bhagat was demanding a T.V. and Rs. 10,000/- cash from the deceased and due to non-fulfillment 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 10 of which, she was subjected to cruelty and ultimately killed. Witness Girbar Bhuiyan has also stated that Sanjay Bhagat has killed his wife by hanging. He closed the U.D. Case, when F.I.R. was registered, on the basis of written report of the informant. In his cross-examination, he also states that informant Vijay Bhagat has not stated before him any restatement in his presence that deceased was assaulted by Lathi on her neck by his brother-in-law Sanjay Bhagat. He has also not stated that he returned from matrimonial home of his sister and reached at Bus Stand, then, received information about her sister death and again went there. He has denied that his investigation is defective and submitted charge sheet without sufficient evidence. 13. On the other hand, one defence witness namely D.W.-1 Laxmi Choudhary has been examined, who has stated that Gayatri Devi, wife of Sanjay Bhagat, died 6-7 years ago. On that day, her father came to village Kisunpur to visit her, while, she was alive. Gayatri Devi asked her father to go back to home but he replied that at present, there are so many household works in your Sasural, hence, he will come later on for her Vidai. He has further deposed that Gayatri was insisting her father to go back her parental home with her but he again forbade her and returned to his home. Thereafter, husband of Gayatri Devi and other family members went to field for work and Gayatri was alone in her house and she committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, father of the deceased was informed, who came to village Kisunpur and in his presence, cremation of deceased took place. At that time, brother of Gayatri Devi namely Vijay Bhagat 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 11 started demanding expenses incurred at the time of marriage, which was not given by the accused persons, since, this false case was lodged. He has denied any demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V. by the accused persons and consequent torture to the deceased by their in-laws, rather, there was cordial relationship between the accused persons and the deceased. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly admits that his statement was not recorded by the police during investigation, although, he resides at same village and is the neighbour of the accused persons. He has come for giving his evidence on the request of Sanjay Bhagat for the first time. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has given false evidence as tutored by Sanjay Bhagat. 14. Before imparting verdict on the basis of evidence available on record, the relevant provisions of law are required to be reproduced hereinbelow:- “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 purposes 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 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 12 seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” “113B. 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 had 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 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 15. From bare perusal of Section 304B of the IPC (Section 80 of B.N.S., 2023), it is obvious that following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution as foundational facts for invoking the offence of dowry death:- (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. 16. 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. 17. From perusal of aforesaid evidence available on record and going through the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that the prosecution witnesses have proved the above foundational facts 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 13 attracting ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned trial Court has simply by reason of fact that it was suicidal death of the deceased has swept towards conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. There is no other reason to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC while the charge itself was framed for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. It is consistently proved by the prosecution that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to torture or cruelty by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V. Therefore, the basic ingredients for invoking presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act also stands proved. 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. 18. As far as the second question of law i.e. whether the conviction under Section 306/34 of the IPC may be altered or modified to the offence under Section 304B of the IPC by the appellate Court particularly where the accused persons have faced trial only for the offence under Section 304 B IPC is concerned, it is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to powers of appellate Court is extracted hereunder:- 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 14 “386. Powers of the Appellate Court.—After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may— (a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law; (b) in an appeal from a conviction— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same; (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or (ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or, the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same; (d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order; (e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper: Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement: 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 15 Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under appeal.” 19. In exercise of powers under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. in an appeal from a conviction, the appellate Court may reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re- tried or alter the finding, maintaining the sentence. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 386(b)(ii), the finding of the learned trial Court and conclusion about the guilt of the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC is hereby set aside and the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC is maintained for which the appellants were initially charged and in view of the clinching evidence available on record substantiating the above charge. 20. So far as sentence of the appellants is concerned, the substantive period of imprisonment for seven years as awarded by the learned trial Court is upheld for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. 21. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed with modification/alteration in conviction of the appellants maintaining his sentence. In result, suspension of sentence granted to appellants during pendency of this appeal, is hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this Judgment and undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive 2026:JHHC:19045 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005 16 steps for arrest and detention of the appellants for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to them. 22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 24. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Aditya Raman, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 30/06/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 01/07/2026