2026:JHHC:21528 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1423 of 2005 ------ Gulsan Mashi, S/o Jalal Mashi, R/o Vill.-Sankosai, P.S. Mango, Dist. Singhbhum (East) … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT CAV On 30/06/2026 Pronounced On 20/07/2026 1. It is here pertinent to mention, at the very outset that this appeal was filed by two appellants out of whom the appellant No. 2 namely Lila Mashi has died during pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal preferred by Lila Mashi stood abated vide order dated 15.10.2024. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2005 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 583 of 1995 whereby and whereunder, the appellant along with deceased appellant have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304B/498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304B of the IPC and further R.I. for two and half years under Section 498-A of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run, concurrently. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP. 2026:JHHC:21528 2 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.10.1994, at about 09:30 AM, one Geeta Devi (since deceased) wife of present appellant got recorded her statement by the police at TATA Main Hospital, Jamshedpur stating inter alia that she poured kerosene oil on her and her son and set fire. Later on, she raised alarm, then, her husband came to rescue her throwing water and took both the injured to Government Hospital and thereafter, he fled away. She has further stated that subsequently, her mother and other family members took her to TATA Main Hospital, Jamshedpur for better treatment. It is also alleged that informant’s husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law frequently used to assault and torture her in various ways raising demand of Rs. 5,000/- from her father which could not be fulfilled. Then, she was assaulted and tortured, due to that reason, she set fire on herself. 5. On the basis of above information, Mango P.S. Case No. 236 of 1994 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A/306/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. Later on Section 304-B of the IPC was also added. 6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against above accused persons under Sections 498A/304B/306/34 of the IPC. 7. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 583 of 1995 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:21528 3 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 8. In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Kernel Singh @ Billu P.W.-2 Bagga Singh P.W.-3 Nazira Mashi P.W.-4 Roshan Mashi P.W.-5 Dr. A.K. Choudhary P.W.-6 Samant Kumar Das 9. Apart from oral testimony, documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.-1 Signature of Ramial Singh on Seizure List Ext.1/2 Signature of Bagga Singh on Seizure List Ext.2 Post Mortem Report 10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence except statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denying the allegations and claimed to be innocent. 11. 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 appellant: - 12. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, has argued that admittedly the deceased has committed suicide by setting her on ablaze along with her kid within one and half years of her marriage. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of or in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused persons. It is further submitted that investigating officer who is a key 2026:JHHC:21528 4 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 witness has also not been examined in this case. It is also submitted that the dying declaration recorded in hospital has not been proved and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of witnesses in right perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Hence, this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of the State 13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposing the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the statement of the victim in her dying declaration depicting the circumstances under which she died, which finds corroboration from the evidence of her mother and the P.M. report of the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 14. I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 15. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal”? Analysis, reasons and decision: 16. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it appears necessary to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case. 2026:JHHC:21528 5 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 P.W.-1 Kernel Singh @ Billu and P.W.-2 Bagga Singh are the formal witnesses who have proved their signatures on seizure list as Ext.-1 & Ext.1/2, respectively but they have not proved the factum of article seized therefore the prosecution has declared them hostile. P.W.-3 Nazira Mashi, mother of the deceased has deposed that in the month of September, 1994, her husband had got bonus. Her daughter came to parental home and narrated that her husband and mother-in-law was demanding Rs. 5,000/- as her husband has to purchase a Scooter but this witness showed her incapability to pay the same to her daughter, thereafter, she returned. She has further deposed that after one week, her daughter was again forced to go her parental home and after coming parental home she told that she was being tortured due to non-fulfillment of Rs. 5,000/-, then this witness herself brought her daughter to her matrimonial home with some shopping. She has further deposed that on 14.10.1994, she received information that her daughter was set on fire and rushed to Government Hospital and they brought to Tata Main Hospital where on 18.10.1994, she died. In her cross-examination, there is nothing else to rebut the aforesaid testimony of this witness, rather she has reiterated that deceased had told her and to her elder brother that accused persons were demanding money and subjecting to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand. P.W.-4 Roshan Mashi brother of deceased, has also supported the prosecution version by stating that his father received bonus in the month of September. His sister Geeta came to his house, 10-15 days before the 2026:JHHC:21528 6 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 incident and told that her husband Gulsan Mashi and her mother-in-law Leeta Mashi are asking for Rs. 5,000/-. They want to buy a Scooter. They told her that his father had not received enough bonus, so they could not give her. They bought some items and gave to his sister. After few days, his sister again came and said that her husband and mother-in-law are threatening to kill her and she is afraid that they will kill her. Thereafter, on October 14, 1994, they came to know that his sister has been set on ablaze and died on 18.10.1994 in hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that police had also recorded his statement in hospital where his sister was admitted in hospital but has no knowledge whether he put his signature or not but he stated before the police that the husband of his sister threatened to kill her if the demand of Rs. 5,000/- is not fulfilled. P.W.-5 Dr. A.K. Chaudhary had conducted post mortem examination upon the dead body of Gita Devi and found dermo, epiderma burn of whole body except genetically area and a small adjoining area around antero medial aspects of upper thigh and soles of feet, upper half of face burnt and opined 98% of burn. In his opinion, he has stated that the burn is anti- mortem and the death was due to septicemia and toxacaemia and burn was either suicidal or homicidal in nature. P.W.-6 Samant Kumar Das is a police constable. He is a formal witness and has proved the fardbeyan of deceased in writing and signature of A.S.I., L. N Singh of T.M.H. Police Camp. He has also proved the endorsement and charge-sheet as Ext.-5 and 6, respectively. 2026:JHHC:21528 7 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 17. In order to deal with the above point, it is required to refer the relevant provisions of law herein below:- Indian Penal Code “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.” 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; 2026:JHHC:21528 8 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 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. (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. Indian Evidence Act “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. 2026:JHHC:21528 9 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 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).” 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has also taken a ground that dying declaration has not been proved but after perusal of the record, it appears that the F.I.R. is based on fardbeyan of the deceased herself who has died on 18.10.1994 and her statement was recorded by L.N. Singh on 15.10.1994 who has put his signature on the fardbeyan recorded by him and same has also been proved by formal witness P.W.-6 2026:JHHC:21528 10 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 (Samant Kumar Das, Police Constable). The learned trial Court has already dealt with this point in para 4 of the impugned judgment stating that it can safely be said that it is a First Informant Report and since the deponent is no more alive its formal prove does not hamper its credibility as First Informant Report. 21. Now I proceed to examine whether the ingredients of section 304B of the IPC is established? 22. In the instant case, after going through the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses examined in this case, it appears that the death of the deceased as per the fardbeyan of the deceased herself corroborated by the evidence of mother (P.W.-3) and brother (P.W.-4) is admittedly due to burn injury caused by setting herself on fire which has happened otherwise than under normal circumstance as corroborated by the Doctoer (P.W.-5) which confirms the first requirement of Section 304B of the IPC. 23. The second requirement is also proved as per the testimony of the mother of the deceased that the deceased was married with the appellant just before one and half years before her death and she died under unnatural death i.e. within 7 years of marriage. 24. So far as, third and fourth conditions are concerned, there is consistent evidence of mother (P.W.-3) and brother (P.W.-4) of the deceased that husband and in-laws of the deceased were demanding Rs. 5,000/- for purchasing Scooter. It also appears that when the mother and brother of the deceased showed their incapability to fulfill the demand, the deceased was threatened to be killed and due to non-fulfilment of the 2026:JHHC:21528 11 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 demand of dowry, the husband of the deceased used to harass and torture the deceased in various ways. The unrebutted testimony of aforesaid witnesses also proves the ingredients nos. (iii) and (iv). 25. 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 husband and mother-in-law 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, can be invoked against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. 26. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court calling for any interference in the appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 498A/304B of the IPC is hereby confirmed and upheld. 27. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 28. Consequently, the suspension of sentence granted to the appellant vide order dated 05.12.2005 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 2026:JHHC:21528 12 Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1423 of 2005 and detention of the appellant for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 30. 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: 20/07/2026 Basant/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22/07/2026