2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 41 of 2004 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2003 and Order of sentence dated 29.11.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I), Bokaro in S.T. Case No.286 of 2002] …… Ashish Modi Son of Shri Parmeshwar Lal Modi, Resident of Sadar Bazar, Chas, P.S. Chas, Dist. Bokaro. … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent WITH Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2004 …… Suresh Chandra Gupta S/o Sadhu Ram Gupta resident of 63/67 B.T. Kolkata Titagarh, 24 pargana(N), Kolkata. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Parmeshwar Lal Modi S/o Late Dhanraj Modi 3. Rashmi @ Rupa Modi D/o Parmeshwar Lal Modi Both O.P. Nos.2 and 3 are residents of Sadar Bazar Main Road Chas, P.S. Chas, District – Bokaro. … Opp. Parties …… For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. [Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2004] For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate [Cr. Revision No.81 of 2004] …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 18.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 2 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2003 and sentence dated 29.11.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I), Bokaro in S.T. Case No.286 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. In Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2004, the informant-cum- victim namely Suresh Chandra Gupta has also challenged the acquittal of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 namely Parmeshwar Lal Modi and Rashmi @ Rupa Modi who happens to be in- laws of the deceased in the aforesaid impugned judgment. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 3 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.05.2002 at about 10:00 a.m., informant’s son-in-law Ashish Modi (present appellant) informed through telephonic message that his wife has got burn injuries due to electric short circuit in the bathroom and admitted in hospital. The informant hired a vehicle and proceeded to Chas and as he covered about 2 k.m. distance, he was stopped by some people requesting him to talk with brother of his samdhi but he replied that at first, he wants to see his daughter and went to her matrimonial home, where he came to know that his daughter has been died under suspicious circumstances due to burn injuries in the morning at about 09:00 a.m. The informant further came to know that dead body of his daughter was kept at Neelam Nursing Home. Therefore, informant went to the said nursing home and saw dead body of his daughter sustaining burn injuries. It is further alleged that informant’s daughter Suruchi was married with Ashish Modi on 16.02.1997. On several occasions, his daughter returned to her parental home and used to bring long list of articles from her sasural, which he used to give her after purchasing the same from Kolkata. It is 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 4 further alleged that since few days, informant’s daughter used to tell him that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her mentally and physically and she has been fed up due to ill-treatment. She also disclosed that whatever gifts given at the time of marriage has been taken by her in-laws and she is forced to do household works like a maid servant. It is claimed by the informant that the accused persons have killed his daughter by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and setting her on ablaze or they might have tortured her so much that she herself poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze. On the basis of above written report of the informant Suresh Chandra Gupta, Chas P.S. Case No.87 of 2002 dated 19.05.2002 was registered for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons denied from the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 5 6. In the course of trial, altogether 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit 1 : Signature of Suresh Chandra Gupta, the informant on the fardbeyan. Exhibit 1/A : Signature of Suresh Kumar Agrawal @ Pagla on his statement recorded by Pravin Kumar (I.P.S.) (A.S.P. Sadar Chas, Bokaro and counter signed by the then S.D.O. Chas Sunil Kumar I.A.S. on 19.05.2002 at 11:30 hours at Chas. Exhibit 1/B : Signature of Dr. Ratan Kejriwal on seizure-cum-production list which was prepared in Nilam Nursing Home. Exhibit 2 : Post-mortem Report Exhibit 3 : Seizure list prepared by P.W.18, I.O. Exhibit 3/A : Production-cum-Seizure list dated 21.05.2002 which was also prepared by the I.O. P.W.18 from Nilam Nursing Home. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 6 Exhibit 4 : Inquest Report (carbon copy) of the dead body of the deceased Suruchi Devi. Exhibit 5 : Statement of Suresh Kumar Agrawal recorded by Pravin Kumar A.S.P. Chas and explained by S.D.M. Chas. This statement was recorded at 11:30 a.m on 19.05.2002 and this document was marked exhibit with objection. Exhibit 5/A : Statement of Archana Agrawal @ Rupa Agrawal daughter of Prem Kumar Agrawal recorded on 19.05.2002 at 02:30 p.m. at Chas P.S. by A.S.P. Pravin Kumar and explained by S.D.O. Chas Sri Sunil Kumar, this document was also marked exhibit with objection. Exhibit 6 : Endorsement of the Inspector-cum- Officer in charge on fardbeyan of Suresh Chandra Gupta for Chas P.S. Case No. 67/2002. Exhibit 7 : First Information Report 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 7 Exhibit 8 : Written report of Suresh Chandra Gupta, the informant dated 19.05.2002 which was given to Chas P.S. Case No.67 of 2002. 7. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. The story of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted to the deceased at the hands of accused persons is improved during the trial of the case. Further, plea of defence is that the deceased had a six months' child in a lap and wanted to attend a marriage of her mouseri sister at Bhagalpur. Her mother-in-law forbade her from going to attend the said marriage in the summer season along with a small kid. Hence, she became incited and enraged and committed suicide inside her room by setting her on fire. The in-laws and husband immediately brought her to hospital for treatment and also informed to her parents but she could not be saved. Due to unnatural death of his daughter, informant has lodged this false case under anguish. 8. The defence has also examined four witnesses; D.W.1 Arbind Kumar, D.W.2 Suman Suhasaria, D.W.3 Shyamlata Lachhiramka and D.W.4 Sudan Gorai. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 8 9. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, the defence has also adduced following documentary evidence :- Exhibit A : Marriage invitation card for the marriage of Mona with Dinesh on 21.05.2002 at Bhagalpur and this card was sent to Parmeshwar Lal Modi to attend the marriage. Exhibit B : Letter dated 06.11.1997 sent by Suruchi to her husband Ashish Kumar Modi. Exhibit B/1 : Letter dated 22.06.2000 sent from Calcutta to Suruchi by Ruchika Exhibit B/2 : Letter sent by Ruchika Exhibit B/3 : Letter dated 09.02.2000 sent by Ruchika to Suruchi from Calcutta Exhibit B/4 : Letter without date sent by Ruchika to Suruchi Exhibit B/5 : Greetings card and the message dated 16.07.1997 was sent by S. Gupta to Prem Babu and Sitaji Exhibit C : Greetings card from Suruchi Exhibit C/1 to C/2 : Greetings card from Suruchi 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 9 Exhibit C/3 : Greetings card from Ruchika to Suruchi and her Jija Ji Exhibit C/4 : Greetings card sent by Ruchika Exhibit C/5 : Greetings to Jija Ji by Ruchika Exhibit C/6 : Greetings to Jija Ji by Ruchika Exhibit C/7 and C/8 : Greetings cards by Ruchika to Jija Ji Exhibit D : Ambulance charge of 19.05.2002 at 03:30 p.m. for the dead body of Suruchi Devi in which it has been mentioned that Rs. 650 was paid. 10. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted Rashmi @ Rupa Modi, sister-in-law of the deceased and Parmeshwar Lal Modi, father-in-law of the deceased but hold the appellant Ashish Modi guilty for the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 11. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that most of the local witnesses examined by the prosecution namely P.W.2 Anil Goyal, 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 10 P.W.3 Laxman Das Kesarwani, P.W.4 Yogesh Kumar Kesarwani and P.W.5 Shyam Sundar Chandok are closed door neighbours of the appellant, who after seeing the flames of fire caught in the house of the appellant helped in extinguishing the fire calling the fire brigade force. Above witnesses have also stated cordial relationship between the accused persons and the deceased and they never heard any scuffle of any kind due to demand of any dowry. Similarly, P.W.6 Suraj Kumar Aggarwal @ Pagla @ Suraj Agarwal also resides in the same mohalla of the appellant who came to his house at about 09:10 a.m. for giving some sweets and saw that fire brigade force was present at the house of the accused persons and Suruchi was badly burned out to fire. He has also stated that Suruchi (deceased) was insisting upon to attend her marriage of her mouseri sisters and her mother-in- law has already gone to attend the marriage at Bhagalpur and thereafter, to Surat, Gujarat, due to tender girl child of 6 months in lap Suruchi was forbidden to attend the said marriage by her husband and father-in-law then she got anguished and annoyed and had committed suicide. Similarly, P.W.9 Ram Awtar Bansal also reached at the place 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 11 of occurrence at 09:15 a.m. after getting knowledge about fire in the house of the appellant. He has also alleged that informant's father and Shankar Agarwal were also present at the house of the appellant. Suruchi was brought to hospital on ambulance. P.W.10 Md. Jahir and P.W.11 Sharmila Agrawal have also stated about cordial relationship between husband and wife and since Suruchi was forbidden to attend marriage ceremony with small child in her lap, she was disappointed and committed suicide. P.W.12 Gopal Singh, the driver of ambulance, P.W.13 Kalyani Acharya, Nurse of Neelam Nursing Home, P.W.14 Shibajit Tripathi, driver of the fire brigade and P.W.15 Bramhdeo Prasad Singh, member of fire brigade, have also supported the incident which took place inside the room of the deceased who had committed suicide. It is further submitted that the prosecution case rests on the evidence of close relatives of the deceased namely P.W.1 Suresh Chandra Gupta, father of the deceased, P.W.16 Rahul Gupta, son of the informant and brother of the deceased and P.W.17 Smt. Gayatri Gupta, mother of the deceased who have materially improved the earliest versions contained in the 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 12 F.I.R. as regards dowry death and consequent torture meted with the deceased soon before her death at the hands of the accused persons. All these witnesses of facts have given contradictory statement to each other which also does not reflect any demand of dowry rather it is admitted by P.W.1, father of the deceased that whenever his daughter used to come and visit him, a huge list of articles were submitted to him and he purchased the same from Kolkata and used to give his daughter. It is further submitted that five years have been lapsed from the date of marriage and deceased was blessed with two children, one son and one daughter. In this period, the other relatives of the deceased have never complained about demand of dowry or the torture meted with the deceased at the hands of the accused persons including her husband. The Investigating Officer of the case has also proved the place of occurrence, the second story of the house of appellant wherein the deceased committed suicide by setting her on ablaze. It is also brought on record that immediately after the occurrence, the appellant and his family members along with neighbours managed an ambulance and also brought the deceased to hospital for her 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 13 treatment but she succumbed to burn injuries. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses of facts who happens to be relatives of the deceased as regards date, day, month and year of the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- or any partial payment of Rs.25,000/- and also as regards when the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of appellant. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall evidence available on record as well as material improvement, discrepancies and contradictions appearing in the evidence of interested witnesses related to the deceased. The learned Trial Court on the basis of same evidence, has acquitted two other co- accused persons but the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as he himself has committed any offence. The learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the foundational facts constituting the offences under Sections 304B of the I.P.C. and 498A of the I.P.C. have not been proved by the prosecution. The charges framed against the accused disclosed the single day event on 19.05.2002 and no previous cause of action or any overt act has been put in the charge framed against the accused persons. Similarly, under charge 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 14 for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. also the date of occurrence is simply 19.05.2002 and no previous act of cruelty has been included in the charge. In the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. also, no incriminating circumstances has been put to the defence regarding any specific demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband. Therefore, the impugned judgment is based upon emotion and sentiments of the learned Trial Court and beyond the weight of evidence available on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while invoking the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, impugned judgment is not tenable under law and fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of appellant and submitted that on behalf of victim-cum-informant of this case, a Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2004 is also preferred 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 15 challenging the acquittal of father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. It is further argued that there are specific allegations and evidence against the father-in-law and sister- in-law of the deceased about demand of dowry from the deceased and due to non-fulfilment of which, the deceased was subjected by them to cruelty in various ways both mental and physical. The conduct of the appellant and other co- accused persons was such a grave nature that provoked the deceased to take extreme step to end her life by committing suicide. Therefore, not only the conviction of present appellant requires to be upheld and confirmed rather the impugned judgment requires interference by setting aside the acquittal of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 of the Criminal Revision No.81 of 2004 namely, Parmeshwar Lal Modi and Rashmi @ Rupa Modi. Therefore, this appeal being devoid of merits is fit to be dismissed and the revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 16 14. The only point for consideration is that as to "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffer from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal ?" And "whether acquittal of Parmeshwar Lal Modi, father-in-law and Rashmi @ Rupa Modi, sister-in-law by the learned Trial Court is justified under law or not ?" 15. Before embarking upon adjudicating the above points, it is pertinent to take brief resume of the evidence available on record. 16. It appears that altogether 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of them, following witnesses are local witnesses of the place of occurrence whose testimony deserves to be quoted first in order to ascertain the genesis of occurrence. P.W.2 Anil Goyal, P.W.3 Laxman Das Kesarwani, P.W.4 Yogesh Kumar Kesarwani and P.W.5 Shyam Sundar Chandak are closed door neighbours of matrimonial home of deceased. These witnesses have claimed that they saw fire spread in the second storey of the building of the accused Prem Agrawal and flames were going out from the door and the window of the bathroom of the 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 17 accused. P.W.2 informed to fire brigade through telephonic message and also rushed towards the house of the accused Prem Agrawal, who disclosed them that Suruchi has burnt herself in the second floor of the house. The accused persons were attempting to extinguish the fire. These witnesses have also stated about cordial relationship between accused persons and the deceased and they have never heard any scuffle of any kind coming from the house of accused persons. The injured Suruchi was brought out from her room in presence of several local persons. These witnesses also noticed that Devan, Palang, Mosquito Net over the bed of Suruchi were also burnt. It is also stated that mother-in-law of the deceased had gone outside for attending a marriage at Surat. P.W.6 Suraj Kumar Agrawal @ Pagla @ Suresh Agrawal is a commissioned agent who brought some sweets at about 09:00 to 10:00 a.m. on 19.05.2002 at the house of accused persons and saw crowd of people. He also noticed that several persons including the accused were trying to extinguish the fire and wife of Ashish Modi was burnt due to fire and was unconscious. His statement was also recorded 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 18 by S.D.M., Chas (Ext.5). He has also stated about cordial relationship between the deceased husband and her in-laws family members. This witness also states that mother-in-law of the deceased had gone to Surat on the relevant date of occurrence. This witness has also stated about motive behind the commission of suicide by the deceased is that deceased was desiring to attend the marriage ceremony of her mouseri sisters at Bhagalpur and since her mother-in-law herself was absent, hence, her father-in-law and husband requested her to stay at home because there is small kid about six months in her lap and it is summer season, which annoyed the deceased and she committed suicide. P.W.9 Ram Awtar Bansal is also neighbour of accused persons and on the date of occurrence at about 09:15 a.m., he visited the house of the accused persons and saw flames of fire was spreading in the house of Prem Babu and his daughter-in-law was lying unconscious in burnt condition. She was brought to hospital by ambulance. This witness used to frequently visit the house of Prem Babu and admits cordial relationship between deceased and her in-laws and there was no demand of any dowry or torture meted with the deceased. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 19 P.W.10 Md. Jahir was also present in the house of accused persons on the relevant date and time of occurrence. He woke up and saw that fire has been caught in the room of the Suruchi. She was brought to Neelam Nursing Home, Chas by ambulance. This witness happens to be driver of the accused persons. He has also proved his signature on seizure list of burnt articles like sari, petticoat, mosquito-net, devan bed etc. which was prepared by police. He also states that mother-in-law of the deceased had gone to Bhagalpur prior to one day of the occurrence. He has never heard any dispute or scuffle for any reason whatsoever between deceased along with her husband and other family members rather she was very happy in her matrimonial home. P.W.11 Sharmila Agrawal is also neighbour of the accused persons. According to her on 17.05.2002, she has also meted with Suruchi along with her family members in a birthday party function where she disclosed that she want to attend her marriage ceremony of mouseri sister at Bhagalpur but her mother-in-law forbade her not to go there due to scorching heat and tender girl child of six months in her lap. On 19.05.2002, at about 09:15 a.m., she came to know that 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 20 Suruchi has committed self immolation by pouring kerosene oil on her. She was brought to Neelam Nursing Home by ambulance but could not be saved and died. She has also admitted cordial relationship between deceased and her in- laws and husband. P.W.12 Gopal Singh, P.W.13 Kalyani Acharya, P.W.14 Shibajit Tripathi and P.W.15 Bramhdeo Prasad Singh have also stated that fire caught in the second storey of the house of accused persons where Suruchi had committed suicide by setting her on fire. She was brought to Neelam Nursing Home by ambulance and fire brigade was also called for in extinguishing the fire. P.W.13 Kalyani Acharya is the employee of the Neelam Nursing Home, who has also stated that at the time, the injured was brought to hospital. She was alive and oxygen was being given to her but doctor was not present who was called through telephonic message and started her treatment. She has also stated that during the treatment, she died and a piece of plastic was also found in the body of injured. Seizure list of which was prepared and marked as Ext.1/C. P.W.14 and P.W.15 are the driver of the fire brigade and corroborates the fact that on telephonic 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 21 message, fire brigade arrived at the house of Prem Babu and engaged in extinguishing the fire. P.W.7 Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma had conducted autopsy on 19.05.2002 at about 04:15 p.m. on the dead body of the deceased Suruchi wife of Ashish Modi and found following external injuries :- (i) Face swollen and distorted, eyes cleared conjunctive congested, pupils dilated, eyebrows burnt mouth was open, tongue protruded and nasal passage soon before death sanguinous discharged from nostrils and body smell of kerosene, black sooty colour. No obvious detectable mark of injury or violence could be found on the person of the deceased except the burn injuries. (ii) Almost 100% of body surface area was found to be effected by dry flame epidermal and dermo epidermal at places deep burn with heat rupture causing splitting of soft tissues specially in the right forearm with black sooty colour of skin and smell of kerosence oil. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 22 There was partial pugilistic attitude of the body with skin of the hand detached in glove like fashion. The fingers of the hands were hooked click claw. There was exfoliated patches of skin, occasional blistter and line of vagueness and hyperemic patches with signed and burnt scalp hair. Predominantly in the interior side. Internals :- (iii) Membrane of brain congested extracellular hemorrhage present in parietal temporal region. Thin granular variable like chocklet colour hematoma brain shrunken and congested, Mucas membrane congested, laryngeal edema lungs congested. Pericardial congested, petechial hemorrhage seen. Heart :- Left side empty, right side containing liquid as well as clotted blood. Peritoneal congested. Stomach contained digested material, fluid and gas, liver congested and swollen, spleen soft enlarged, kidney congested and swollen, adrenals congested and enlarged. Burn injury over stomach internal and external. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 23 Opinion :- (iv) (i) Ante mortem dry flame epidermal and dermo epidermal burn injuries caused by inflammable like kerosene oil, covering almost 100%. (ii) Cause of death :- Cardio respiratory failure due to hypo volaemic shock and extensive burn injuries. (iii) P.M. time within 24 hours. He has proved the P.M. report as Ext.2. In his cross-examination also, this witness admits in clear terms that except burnt injury, there was no mark of ante mortem injuries or mark of violence on the dead body. The burnt injury over the right forearm of the deceased indicates that the deceased had probably tried to protect herself from the flames of fire. He also states that after setting fire, the deceased might have tried through her different part of body with her right hand to extinguish the fire. Therefore, the fingers of both hand hooked like claw as a result of protecting herself while extinguishing fire. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 24 P.W.8 Dr. Ratan Kejriwal has deposed that on 19.05.2002 at about 09:30 a.m., he received telephonic message by nurse of Neelam Nursing Home that one woman badly burnt has been brought for treatment. This witness proceeded to the nursing home and saw the injured woman who was admitted on bed No.4 and oxygen gas was giving her and nurses were rubbing on her body and she was in gaspy condition but she was alive. During treatment, her condition became very serious and he was preparing papers to refer her to B.G.H. Bokaro general hospital but in the meantime, injured Suruchi died. Therefore, he sent the written report to the concerned Police Station. He has also stated that during treatment, a piece of plastic was found from the body of deceased. The police also arrived at nursing home and the seizure list of the said plastic was prepared and he has proved his signature as Ext.1/B. There was 100% burnt injuries. 17. Now, I have to discuss the evidence of informant and his family members who had initiated this case by instituting the F.I.R. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 25 P.W.1 Suresh Chandra Gupta is the father of the deceased-cum-informant. According to his evidence, his daughter was married with Ashish Modi on 16.02.1997. On 19.05.2002 at about 10:00 a.m., he received telephonic message from his son-in-law Ashish Modi that his daughter Suruchi has been burnt due to electric short circuit in the bathroom and her sister-in-law was weeping. He was also informed that Suruchi was brought to hospital for treatment. This witness asked his son-in-law as there is no switch inside the bathroom then how short circuit has occurred. Thereafter, he went to Chas along with his family members by car and reached there at about 05:30 p.m. in evening. He has further stated that when he reached near Bhutnath temple, some persons asked him to stop there and talk with brother of his samdhi but he straightforward went to see his daughter at her matrimonial home. He came to know from some neighbours of the accused persons that his daughter Suruchi has sustained burnt injuries under suspicious circumstances and died due to burning. He also went to Neelam Nursing Home at Chas and saw the dead body of his daughter under burnt condition. This witness further states that whenever his 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 26 daughter used to come to her parental home, she used to furnish a list of articles for her and in-laws family members as demanded by her mother-in-law and he used to purchase the same and give his daughter as per his capacity. This witness has expressed his belief that his son-in-law Ashish Modi, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his deceased daughter have killed her setting her on ablaze in connection with dowry demand. This witness has been extensively cross-examined by the defence and reiterates the above facts as stated in the examination-in-chief. He saw the dead body of his daughter for the first time, after her post-mortem. He has no list of articles at present which was used to be given to his daughter at the instance of accused persons or purchased by him. This witness further states that prior to occurrence on the last occasion, in the month of February last week, he came to know that his daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law but he did not go to her matrimonial home because his daughter was brought to her parental home at that time. He has never lodged any case about ill-treatment or torture meted with his 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 27 daughter. He further admits in clear terms that the list of articles was received from his daughter and not by accused persons. He also admits that whenever his daughter used to come at her parental home either he himself used to take her from matrimonial home or her husband used to come for vidai. This witness has denied any demand of dowry from his daughter or directly by the accused persons from him and due to non-fulfilment of which his daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. This witness has also proved his written report scribed by his brother and bears his signature marked as Ext.8. P.W.16 Rahul Gupta aged about 18 years, is the brother of the deceased. According to his evidence on 19.05.2002, he was at his home at Teetagarh, Culcutta at about 10:00 a.m., he received telephonic message from his brother-in-law Ashish Modi that his sister Suruchi has been burnt due to short circuit in the bathroom. When father of this witness (P.W.1) asked to Ashish Modi how in the circumstance of underground wiring in his house, the short circuit happened then he stopped talking by phone. This witness along with his father, mother, uncle and other family members had a car 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 28 and proceeded for Bokaro at matrimonial home of his sister. He also came to know after reaching at Bokaro at matrimonial home of his sister that she has been died and her dead body is lying at Neelam Nursing Home. They went there and saw the dead body of Suruchi, her whole body was burnt and after post-mortem, the dead body was lying. Thereafter, they went to Chas Police Station and case was lodged by his father. This witness has further deposed that his sister was always harassed by her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home. Whenever his sister used to come at her parental home, she used to bring huge list of articles which was being purchased by his father and mother. He has further stated that at about two and a half months prior to occurrence, his sister came to her parental home and told that her husband requires Rs.50,000/- for starting a new business then his father and mother told to Suruchi that at present arrangement of money is not possible and he will manage after some time. Thereafter, Suruchi went to her sasural and again made telephonic call. She is being harassed for non- fulfilment of demand of Rs.50,000/- and being threatened to be killed. He has also stated that prior to three to four days of 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 29 occurrence, he attempted to talk with Suruchi but could not succeed. This witness has also been cross-examined at length and reiterated the aforesaid facts. Attention of this witness has been drawn towards his statement about demand of Rs.50,000/- in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he admits that this fact was stated before police during investigation. He further admits that whatever list of articles was produced by Suruchi, he has never inquired with her in- laws as to whether same was demanded by them or not. He also admits that when Suruchi demanded Rs.50,000/- for new business of her husband, this fact was not interrogated with her husband and in-laws to verify the same and no complaint about any demand of dowry or torture meted with the Suruchi was ever made before any other authority. He also admits that the accused persons never submitted any list of articles after marriage to be given by his father. This witness also admits that Ashish Modi is sole son of his father and he has a business of VIP Plastic Furnitures that business was started by him about eight months prior to occurrence. He also admits that his sister Suruchi told about starting of 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 30 new business of her husband. This witness has denied the suggestion of defence that deceased was desiring to attend marriage ceremony on 21.05.2002 of her mouseri sister Mona but she was having a six months' girl baby in her lap and it was summer season and her mother-in-law had gone to Surat for attending the marriage. Hence, she was not allowed to attend the said marriage and due to that anguish, she had committed suicide and false case of dowry death was lodged by her father and no such demand or torture was ever made by the accused persons. P.W.17 Gayatri Gupta is the mother of the deceased and wife of the informant. According to her on 19.05.2002, her son-in-law Ashish Modi informed her husband over telephone that Suruchi had sustained burn injuries in the bathroom due to a short circuit. She has further stated that upon reaching the matrimonial house, some local women informed her that the deceased had been burnt after being subjected to cruelty for dowry. Thereafter, she went to Neelam Nursing Home and found her daughter dead with extensive burn injuries. She has further stated that Suruchi was married to Ashish Modi on 16.02.1997 and dowry was 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 31 given according to their capacity at the time of marriage. According to her, the accused persons subsequently demanded Rs. 50,000/-, out of which she paid Rs. 25,000/- to the deceased, while the remaining amount could not be arranged. She has further stated that the accused killed her daughter on account of non-payment of the balance amount. She also stated that the deceased had informed her about the alleged dowry demand through telephone. In her cross-examination, she admitted that no written list of dowry articles or cash memos could be produced. She further admitted that none of the accused persons had directly demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her, nor had they sent any written demand. She also admitted that no independent witness had informed her that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry. She further admitted that her statement was recorded by police on 20.05.2002 and that she could not specifically remember whether she had stated before the Investigating Officer about the alleged dowry or harassment. She also admits that Rs.25,000/- was given to the deceased for her husband’s business, with the understanding that the cash memo would be supplied later. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 32 P.W.18 Ramadhar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. According to him on 19.05.2002, while he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Chas Police Station, he received telephonic information at about 9:30 A.M. regarding a fire in the house of Parmeshwar Lal Modi. On the basis of Sanha Entry No. 435, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and found that the injured Suruchi had already been shifted to Neelam Nursing Home by ambulance. He inspected the place of occurrence, where he noticed burnt articles, blackened walls and smell of kerosene. On receiving information regarding the death of Suruchi, the room was locked on the direction of the A.S.P. and the maid servant Sarla Devi, Suresh Chandra Agrawal and Archana Modi were brought to the police station for enquiry. He has further stated that the inquest report was prepared, the dead body was sent for post-mortem and on the written report submitted by the informant, Chas P.S. Case No. 67 of 2002 under Section 304B IPC was instituted. He took up the charge of investigation, prepared the seizure list of the burnt articles, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 33 investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that before institution of the FIR, he had already inspected the place of occurrence, locked the room, prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body for post-mortem and recorded the statements of Suresh Kumar Agrawal and Archana Agrawal. He has further admitted that no U.D. (Unnatural Death) case was instituted despite receipt of the death information from the nursing home. He also admits that during investigation he found no evidence of assault or torture to the deceased by the accused persons and no witness stated before him that the relationship between Suruchi and the accused persons was strained. He has further admitted that the informant had not stated before him that the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law or sister-in-law had tortured or assaulted the deceased. He has further admitted that P.W.17 Gayatri Devi, mother of deceased, had not stated before him that the accused persons demanded Rs. 50,000/-, that she had paid Rs. 25,000/- to Suruchi, or that the deceased was killed for non-payment of the remaining amount. Likewise, P.W.16 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 34 Rahul Gupta had also not stated before him that Suruchi had brought any list of articles from her matrimonial home or that she was tortured for dowry. He has admitted that despite demand of it, no list of dowry articles was ever produced during investigation. He has further stated that according to the materials collected during investigation, the case appeared to be one of suicide and not dowry death and that no evidence was found to show that any person had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 18. On the other hand, defence has also examined four witnesses. D.W.1 Arbind Kumar has deposed that his ambulance was engaged for carrying the dead body of Suruchi for post-mortem. According to him, on 19.05.2002 at about 03:30 p.m., the dead body was taken to the Referral Hospital, Chas, and after the post-mortem examination, it was brought back to the residence of the accused persons. He has proved the receipt relating to the ambulance charges, which was marked as Ext. D. D.W.2 Suman Suhasriya is the President of Marwari Mahila Manch, Jharkhand State, has stated that although she did not attend the marriage of Suruchi, she knew that the 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 35 marriage had taken place at Baibhav Hotel, Chas. She has further stated that Suruchi died due to burn injuries, but she had no knowledge as to how she sustained those injuries. She categorically stated that she had never heard that the accused persons had subjected Suruchi to cruelty or demanded Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. D.W.3 Shyam Lata Lachhiramka, is the President of Mahila Marwari Samiti, Chas, has stated that Suruchi had two children. She denied the prosecution suggestion that the deceased was tortured for dowry or that the occurrence had taken place on account of non-fulfilment of any dowry demand. D.W.4 Sudan Gorai, a private employee of the accused persons, has deposed that the marriage of Suruchi was solemnized at Baibhav Hotel, Chas. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 19.05.2002, he was not present in the house of the accused as he had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of one of his relatives on 18.05.2002 and, therefore, he had no knowledge of the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 36 19. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that the informant (P.W.1), who is the father of the deceased and lodged the First Information Report, has not deposed in his examination-in-chief regarding any specific demand of dowry made by the appellant or any payment made by him towards such alleged demand. His evidence is completely silent on this material aspect. Likewise, P.W.16, the brother of the deceased, has also not stated anything in his examination-in-chief regarding any demand of dowry. It is only during his cross-examination he casually states that the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/-. Even then, he does not state that any amount of Rs.25,000/- was ever paid in part satisfaction of the alleged demand. Such an improvement, not forming part of his substantive examination-in-chief, cannot be treated as reliable evidence to establish the foundational fact of demand of dowry. The only witness who has deposed regarding payment of Rs.25,000/- is P.W.17, the mother of the deceased. According to her, out of the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid. However, her evidence is conspicuously silent as to the date, time and place of such 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 37 alleged payment. She has not disclosed as to whether the amount was paid to the appellant, or to his father, or to any other member of the matrimonial family. It is pertinent to mention that the informant (P.W.1), the father of the deceased, was examined on 27.03.2003, whereas the First Information Report had been lodged much earlier on 19.05.2002. P.W.16, the brother of the deceased, was also examined subsequently on 17.07.2003. P.W.17, the mother of the deceased, was examined after a considerable lapse of time from the institution of the case, i.e., on 14.08.2003. Significantly, it was for the first time during her deposition before the Trial Court she stated that, out of the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been paid. No particulars whatsoever have been furnished regarding the alleged payment. Such a vague and omnibus assertion, unsupported by any other prosecution witness, does not inspire confidence. It is further significant that neither the informant (P.W.1) nor P.W.16 has corroborated the version of P.W.17 regarding payment of Rs.25,000/-. If such payment had in fact been made towards an alleged demand of dowry, it is difficult to accept that the father of the 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 38 deceased, who lodged the First Information Report and the brother of the deceased would remain completely silent on such an important circumstance. Moreover, about facts were not directed before I.O. in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.17. This material omission assumes considerable significance and materially affects the credibility of the prosecution case. The evidence further shows that the deceased used to send lists of household articles to her parental home and the family members used to provide those articles. However, no witness has stated that those articles were demanded by the appellant or his family members as dowry. The prosecution has also not proved that such lists were prepared under coercion or in consequence of any unlawful demand. Mere sending of a list of household articles by a married daughter to her parents cannot, by itself, be construed as a demand for dowry. It is equally probable that such articles were required by the deceased for her day- to-day domestic use and were voluntarily supplied by her parents out of affection and concern. 20. At the outset for better appreciation of the case, the relevant provisions have to be extracted as under: 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 39 Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as follows: “498A: 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 purpose of this section 'cruelty' means – (a) any wilful 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." The essential ingredients of Section 498A of the I.P.C. are as under: “Essentials (i) That there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account of failure by such woman, or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand in able and the woman was subjected to such cruelty by - the husband of that 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 40 woman; or any relative of the husband of that woman.” Section 304B IPC deals with dowry death which reads as follows: “304B. Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section 'dowry' shall have 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.” The essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death as per above Section are as under: “(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.” Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as under:- 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 41 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)." Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 :- 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 parent 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 (45 of 1860). 21. From bare perusal of Section 304B of the IPC (Section 80 of B.N.S., 2023), there are four essential ingredients of the offence. The first, namely that the death occurred due to burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, is an admitted and established fact. The second, that the death occurred within seven years of 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 42 marriage, is also an admitted and proved fact. Thus, the first two ingredients stand established. However, so far as the third and fourth ingredients are concerned, there is no concrete, cogent or reliable evidence available on record to establish the same. 22. The informant, who happens to be the father of the victim lady, has stated nothing in the F.I.R. as well as in his examination-in-chief during trial. Similarly, P.W.16, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, has also not stated anything about the demand of any dowry rather simply states that the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/- but nothing has been elaborated about the date, time, place and to whom the alleged payment was given. P.W.17, who happens to be the mother of the deceased, was examined after one year two months and 15 days of the incident, has materially given go by to the contents of F.I.R. and she has stated a new story that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for opening a business and out of which Rs.25,000/- was given. It is proved by P.W.16 himself that about two years' prior to occurrence, the new business of plastic furniture agency was started by the accused appellant Ashish Modi. Therefore, the 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 43 allegation that appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- for starting the business itself falsified. He has a business and he is doing business then why he will ask. One of the essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death also fails. 23. Now as regards charge under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, several documentary evidence have been brought on record by the defence, including letters written by the parents to her daughter (deceased) as well as letters written by the deceased to her husband that all reflects cordial relationship and no type of any tussle or any kind of even inconvenience in the matrimonial home of the deceased rather she was very happy and there was cordial relationship. She also gave birth to two children, one was in the lap six months baby. It is also on record that marriage of mouseri sister of the deceased was scheduled to be held on 21.05.2002 and admittedly, her mother-in-law has already gone to Surat for attending the marriage and she was forbidden from attending the marriage due to scorching heat and a six months baby in her lap that might be a reason for committing suicide by her. However, no unlawful demand has been proved and there is no definite and reliable evidence of 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 44 cruelty or harassment on record. Therefore, neither the offence under Section 498A IPC nor the offence under Section 304B IPC is made out against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and their acquittal by learned Trial Court is absolutely justified. Therefore, Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2004 is dismissed. 24. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find no merits in the Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2004 filed by the informant for challenging the acquittal of the other co- accused persons, which stands dismissed. 25. Since, no offences are proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court has accepted the testimony of P.W.17 as gospel truth without appreciating in the light of evidence of her own husband and son, who have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.16 and whispered nothing about the demand of dowry or consequent torture meted with the deceased soon before her death. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.41 of 2004 is allowed. 2026:JHHC:21577 Cr. A.(SJ) No.41 of 2004 & Cr. Rev. No.81 of 2004 Page | 45 26. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 27. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026