2026:JHHC:10915-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1084 of 2003 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence both dated 21.07.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1989] ------ Sheonath Kumhar, Son of Late Kalipado Kumhar, Resident of Village-Hundru, Patherdih, Police Station-Nimdih, Dist.- Seraikella, Kharsawan … .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Ms. Tanu Shree, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ------ CAV On 25/03/2026 Pronounced On 16/04/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 21.07.2003 passed in S.T. No. 326/1989 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years and three years respectively for the aforesaid offences, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 2 2. We have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that present appellant was married with informant’s daughter Shasta Kumharin in accordance with the Hindu Rights and Rituals on 26.02.1988 and she started residing at her matrimonial home along with her husband and in-laws. It is alleged that on 12.09.1988, Gouri Shankar Kumhar and Gaur Chanda Kumhar informed to the informant at about 12 PM that his daughter has been killed at her matrimonial home by her husband and mother-in-law. The informant along with his villagers Ramdhani Kumhar, Kali Ram Kumhar went to matrimonial home of his daughter at Village Hundru Kumhardih where he found his daughter was lying dead. He noticed swelling on both cheeks and neck of his daughter. The village chowkidar along with informant brought the dead body at police station and informant returned to his home. The reason behind murder of informant’s daughter is that at the time of marriage, everything as per the demand was given to the accused persons but the husband was demanding a bicycle which could not be given due to paucity of fund. Due to non- fulfilment of the demand of bicycle, informant’s daughter was ill-treated and physically assaulted by her husband, due to that reason, informant’s daughter came to her parental home in the 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 3 month of Aasadh escaping from her matrimonial home but son of the informant after pacifying his sister again brought the deceased to matrimonial home and also informed the local villagers to convince the accused husband not to ill-treat and torture his wife. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Kalipado Kumhar recorded on 23.10.1988 by Police Inspector R.D. Chaudhary, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his mother for the offence under Section 304B and 498A of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 326 of 1989 was registered. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Gauri Shankar Kumhar P.W.-2 Mahadeo Kumhar P.W.-3 Vishwa Nath Singh Sardar P.W.-4 Krishna Chandra Kumhar P.W.-5 Bhagirath Kumhar P.W.-6 Utrabala Kumhar P.W.-7 Kali Ram Kumhar P.W.-8 Kalipado Kumhar (Informant) P.W.-9 Kamkhia Prasad Acharya 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 4 P.W.-10 Sudhanshu Shekhar Nanda P.W.-11 Gaur Chand Kumhar P.W.-12 Funtu Kumhar 5. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution: - Ext.1 - Signature of informant on fardbeyan Ext.1/A- Signature of Officer-in-charge on formal F.I.R. Ext.2- Fardbeyan of informant 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence charged against him acquitting the co-accused namely Kandri Kumharin (mother-in-law of the deceased) extending benefit of doubt. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on merits, the prosecution story has been proved by the witnesses of facts and the circumstantial evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that there was simple demand of bicycle which as per the informant was reason for unnatural death of the deceased. The occurrence is of the year 1988. Now, about four decades have passed from the date of occurrence. Now, the 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 5 appellant is aged about 55 years. Appellant has already undergone 9 years imprisonment during investigation/trial and post-conviction out of maximum 14 years R.I. awarded to him. Therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Now again sending the appellant for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose in the eye of law. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case. Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has extraneously argued that the deceased was eliminated from her matrimonial home within short span of time less than one year of her marriage. It is proved beyond doubt that the deceased died at her matrimonial home otherwise than under normal circumstance receiving injury on vital part of the body while in custody of the appellant. No valid explanation was given by the accused, as to under what circumstances, his wife died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. It is also proved that just after 4-5 months due to physical and mental cruelty meted with the deceased, she fled away from her matrimonial home and again was sent by her brother after pacifying the matter but all in vain. Therefore, all the ingredients of dowry death have been proved by the prosecution and learned trial Court has legitimately invoked 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 6 the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, on merits, there is no error of law in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, this case is stale one of the year 1988 and the appellant has sustained 9 years custody out of 14 years, hence prayer of the appellant may be considered. Analysis, reasons and decision: 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall aspects of the case. There is no doubt regarding merits of the judgment passed by learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument towards quantum of sentence. In this connection, we have noticed that the occurrence is of the year 1988 and the appellant was released on bail after completing 9 years custody during trial and post-conviction suspending his sentence. Therefore, the appellant has undergone substantial period of imprisonment awarded to him. The issue between husband and wife was trivial in nature but unfortunately such a ghastly crime happened. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem fit and proper to uphold the conviction of the appellant but modify and alter the sentence from 14 years imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 9 years. 2026:JHHC:10915-DB Cr. A (D.B.) No. 1084 / 2003 7 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 12. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 16/04/2026 Basant/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 17/04/2026