Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:11311-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 36 of 2020 Mahadeo Rana, S/o Vijay Rana, R/o Village- Kulharia (Dhorwan), P.O. & P.S.- Sonaraithari, District- Deoghar ... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Subal Rana, S/o Nuneshwar Rana, R/o Village- Harwa, P.O. + P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Amrit Anunay, Adv. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Adv. --------- Order No. 09/Dated, the 15th April, 2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Amrit Anunay, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed by Smt. Kalpana Hazarika, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 176/2018, arising out of Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 316/2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1825/2017, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 herein has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of the informant/appellant Mahadeo Rana, in which, it has been stated that the marriage of his youngest daughter Rupa was solemnized about seven months back with Subal Rana (respondent no. 2). After 1-2 months of the marriage respondent no. 2 started making a demand of a motorcycle and LCD T.V. and also started committing torture upon the daughter of the informant. The informant and his elder brother tried to normalize the situation but the respondent no. 2 and his family members remained adamant about the demand which they wanted to be fulfilled on a later date. The torture upon the daughter of the informant continued unabated and, in the meantime, when she became pregnant, she was taken at the time of Durga Puja by the informant to his house. After eight days the respondent no. 2 had taken the bedai of the daughter of the informant. It has been alleged that on 24.10.2017 the respondent no. 2 informed the informant that his daughter has become unwell and she has been admitted in Megha Seva Sadan. When the informant went to Megha Seva Sadan, he found his daughter in ICU and at about midnight she died. It has been alleged that the accused persons had poisoned the daughter of the informant for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. Based on the aforesaid allegations Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 316/2017 was instituted. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 176/2018. Charge was framed against the respondent no. 2 for the offence u/s 304(B) of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Dr. Ehsan Tauhid) was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and on 25.10.2017, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rupa Devi and had found the following: The body was thin built, height about 5’ 2”, black hair, eyes closed with fair complexion. Rigor mortis present in both extremity: - A) Ante mortem injuries: - (i) No external injury was found on the body. B) Postmortem Examination: - On dissection of the skull brain and meninges intact and congested. On opening of the chest, Heart and Lungs intact. On opening of the abdomen- Kidney, Liver, Spleen, Uterus, Urinary Bladder, Stomach intact. Uterus gravid for 3 months. Urinary bladder contained about 20 ml of Urine. Stomach- Empty. The cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. 6. P.W.2 (Mahadeo Rana) is the informant and the father of the deceased who has stated about the solemnization of marriage of his daughter with the respondent no.2 as per Hindu rites and customs. After two months of marriage the respondent no. 2 and his family members started making a demand of a motorcycle and an LCD T.V. and on non-fulfilment of the said demand his daughter was subjected to torture. He had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter with others and had expressed his inability to fulfill such demand and as soon as it is possible for him the demands will be met. After a few days his daughter was once again subjected to assault and abuses. In the meantime, his daughter became pregnant and during Durga Pujas he had brought his daughter home. After eight days the respondent no. 2 had taken the bedai of his daughter and on 24.10.2017 he was informed by the respondent no. 2 that his daughter has become ill and she has been taken to Megha Seva Sadan. He rushed to the nursing home and in course of treatment his daughter died. He has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not made any complaint either to the Police Station or in the Court regarding the demand of dowry. It was the respondent no. 2 who had taken his daughter for treatment to the Hospital. 7. P.W.3 (Hiralal Mishra) is the uncle of the deceased who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief. He has proved his signature on the inquest report as well as in the fardbeyan which have been marked as Exhibit-2/1 and 3/1 respectively. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his brother had never made any complaint in the Police Station regarding the demand of dowry made by the accused persons. 8. P.W.4 (Rajendra Rana) has stated that Rupa Devi was kept well at her matrimonial house after marriage and she had also become pregnant. On 24.10.2017, Rupa Devi fell ill and she was admitted in a hospital where she died. He had heard about Rupa Devi being poisoned for non- fulfillment of the demand of a motorcycle. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the informant has filed a false case. The women folk had disclosed that Rupa Devi was suffering from heavy bleeding due to which she was admitted in the hospital. Rupa Devi had a cordial relationship with her husband and in-laws. 9. P.W.5 (Basudeo Rana) has stated similar to P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the informant had filed a false case. 10. P.W.6 (Nandlal Singh) has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.4 and P.W.5. Page 5 of 7 In cross-examination, he has deposed that the informant has filed a false case. 11. P.W.7 (Raj Ballabh Singh) was posted as a Sub- Inspector of Police in Mohanpur P.S. and he was handed over the investigation of Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 316/2017 on 25.10.2017 by the Officer-in-Charge of Kunda P.S. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2/2. The forwarding in the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/3. He has also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-3/4. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. The inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-2/2. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of the other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of Nuneshwar Rana at village Kharwan where the deceased was said to have been administered poison. He had arrested Subal Rana and had recorded his statement. He had obtained the copy of the postmortem report. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that in the postmortem report the reason for the death of Rupa Devi has not been mentioned. He had not collected any evidence pointing to the murder of Rupa Devi. 12. The statement of the respondent no. 2 was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the incident. 13. It has been submitted by Mr. Amrit Anunay, learned counsel for the informant / appellant that the witnesses have consistently stated about the demand of dowry made by the respondent no. 2 and the consequential torture committed upon her by the respondent no. 2 for non-fulfilment of the said demand. The deceased had met an unnatural death and all the ingredients constituting an offence u/s 304 (B) of the IPC has been proved by the prosecution but despite the same the learned trial court has passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent no. 2. 14. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the deceased died on account of a natural cause which cannot be attributed to the respondent no. 2 and so far, as the demand is concerned, the said allegation is vague and without any supportive documents. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. 16. The daughter of the informant/appellant died within seven months of her marriage to the respondent no. 2. As per the prosecution there was a consistent demand of a motorcycle and an LCD T.V. and despite assurances by the informant and his family members to fulfill the said demand at a later date the torture upon the deceased continued unabated. Admittedly, there has been no complaint to any authority or the Court regarding such act of the respondent no. 2. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record any document suggestive of the fact that the issue of demand and torture were raked up in the Panchayat. The prosecution has alleged continuous assault upon the deceased and P.W.3 has stated about her daughter being poisoned. A perusal of the postmortem report reveals that no external or internal injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The cause of death also could not be ascertained. The viscera report has been brought on record as Exhibit-5 and the said report has concluded that no metallic, alkaloidal poison could be detected in the viscera. This would mean that the deceased had met a natural death. In such context, we may take note of the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 as all have stated in their cross-examination that the women folk had disclosed that the deceased was admitted in the Hospital due to heavy bleeding. P.W.3 is the uncle of the deceased who also in his cross-examination has deposed that due to the death of the child in the womb the deceased became sick. The prosecution has neither been able to prove the demand of dowry immediately before the death nor the death has been proved to be unnatural in nature. The learned trial court has considered all aspects of the case and has rightly acquitted the respondent no. 2 of the charge levelled against him. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently this appeal is dismissed. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated, the 15th April, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 20 / 04 /2026