2026:JHHC:19048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 785 of 2003 ------ 1. Gaya Ram Sharma, 2. Jhandulal Sharma, Both sons of Bhim Sharma, 3. Champa Devi, wife of Jhandulal Sharma, All residents of village, Chamsobad, P.S. Chas (M), Dist. Bokaro, State-Jharkhand … … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant s : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT CAV On 08/05/2026 Pronounced On 30/06/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. It is here to be mentioned, at the very outset, that appellant No. 3 namely Bhim Sharma has been died, during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal preferred by Bhim Sharma stands abated and accordingly, the surviving appellants are re-numbered. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the aforesaid appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2003 for the offences under Sections 304B/201/498A read with Section 34 of the IPC passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.-4, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each for the offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC, three years R.I. each under Section 201 of the IPC. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Section 498-A of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run, concurrently. 2026:JHHC:19048 2 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 3. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the appellants-Mr. B.M. Tripathi and learned APP. Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter (Gayatri Sharma) was married to accused Gaya Ram Shrama, son of Bhim Sharma in the month of May, 1996 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and her Gauna was held in the month of November, 1997. The deceased had returned on two occasions to her parental house since her Gauna. In November, 1998, Informant took his daughter to her Sasural as none of the in-laws family members had come to take her and since then, she had been living at her Sasural. The informant used to go to matrimonial house of his daughter on several occasions to know about her well-being because his son-in-law was not behaving properly with his daughter. Informant’s daughter had some menstruation problem but she was not treated either by her husband or in-laws. Therefore, informant himself used to go to the matrimonial house of his daughter and got treated from Dr. T.N. Mallick. On Informant’s visit to the matrimonial house of his daughter, he came to know that his son-in-law and in-laws family members were demanding more dowry from her. This fact was also conveyed to the villagers as well as the mediator of the marriage namely Bindeshwari Sharma. It is alleged that when informant went to the matrimonial house of his daughter on 12.12.1999, he found that his daughter was ill and not being provided proper food and cloth for last two days, when, the informant asked his son-in-law Gaya Ram Sharma, then he replied that if he would be given a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for his business 2026:JHHC:19048 3 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 purpose, then, they would behave properly with his daughter and when Informant wanted to take his daughter back to his house, they declined. It is further alleged that just after two weeks, i.e. on 25.12.1999, Informant got information by a person of Village Chamsobad sent by in-laws of his daughter that his daughter has been died in the night of 24.12.1999 and her dead body was cremated. The informant immediately sent his son namely Milan Choudhary to the matrimonial house of his daughter, but he did not return, then, Informant himself proceeded on 26.12.1999 with Swapan Mahatha and Suresh Chandra Mahatha to the matrimonial house of his daughter but on the way itself, his son was returning and informed that in- laws of his sister had killed her and her dead body has been cremated. When in-laws were asked about the occurrence, they told that she died due to reaction of medicine but from the villagers, Informant came to know that his daughter was pushed from stair-case and was killed and in order to conceal the fact, her dead body was hurriedly cremated by her husband Gaya Ram Sharma, Bhaisur- Jhandu Lal Sharma, Father-in-law-Bhim Sharma and his other relatives without informing to parents of deceased or co-villagers. 5. On the basis of above written report, Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 69 of 1999 was registered for the offences under Section 302/304B/201/34 of the IPC against husband, in-laws and others. 6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against above accused persons including mother-in-law. 7. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 54 of 2001 was registered. Charges were read over 2026:JHHC:19048 4 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 and explained in Hindi to accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In course of trial, mother-in-law of deceased died, hence, the trial against her was dropped. 9. After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 10. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, has argued that the allegation made against the accused persons that after the marriage, informant’s daughter was tortured and subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry has not been supported by his own son namely Milan Choudhary (P.W-5), his son- in-law namely Suresh Chandra Mahatha (P.W.-1), his Samdhi namely Madhav Mahatha and his brother-in-law namely Swapan Mahatha. This fact is also not supported by the other prosecution witnesses namely Ambuj Sharma (P.W.-6), Binod Bihari Sharma (P.W.-7) and Anath Bandhu Sharma (P.W.-8). It is further submitted that the neighbour of the accused persons namely Mahabir Sharma (P.W.-11) and Piyari Sharma (P.W.-12) have also not supported the allegation of demand of dowry and any kind of cruelty and torture meted to the deceased at the hands of the appellants. It is further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove that deceased was pushed from staircase as stated by P.W.-4 in his examination-in-chief that he learnt from villagers but as to from whom, he learnt is not clear. It is also submitted that from a Charwaha (Shepherd), 2026:JHHC:19048 5 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 deceased’s brother came to know that his sister was pushed from staircase but the name of said shepherd has not been disclosed and no any such person has been examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that save and except two witnesses (P.W.-4 & 5), there is nothing on record to show the cause of the death of the deceased was homicidal or she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. Learned trial Court has also failed to consider the evidence of P.W.-11 and 12 who have deposed that since long, the deceased was under medical treatment and died due to her illness. It is also submitted that the informant party were informed about the death of the deceased by P.W.-10 Gujar Napit, who was sent by the accused persons to the paternal house of the deceased and after arrival of the brother of the deceased, the dead body was cremated and the brother of the deceased did not raise any objection for cremation of dead body. This fact has also been corroborated by D.W.-1. Therefore, there is nothing against the appellants to hold them guilty under Section 201 of the IPC also. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand of dowry from the deceased or her relatives at any point of time as well as mental and physical cruelty meted with her due to non-fulfilment of any demand of dowry. It is submitted that even if the allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/- for business purpose is said to be true for the sake of argument, such demand cannot be treated as dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the foundational facts of “dowry death” regarding demand of any dowry by the appellants, soon 2026:JHHC:19048 6 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 before her death as well as that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of non-fulfilment of such demand. Therefore, learned trial Court has wrongly drawn the presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that investigating officer has also not deposed that in the course of investigation, he could collect any evidence to show the individual complicity of the appellants in the alleged offence and there is no iota of evidence, showing that elder brother-in-law namely Jhandulal Sharma and his wife Champa devi ever demanded any money from the deceased or her father or her brother nor they have treated the deceased with cruelty by inflicting any physical or mental violence. The husband has also demanded money only for business purposes and not as a dowry. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider the above vital aspects of the case, which clearly shows that no offence either under Section 304B or 498A of the IPC is made out against the appellants and wrongly recorded findings of guilt and convicted and sentenced them. The finding of the learned trial Court is based upon irrelevant evidence, conjecture, surmises and beyond the weight of evidence available on record. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Hence, this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposing the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the prosecution has conclusively proved that the deceased died under 2026:JHHC:19048 7 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 abnormal circumstances at her matrimonial home and the death occurred within seven years of her marriage as deceased was pushed from staircase and in order to conceal the same, her dead body was also cremated hurriedly without informing the parents of the deceased or to any co- villagers. It is also proved beyond doubt that the husband of the deceased was very much instrumental in demanding Rs. 50,000/- as dowry in pretext of business purposes and due to non-fulfilment of same, deceased was not allowed to go her paternal house. It is submitted that it was not mere a loan amount rather in connection with the marriage which was solemnized just within two years of occurrence. It was not a simple demand to carry on a business rather it was manifested in subjecting the deceased to cruelty, harassment, physical and mental torture, at the hands of her husband due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased was pushed from staircase by her husband and in-laws. Therefore, the prosecution has proved all the four foundational facts invoking the definition of offence of “dowry death” under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned trial Court has committed no error of law in invoking the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellants. There are unrebutted, cogent and reliable evidence on record to conclusively prove the guilt of the appellants. There is no reason to take a different view than the learned trial Court. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 2026:JHHC:19048 8 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 13. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses in this case. P.W.-1 Suresh Chandra Mahatha P.W.-2 Mahadev Mahatha P.W.-3 Arjun Pandey @ Amrit Pandey P.W.-4 Swapan Mahatha P.W.-5 Milan Choudhary (brother of the deceased) P.W.-6 Ambuj Sharma P.W.-7 Binod Bihari Sharma P.W.-8 Anath Bandhu Sharma P.W.-9 Nagen Chandra Choudhary (Informant) P.W.-10 Gujar Napit P.W.-11 Mahabir Sharma P.W.-12 Piyari Sharma P.W.-13 Dr. T.M. Mallick P.W.-14 Anjani Kumar Singh 14. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution has adduced following documentary evidence:- Ext. 1 Signature of Binod Bihari Sharma in the Seizure List Ext. 1/1 Signature of Anath Bandhu Sharma in the Seizure List Ext. ½ Seizure List Ext. 2 Written Report Ext.-2/1 Endorsement in the written report. Ext.-3 F.I.R. 15. The defence has also examined one witness namely D.W.-1 (Sagar Mahatha). However, no documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. 16. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in these appeals”? 2026:JHHC:19048 9 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 Analysis, reasons and decision: 17. Before imparting verdict on the above point, it appears necessary to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case. P.W.-1 Suresh Chandra Mahatha has deposed that Gayatri Devi was his sister-in-law. Gayatri Devi was married to Gaya Ram Sharma, resident of village Chamsobad, Police Station Chas Muffasil. After marriage, she used to live at her matrimonial home with her husband. Gayatri Devi died at her matrimonial home in village Chamsobad on 24.12.1999. He received information about her death from his brother-in-law Milan Chaudhary. Upon receiving the information, he along with three/four persons went to his sister-in-law’s matrimonial home at Chamsobad and came to know that Gayatri Devi had died in the night. He could not see the dead body of his sister-in-law Gayatri Devi as her in-laws had already performed her last rites/cremation. From there, they went to the house of Bindeshwari Sharma, who had negotiated the marriage. There they came to know that neither he nor the villagers came to know anything, and that her cremation had already been performed. He also heard that the accused persons used to demand Rs. 50,000/- for business purposes and due to non-fulfillment, they did not provide her with food and clothes and used to harass her. In his cross-examination, he states that deceased was under treatment before the occurrence and expenses were borne by the father of the deceased and there was no rumor that due to medicine reaction, the deceased died. There is nothing else in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. 2026:JHHC:19048 10 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 P.W.-2 Mahadev Mahatha. According to his evidence, the deceased was the daughter of his relative (Samdhi). Milan Chaudhary informed him about the occurrence. They went to village Chamsobad, where came to know that the dead body of Gayatri Devi has already been cremated. He also met with some villagers. P.W.-3 Arjun Pandey @ Amrit Pandey has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-4 Swapan Mahatha is the maternal uncle of the deceased. According to his evidence, deceased was his niece and she was married to Gaya Ram Sharma. After marriage, his niece used to live at her matrimonial home in Chamsobad. On 25/12/1999, information was received that Gayatri Devi had died. He left his house for Chamsobad. Before reaching Chamsobad at Chandankiyari, he met his nephew Milan Chaudhary (P.W.-5) and Suresh Mahatha (P.W.-1). During conversation, they told him that Gayatri Devi had been pushed from the staircase and killed and her dead body was cremated without informing anyone. Thereafter, he proceeded further to Chamsobad. In village Chamsobad, he met Bindeshwar Sharma and also went to the matrimonial home of deceased and made inquiries. Upon inquiry at the matrimonial home, no cause of death was disclosed. In village Chamsobad also, he received the same information which had been stated by Milan Chaudhary and Suresh Mahto. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing material has been elicited to cast any doubt or disbelieve or discredit his testimony. P.W.-5 Milan Choudhary is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that deceased was his younger sister and she was married to Gayaram 2026:JHHC:19048 11 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 Sharma. After the wedding, his sister lived with her in-laws at matrimonial house. On December 25, 1999, one Gujar Napit (P.W.-10) of Chamsobad arrived at Asur Bandh and informed that his sister has been died and cremated. This witness went to Chamsobad where in-laws of his sister told him that his sister died due to reaction of medicine. When he asked as to why they had not informed him about the death, they replied about shortage of time to inform them. When he came out of his in-laws' house, he met a shepherd in front of the house who told that all the accused persons namely Gauri Sharma, Bhim Sharma, Bunda Sharma, mother-in- law Jhandu Lal Sharma (brother-in-law), Champa Sharma (sister-in-law) and husband Gayaram Sharma pushed his sister on stair, resulting in her death. Thereafter, he went to Bindeshwar Sharma's house who told him that they hadn't been informed about the death and cremation. He stayed at the house of his father-in-law, Mahadev Mahtha, in Bandhgoda. On his way to home the next day, he met his father, maternal uncle and brother- in-law, Suresh Mahtha, at Chandan Kyari. He explained everything to them and then returned home. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve his aforesaid testimony. P.W.-6 Ambuj Sharma has deposed that he knows the deceased who got married to Gayaram Sharma. After marriage, Gayatri Sharma lived at her in-laws' home at Chamsobad. He has heard that Gayatri Devi has been murdered. He heard from villagers about the murder. Gayatri Devi had conflicts and disputes with her husband and family and he learned all this 2026:JHHC:19048 12 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 from Nagendra Chaudhary, the deceased's father. This witness has further stated that he and his father have negotiated Gayatri Devi's marriage, and he knows the people on both sides well. In his cross-examination, he has also reiterated the aforesaid testimony. P.W.-7 Binod Bihari Sharma is seizure list witness. He has stated that police has seized a pink sari, a white dhoti, a broken cot, ashes in an earthen pot, and a few pieces of wood from the site of cremation. The police prepared a seizure list, and he signed on it. Inspector B.K. Singh and Ajani Singh both were present. Inspector B.K. Singh prepared the seizure list, and he put signature on it which is marked as Exhibit 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that seizure list was prepared in his presence and several co-villagers. P.W.-8 Anath Bandhu Sharma has corroborated the evidence of P.W.-7 and proved his signature on the seizure list, marked as Ex.-1/1. In his cross-examination, this witness was asked about the place of cremation which was told by this witness. P.W.-9 Nagen Chandra Choudhary is the informant-cum-father of the deceased. According to his evidence, his younger daughter was married with Gayaram Sharma of Chamsobad. After marriage, his daughter started living at her matrimonial home. His daughter had a menstrual disorder and he personally got her treated because his son-in-law did nothing. His son-in-law and his family started demanding Rs. 50,000 (Fifty Thousand Rupees) from his daughter for business purposes. He expressed his inability to pay the money. Consequently, all the accused persons started 2026:JHHC:19048 13 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 harassing and torturing his daughter. The occurrence of death was informed to him by a person named Gujar Napit from the same village at 2:00 PM on 25th December, 1999 that his daughter died and her body was cremated in the night. Then, he sent his son Milan Chaudhary, P.W.-5 to matrimonial house of his daughter and when he did not return, then in the next morning, he and his relative Swapan Mahatha went to meet his elder son-in-law and on the way, they met at Chandankiyari. His son told him that the in-laws said that his sister died due to reaction of medicine. Thereafter, they went to Chamsobad while his son Milan Chaudhary went home. In Chamsobad, Gayatri Devi's in-laws told in presence of other villagers that she has died due to reaction of medicine prescribed by Dr. T.N. Malik. This witness couldn't believe what her in-laws said. He then asked why they did not inform him about attending the funeral, then they replied that they hadn't time to inform them and their village was far away. He has further stated that Subodh Mahtha wrote the written report as per my instructions, marked as Exhibit 2. In his cross-examination, this witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing material has been elicited to cast any doubt on the prosecution story or disbelieve or discredit his testimony, rather, he has reiterated the above prosecution story. He has reiterated that when he visited his daughter's in-laws' house on December 12, 1999, and wanted to bring her daughter back to parental home, his son-in-law and his family said that if Rs. 50,000/- would not be paid, they would not allow his daughter to go to parental home.. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he was informed about the death of the deceased and went in 2026:JHHC:19048 14 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 the last rite of her deceased daughter. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that the demand of dowry was a concocted and fabricated story. P.W.-10 Gujar Napit deposed that on the instruction of Jhandu Sharma at 2:22 PM, he went to inform about the death of the deceased to the parents of the deceased at Ashurbandh and after informing, he returned. In his cross-examination, he stated that he went to Gayaram's in-laws' house in the morning to inform them. He can't tell that anyone came from there or not. P.W.-11 Mahabir Sharma. According to his evidence, he knows Gayaram Sharma and his wife, who died a year and a half ago. He further deposed that he heard about the death of the wife of Gayaram Shrama from a villager and from Napit but did not know how she died, although he has seen dead body but was not present at the time of cremation. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve the prosecution story. P.W.-12 Piyari Sharma is also hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, he has stated that wife of Gayaram Sharma was ill from long time. P.W.-13 Dr. T.M. Mallick has been tendered. P.W.-14 Anjani Kumar Singh, is the I.O. of this case. He has stated that on 26.12.1999, he was posted as Station House Officer at Chas Police Station. On the same day, Chas Police Station registered Case No. 69/99, based on the written report of informant Nagen Chandra Chaudhary against Gaya Ram Sharma, Jhandu Lal Sharma, Bhim Sharma, and their families and associates under sections 302/304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the investigation was initiated. He personally assumed responsibility for 2026:JHHC:19048 15 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 the investigation. This formal FIR is in his handwriting and signature and marked as Exhibit 3. The endorsement on this written report is in his handwriting and signature and marked as Exhibit 2/1. He interrogated the informant and the people present there about the incident when he arrived at village Chamsobad. The place of the occurrence is Gayatri Devi's in- laws' home. The house is a concrete structure. The two-story house consists of Gaya Ram Sharma's room, where Gayatri Devi reportedly lived since her marriage. The staircase leading to the second floor is from the courtyard, which also leads to the roof above the two-story living rooms, located on the southern side. The entire house courtyard is surrounded by built-up houses on all sides. A large courtyard is in the center. The main entrance is from the south. The entrance and exit to the permanent house is through the courtyard. The staircase is also located in the southwest corner, adjacent to the veranda of this house. The new house opens into the veranda in the courtyard. The entire house and courtyard are oriented towards the south. The other two rooms, one belongs to Bhim Sharma and the other to Gauri Sharma. The south-east room is Gauri Sharma's kitchen. The adjacent north-east room is Bhim Sharma's living room. The prayer room is in the north-east corner. Adjacent to this courtyard is a path leading to the garden from the south. The western room adjacent to the prayer room is Bhim Sharma's kitchen. There is a small brick boundary in the courtyard of the entire house in which trees and plants are planted and outside it there is a rural road. Statements were taken from witnesses present there. The deceased was verified by the villagers and witnesses. He along with the villager, 2026:JHHC:19048 16 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 Chowkidar, Kali Bauri and village witnesses Anath Bandhu Sharma and Vinod Bihari Sharma went to the place where the deceased Gayatri Devi was cremated. This site is located in the Joria village, located 3/4 km northwest of the Joria village and behind the deceased's in-laws' home. There is a single cremation site where ashes, coal, wood, a round clay pot, half-burnt wood, and an old rope-tired cot were found, along with a broken white dhoti and a printed synthetic saree in the water nearby. A seizure list was prepared of the items found there in the presence of two local witnesses, and their signatures were obtained which is in his handwriting and signature and marked as Exhibit 1/2. In the course of investigation, Statements of Informant Nagendra Chandra Chaudhary, Chowkidar Kali Bauri, Jhalku Sharma, Pyari Sharma, Ajit Bauri, Kartik Rajwar, Bindeshwar Sharma, Anath Bandhu Sharma, Vinod Bihari Sharma, Ambuj Sharma, Suresh Chandra Mahatha, Sapna Mahatha, Mahadev Mahatha, Mahabir Sharma Govardhan Mahatha, Milan Chaudhary, Dr. T.N. Mallick, Arjun Pandit and Gujjar Nadin were taken. The case was supervised by the Assistant Superintendent of Police and approved by the Superintendent of Police. All instructions were followed and on the basis of the evidence obtained, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused Gaya Ram Sharma, Jhandulal Sharma, Bhim Sharma, Gauri Sharma, Bunda Devi, Champa Devi. In his cross-examination, he stated that Suresh Mahtha came to the police station and reported the incident. He arrived with the informant at 7 p.m. to file an FIR. His statement was not taken at the police station on that day. His statement was taken later on 27/12/1999 in the office of Assistant 2026:JHHC:19048 17 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 Superintendent of Police, Chas. On 26/12/2012, no formal statement was recorded at the police station, only an inquiry was conducted. The next day, on 27/12/2012, the informant statement was taken not at the police station but in Chamsobad village. On 27/12/1999, the statements of Nagen Chand Bauri, Ajon Bauri, Nimai Bauri, Kartik Rajwan, Bindeshwar Sharma, Anath Bandhu Sharma, Binod Bihari Sharma, Ambuj Sharma were taken in village Chamsobad. The statements of Pyari Sharma, Jhalaku Sharma, and Ajit Bauri, who lived in the houses surrounding Gaya Ram Sharma's house, were taken. Ajit Bauri is a servant of the accused. Ambuj Sharma had given a statement that Gayatri Devi had a fight with her husband and other family members. 18. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness. D.W.-1 Sagar Mahatha who has stated that Gayatri Devi died after a long illness. She had been ill for a long time. Gaya Ram and his family members provided her treatment. The girl's father also occasionally visited her. A few days before the death of the deceased, her father took her for treatment. Gayaram's wife had a very good relationship with Gayaram and his family members. Gayaram's wife never complained about Gayaram or his family members to anyone. The news of Gayatri's death was sent to her father's house by a Gujar. Gayatri's brother arrived at the place of occurrence. When he arrived, the girl's body was still in the deceased home. His brother did not object to her cremation. Gayatri's body was cremated at the village crematorium on the banks of the Joria River. He has further stated that he never heard of Gaya Ram's wife being harassed for dowry. 2026:JHHC:19048 18 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 In his cross-examination, he deposed that husband of the deceased told him that his wife was ill, and he saw her being taken to the hospital but he did not tell us what the illness was. He sometimes goes to the hosue of Gaya Rame. He further states that the dead body was cremated at 8:00 to 8:30 am and her brother came to the place of occurrence at 7-7:30am. 19. The present appellants in their defence have pleaded their innocence and the main defence of the husband of the deceased is that his wife died due to reaction of medicine, hence, he is innocent and has committed no offence at all. 20. 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 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).” 2026:JHHC:19048 19 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 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- 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 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.] 2. Definition of “dowry”.- In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation II. – The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to- (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf) Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act. 2026:JHHC:19048 20 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 (b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride groom (without any demand having been made in that behalf) Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 21. 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. 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 and once the prosecution establishes aforesaid ingredients, the burden of proof radically shifts to the defence due to strict statutory presumption. 22. 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. 23. Firstly, I have to consider as to whether the demand of money for business purpose would fall under the category of “Dowry”? 2026:JHHC:19048 21 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 24. In the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported at (2015) 6 SCC 477, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted down as to what would fall within the term “dowry”. Relevant para 20 reads as under:- “20. Given that the statute with which we are dealing must be given a fair, pragmatic, and common sense interpretation so as to fulfill the object sought to be achieved by Parliament, we feel that the judgment in Appasaheb case (2007) 9 SCC 721 followed by the judgment of Vipin Jaiswal (2013) 3 SCC 684 do no state the law correctly. We, therefore, declare that any money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.” 25. In the instant case, it is stoutly pleaded that demand of money for business purposes does not amount dowry, cannot be accepted. Firstly, the demand was not as a loan amount but asked in connection with marriage. Secondly, the deceased was coerced and subjected to cruelty to enforce the payment of such illegal demand of money. Thirdly, it was in the garb of business purposes, was in essence a demand in connection with marriage, without any other consideration. Hence, the demand of Rs. 50,000/- for business purposes by the husband of the deceased was in essence a demand in connection with marriage falls under the category of “dowry” stands proved. 2026:JHHC:19048 22 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 26. Secondly, as to whether the ingredients of Section 304-B of the I.P.C. are fulfilled against the appellants? 27. In the instant case, the death of the deceased as per the evidence of P.W.-5, the brother of the deceased is that the husband of the deceased pushed his sister from staircase, resulting in her death. The plea taken by the appellants that due to medicine reaction, she died. To substantiate the death of deceased due to medicine reaction, no material was brought on record. It is quite obvious that the death of the deceased was not due to medicine reaction or under normal circumstance, rather, it has happened otherwise than under normal circumstance which confirms the first requirement of Section 304B of the IPC. 28. The second requirement is also proved by establishing that the deceased was married with the appellant in the month of May, 1996 and she died under unnatural death on 25.12.1999 i.e. within 7 years of marriage. 29. So far as, third and fourth conditions are concerned, there is consistent evidence of P.W.-9 Nagen Chandra Choudhary that husband of his deceased daughter was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for business purposes. It also appears that the informant wanted to take his daughter back to his home but his son-in-law disallowed him to take her to parental home unless demand of Rs. 50,000/- are fulfilled and due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, the husband of the deceased used to harass and torture the deceased in various ways. The other witnesses P.W.-1, brother-in-law (Jija Ji) of the deceased also corroborates the factum of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted with the deceased. It also appears that due 2026:JHHC:19048 23 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 to non-fulfilment of the said demand of money, his daughter was being subjected to physical and mental cruelty and she was denied from food and cloth. The other witnesses have also corroborated the factum that deceased was married with Gaya Ram Sharma in the month of May, 1996. Thereafter, her husband started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and due to non- fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was being tortured and harassed by her husband. The unrebutted testimony of aforesaid witnesses also proves the ingredients nos. (iii) and (iv). 30. Therefore, from the evidence of witnesses examined in this case as discussed above, it is crystal clear that presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act against the Bhaisur (appellant No.2) and Gotni (appellant No. 3) is concerned, no overt act has been attributed against Bhaisur and Gotni of the deceased either in demand of Rs. 50,000/- or subjecting the deceased to cruelty in any manner. It is also pertinent to mention that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was for business purpose, hence, except husband, there was no use of Rs. 50,000/- to Bhaisur and Gotni. Therefore, the basic ingredients for using presumption against appellant No.-2 (Bhaisur) and appellant No. 3 (Gotni) is lacking, rather, it is the husband against whom the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act may be raised for conviction. Hence, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that 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 of dowry is not proved 2026:JHHC:19048 24 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 against Bhaisur and Gotni, rather, the same can be invoked against the husband. 31. So far as charge under Section 201 is concerned, it is also crystal clear from the testimony of the brother of the deceased that P.W.-10 Gujar Napit who was sent by the husband and in-laws of the deceased to inform the parents of the deceased, came and told that the deceased has died and her dead body was cremated in the night itself. On being asked, by the brother of the deceased, the husband of the deceased said that they had no time to inform about the death of the deceased and her dead-body was cremated in the night itself without informing the parents of the deceased. Hence, the charge under Section 201 also stands proved against the husband of the deceased who concealed the above fact and not against the Bhaisur (appellant No. 2) and Gotni (appellant No.3). 32. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant-husband calling for any interference in the appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the husband of the deceased namely Gaya Ram Sharma (appellant No. 1) for the offence under Section 304B/201 of the IPC is hereby confirmed and upheld. 33. So far as the conviction and sentence of the Bhaisur-appellant No. 2 namely Jhandulal Sharma and Gotni-appellant No. 3 namely Champa Devi of the deceased are concerned, the judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from serious error of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304B/201 of the IPC against these two appellants (Bhaisur and Gotni) are hereby set aside. 2026:JHHC:19048 25 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 34. So far as the quantum of sentence of the appellant No. 1 Gaya Ram Sharma is concerned, whether the sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 may be reduced due to long pendency of case or not? 35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala versus State of Gujarat (2021) 3 SCC 12, dealing with a situation similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, expressed its opinion that the need of proportionality during sentencing must be the re-emphasized as earlier held by this Court in State of M.P. versus Surendra Singh (2015) 1 SCC 222 as under:- “13. We again reiterate in this case that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime, but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter-productive in the long run and against the interest of the society.” 36. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this appeal is partly allowed in respect of appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 namely Jhandulal Sharma and Champa Devi and the appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 namely Gaya Ram Sharma is dismissed. Consequently, appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 namely Jhandulal Sharma and 2026:JHHC:19048 26 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 785 of 2003 Champa Devi are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. The appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 namely Jhandulal Sharma and Champa Devi are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged and the suspension of sentence granted to appellant No.1 namely Gaya Ram Sharma vide order dated 05.08.2004 during pendency of this appeal, is hereby cancelled and he is 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 him by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 37. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 38. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 30./06/2026 Basant/-A.F.R. Uploaded on 01/07/2026