2026:JHHC:21524 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 308 of 2005 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005, passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1998/05 of 2003] -------- 1. Parmeshwar Yadav, son of Hemlal Yadav 2. Hemlal Yadav, son of Late Kameshwar Yadav All resident of village-Dhankatta Panjaniya Tola, P.S.-Poraiyahat, Subdivision & District-Godda ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Souma Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Kaushik Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Ashwini Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 18.06.2026 Pronounced on 20/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1998/05 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C.; R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 2 years each for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, 2026:JHHC:21524 2 co-accused, namely Sumitra Devi was acquitted extending the benefit of doubt. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a Complaint Case No. 33 of 1997 was instituted by the complainant/informant, which was sent to concerned police station vide order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register and investigate the case (accordingly, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.17 of 1997 was registered), but after conclusion of investigation police submitted final form in the case and the accused persons were not sent for a trial. A protest complaint was filed by the complainant, Premlal Yadav before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. Again, inquiry was conducted by the Magistrate and accused persons were summoned for the offences under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of the I.P.C. The prosecution story in brief is that complainant’s daughter Sunita Devi @ Putri Devi (since deceased) was married with the appellant Parmeshwar Yadav about five years ago from the date of occurrence, Sunita Devi went to her matrimonial home and after Duragaman in the month of February, 1996, after staying four months at parental home, she went to her sasural. It is further alleged that the husband and father-in-law of the deceased were demanding Rs.10,000/- as arrear of dowry from her father due to non-fulfillment of which, they were harassing and torturing her. The complainant made a short visit to his daughter’s matrimonial house on 31.12.1996, then his daughter disclosed that she is being constantly maltreated and subjected to threat 2026:JHHC:21524 3 and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws, due to non- fulfillment of above demand of Rs.10,000/- as arrear of dowry. The complainant returned to his home after requesting the accused persons to keep his daughter properly, but on 05.01.1997 at about 08:00 P.M., the complainant came to know that his daughter has died in her matrimonial home and her dead body has also been cremated. He also came to know that his daughter was administered poison by the accused persons, due to which she died and the accused persons hurriedly cremated the dead body in order to demolish the evidence. It is alleged that the complainant along with his brother immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and also met with Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Godda, Sri Ashok Kumar, who disclosed that the deceased was brought at his clinic and refer to Sadar Hospital, Godda, in the night on 04.01.1997, where she died around 09:00 P.M. The complainant was not informed by accused persons before cremation of the dead body. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 233 of 1998/05 of 2003 was registered. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial altogether eight witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available 2026:JHHC:21524 4 on record concluded about guilt of the appellants and convicted and sentenced to them as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellants: - 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, the informant has purposely projected a false story after the death of his daughter with a view to coerce the appellants for meeting out his unreasonable demand. The real fact is that the complainant arrived at the matrimonial home of the deceased just after hearing about her death and also participated in the cremation ceremony an U.D. case was also lodged by the appellants, but after 15-16 days, the complainant case was lodged by the informant. The police after thorough investigation in the case did not find commission of any offence by the appellants and submitted final form showing the case to be mistake of fact. The informant again protested against the final form and after inquiry cognizance was taken against the appellants and the trial proceeded. It is further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was not hurriedly cremated rather her post mortem was conducted and visceras were also preserved and sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination, but during the trial of the case viscera report was not brought on record to prove the case of suspected poisoning. There is general and omnibus allegation regarding demand of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased as an arrear of dowry, but the informant has miserably failed to prove as to what amount of dowry has been given by him at the time of marriage, which was solemnized 2026:JHHC:21524 5 about five years prior to the date of occurrence. In the period of these five years interregnum nothing has been brought on record that the deceased was subjected to any physical or mental cruelty at the hands of the appellants. Admittedly, there was no report or any Panchayat regarding fulfillment of any arrear of dowry. The cremation of dead body also took place in presence of the informant/complainant. It is further submitted that except the complainant, none of the other prosecution witnesses have corroborated the factum of demand of dowry and torture meted to the deceased soon before her death at the hands of the appellants. The evidence of informant/complainant also suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies rendering his evidence to be inadmissible and tainted with false case. In the post mortem report of the deceased also no definite cause of death has been opined. The learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law, while appreciating the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution and based its judgment without considering the materials elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the very foundational facts of dowry death, therefore, no presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the appellants. The learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence of all witnesses in English language transcripted by the court himself. The testimony of witness of facts so recorded does not bear any certificate from the court that the evidence of witness was read over and explained to them in the language of their deposition. The evidence of P.W.-5 even goes to show that he has put his thumb 2026:JHHC:21524 6 impression on the deposition how he can understand the deposition recorded in the English language, which was alleged to have been read over and explained to him. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of such evidence recorded in English without translating into the language to which the witnesses deposed before the court is absolutely impermissible by virtue of Section 276 and 277 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the reported judgment in Naim Ahamed versus State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 15 SCC 385 in support of above argument. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of State: - 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the informant, have supported the case of demand of dowry and persistent harassment meted out to the deceased at her matrimonial home. It is further contended that the deceased died within five years of marriage under suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial house, and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of Rs.10,000/- as alleged arrears of dowry, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that although, no direct eye-witness of the actual occurrence of death has been examined, the chain of circumstances and consistent 2026:JHHC:21524 7 testimonies of prosecution witnesses establish the prosecution case. It is also submitted that minor discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences charged against them. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 12. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to take brief resume of the testimony of witnesses examined during trial. Most important witness of this case is the P.W.-4, Premlal Yadav, who happens to be informant-cum-complainant of this case. According to his evidence, his daughter was married with the accused Parmeshwar Yadav in the year 1992. In February, 1996 Duragaman took place. He has further stated that after two or three months of Duragaman the accused Parmeshwar Yadav, Hemlal Yadav and Sumitra Devi started demanding the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- of the dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which they started subjecting his daughter to cruelty and harassment. On 31.12.1996, this witness 2026:JHHC:21524 8 went to matrimonial house of his daughter then she disclosed about the above demand and torture meted to her. He has further deposed that on the occasion of Kali Puja in the year 1996, his son-in-law and daughter came to his house, where his son-in-law demanded Rs.10,000/- and also threatened that if the said demand be not fulfilled his daughter might be killed. Thereafter, on 06.01.1997, this witness heard that his daughter is very seriously ill and her dead body has been buried, then he along with his brother Kalicharan Yadav (P.W.-1) and other family members and villagers went to matrimonial home of his daughter. None of the family members, husband and in-laws of his daughter came to meet him rather some children told that his daughter has been murdered on 04.01.1997 by poisoning and on 05.01.1997, she was taken to clinic of Dr. Ashok at Godda from where she was sent to Sadar Hospital, but she died at about 09:00 P.M. Thereafter, this witness met with Dr. Ashok on 06.01.1997, who told that he has conducted post mortem of the deceased and it was a case of suspected poison. This witness went to Godda Town Police Station and also went to Poraiyahat Police Station, but came to know that no report was lodged about the above occurrence. He also narrated about the incident to police, but his case was not registered. Then he lodged the complaint case, which was sent to concerned police station for registration of case and investigation. This witness has claimed that his daughter sudden killed by the accused persons due to non- fulfillment of arrear of dowry of Rs.10,000/-. He also admits that police submitted final form and thereafter, he filed protest complaint 2026:JHHC:21524 9 petition. He has proved his signature on complaint petition as Exhibit-1 and signature of his advocate as Exhibit-1/1 and further proved his signature on protest-cum-complaint petition as Exhibit-1/2 and signature of his advocate as Exhibit-1/3. In his cross examination, he categorically admits that he has not lodged any written report before Godda Police Station or Poraiyahat Police Station, just after coming to know about the occurrence. He met with his Advocate and lodged a complaint case. He came to know from Doctor Ashok that it was a suspected case of poisoning. He also submits that he has no knowledge about any unnatural death case lodged by husband of deceased. He also admits that his son-in-law asked money from him for the first time during Kali Puja and prior to that his daughter had informed twice that she was being harassed in connection with demand of dowry. This matter was never complained for before any authority. He was also informed that dead body of his daughter has been buried, but he did not try to excavate the dead body. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has given nothing at the time of dowry and there was no such arrear as alleged by him and there was no any demand from him or his daughter (deceased) about Rs.10,000/- and he has lodged this false case against all the family members under anguish and motivated with vengeance. P.W.-5, Bhagirath Yadav is maternal grandfather of the deceased. According to his evidence, as per instruction of his nephew, Premlal Yadav (P.W.-4), he went to matrimonial home of his Natani, namely Putri (deceased) at that time Hemlal and Parmeshwar were not 2026:JHHC:21524 10 present in the house, his Natani gave him food and after taking lunch, he remained till 03:00 P.M. at matrimonial home of Putri. In the meantime, she felt pain in her stomach and becoming restless then this witness asked her about the reason of pain then she disclosed that her father (P.W.-4) had given a tablet to her of stomach pain, which she has consumed and pain started. This witness send the villagers to call upon husband and father-in-law of his Natani thereafter, Hemlal brought a jeep from the mission and his Natani was brought to Godda at the clinic of Dr. Ashok from where she was sent to Sadar Hospital and saline was being given to her in the meantime, she died. According to his evidence at the time of treatment so many villagers, namely Kalicharan Yadav (P.W.-1), Brahma, Rohan and one Mohammadan came there. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. He further reiterates that at the time of treatment of the deceased at hospital her father, Premlal and uncle, Kalicharan Yadav were also present. After death of the deceased her post mortem was also conducted. The dead body was handed over to her husband taken by Hemlal and Premlal for cremation. Father and uncle of Putri told that they will not take the dead body. P.W.-1, Kalicharan Yadav is the uncle of the deceased, who has also proved the factum of marriage in the year 1992 and he also came to know that Rs.10,000/- was being asked by the accused persons as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of which his niece was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws. He came to know about the occurrence on 06.01.1997 from his brother, 2026:JHHC:21524 11 Premlal Mahto that the dead body of the deceased has been buried by accused persons. He also searched the dead body towards riverside at the place of occurrence, some children told that the dead body was buried in the night at about 11:00 O’clock on 04.01.1997. Thereafter, complaint case was lodged by his brother. This witness has failed to state as to what dowry was fixed at the time of marriage and what was the arrear. He has also no knowledge as to what things were given/present at the time of marriage of the deceased. He has denied any demand raised by the accused persons or torture meted with the deceased at the hands of accused persons and her father has lodged this false case. P.W.-2, Brahmanand Yadav is hearsay witness from the informant, who disclosed him that his daughter has died in her sasural due to poisoning. He has stated nothing about any demand of dowry or consequent torture meted with the deceased soon before her death. P.W.-3, Edverd Malto is the neighbor of the informant. He came to know about the occurrence from Premlal Mahto that his daughter has killed at her matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of arrear of dowry Rs.10,000/-. P.W.-6 is Budhinath Sah. This witness is a tutor and while he was engaged in tuition of the children in the meantime younger son of Hemlal, namely Arjun came before him, the grand maternal father of Parmeshwar’s wife was also sitting there Arjun told that his bhabhi (deceased) is feeling stomach pain and she has taken a tablet. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:21524 12 P.W.-7, Mumtaj Ali has also deposed that on 04.01.1997 at about 06:00-07:00 P.M., mother of Hemlal called upon him and told that his daughter-in-law (deceased) is feeling severe stomach pain due to taking a tablet brought by her father, she was sent to hospital but died. He has also admitted in clear terms that in the hospital father of deceased, namely Premlal, uncle Kalicharan Yadav and one Rohaniya Yadav also arrived and have seen the deceased in the hospital. There is nothing else in his cross-examination nor has this witness been declared hostile. P.W.-8, Dr. Ashok Kumar has stated on 05.01.1997, he was posted at C.A.S., Sadar Hospital, Godda and he along with M.K. Tekriwal, performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita Kumari at 10:00 A.M. The dead body was identified by Parmeshwar Yadav (husband), Hemlal Yadav (father-in-law) and Constable No. 233, Jainul Abedin. He found following:- Rigor mortis was partially present in all the four limbs. Faecal matter was seen outside the anal orifice and inner garment. There was bluish colouration of peripheral extremities especially fingers and toes. On dissection Heart-right full, left-empty Lungs, liver-congested Spleen moderately large size and congested. Uterus-small and non-gravid. This witness has identified the post mortem report, which is 2026:JHHC:21524 13 marked as Exhibit-2. 13. The investigation officer of this case has not been examined, who after completion of investigation submitted final form with opinion that the case is mistake of fact and accused persons were not sent up for a trial. 14. I have given anxious consideration to the overall testimony of witnesses examined in this case. First of all, it is very surprising that all the witnesses of facts have given their evidence in local language i.e. in Hindi Devanagari script, but the learned Trial Court himself translated the evidence of witnesses in the English language without being apprised of actual meanings and tenor of the evidence of witnesses in the language which was used by them at the time of giving evidence. At this juncture, the relevant provision mentioned in Cr.P.C. for recording evidence during trial is quoted hereunder:- “276. Record in trial before Court of Session.—(1) In all trials before a Court of Session, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the presiding Judge himself or by his dictation in open Court or, under his direction and superintendence, by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf. [(2) Such evidence shall ordinarily be taken down in the form of a narrative, but the presiding Judge may, in his discretion, take down, or cause to be taken down, any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer.] 2026:JHHC:21524 14 (3) The evidence so taken down shall be signed by the presiding Judge and shall form part of the record. 277. Language of record of evidence.—In every case where evidence is taken down under section 275 or section 276, (a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that language; (b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it may, if practicable, be taken down in that language, and if it is not practicable to do so, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record; (c) where under clause (b) evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of the Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court shall be prepared as soon as practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record: Provided that when under clause (b) evidence is taken down in English and a translation thereof in the language of the Court is not required by any of the parties, the Court may dispense with such translation.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naim Ahamed versus State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra) has held that “Recording of evidence of the witnesses in the translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in the language of the court, or in his/her 2026:JHHC:21524 15 own vernacular language, is not permissible. As such, the text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanour of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the language of the witness. Even otherwise, when a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not be translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge. It is therefore directed that all courts while recording evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provision of Section 277 of the Cr.P.C.” 16. Apart from the above material irregularity committed by the learned Trial Court, the most glaring things appears in the evidence of material witnesses of facts that the deceased consumed a tablet, while she was feeling stomach pain and became restless in presence of her maternal grandfather (P.W.-5) then she was brought to Dr. Ashok Kumar, who referred her to Sadar Hospital, Godda, where in the course of treatment the deceased died. No definite cause of death has been opined by the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. However, it is stated by the P.W.-8, Dr. Ashok Kumar that visceras of the deceased were preserved for chemical examination, but there is no evidence at all whether the same was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination and no such report of F.S.L. has been brought on record to prove the exact cause of death of the deceased. There is no doubt that the deceased has died within seven years of her marriage, but the prosecution has miserably failed to 2026:JHHC:21524 16 prove that what dowry was settled at the time of marriage and what amount was dues/arrears to be paid later on. This vital aspect of the case has not been proved even by the father of the deceased-cum- informant, Premlal Yadav (P.W.-4), her uncle Kalicharan (P.W.-1) and other material witnesses of facts. When the demand was first raised of Rs.10,000/- and from whom and by whom is also not conclusively proved. The prosecution has also remained silent as to what type of harassment and torture was meted to the deceased at the hand of appellants on account of non-fulfillment of any demand of dowry. Moreover, five years have already lapsed from the date of marriage and in between this period not a single complaint was raised by the informant regarding any additional demand of dowry or any arrear of dowry which was undertaken by him to be given later on were brought before the notice of any Panchayat or any authority. The most drastic thing has been deposed by none else, but maternal grandfather of the deceased that the medicine which she consumed was given by her father. 17. In view of above circumstances proved by the prosecution, the very foundational ingredients of Section 304B I.P.C. appears to have not been established by the prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence. Mere proof of unnatural death within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to invoke the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. So far offence under Section 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the dead 2026:JHHC:21524 17 body of the deceased was disposed of hurriedly just after death without giving information to the paternal side family members of the deceased. It is surfaced on record by the prosecution witnesses itself that at the time of treatment of the victim or when she was at the hospital her father (P.W.-4) and uncle (P.W.-1) were also present and her Nana was himself present at the time of occurrence at matrimonial home of the deceased. No specific instance of cruelty and torture meted with the deceased has also been brought on record. 18. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence available on record as adduced by the prosecution, the material witnesses who happens to be family members of the deceased herself have given a total contradictory story, which indicates constitution of no offence in this case at all. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to take into notice, the evidence of family members of the informant himself, who has not been declared hostile in right perspective as to there was no proof as to what kind of dowry was settled between the parties at the time of marriage what was given at the time of marriage and what was due to be paid later on. The circumstances under which the deceased died as projected by father and uncle of the deceased has also been falsified by the evidence of the doctor that just after death of deceased her post mortem was conducted and P.W.-5 also admits that dead body was handed over to Hemlal and Premlal. The father and uncle of the deceased declined to take the dead body. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while arriving 2026:JHHC:21524 18 at conclusion about guilt of the appellants for the offences charged against them. 19. In result, I am constrained to hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from serious error of law and cannot be justified under the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 20. Appellants are on bail, as such they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 21. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 20/07/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 22/07/2026