Allowed¶27

Shankar Pal v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2025Cr.A(SJ)/1443/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

dowry death; Section 304-B IPC; Section 113-B Evidence Act presumption not invoked; soon before death cruelty not proved; hostile witnesses; Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2006; Pakur; burn death within two months of marriage; Karan Singh v. State of Haryana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214; conviction and sentence set aside; appeals allowed; bail bonds discharged; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Arun Kumar Rai J.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 set aside; appellants, being on bail, discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. ¶27

Shankar Pal Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 set aside; appellants, being on bail, discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, in particular that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with a demand for dowry, so as to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

It is undoubtedly established that the deceased died on account of burn injury within two months of her marriage (married 03.03.2006; incident 29.04.2006), satisfying the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC relating to cause of death and the seven-year period.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

None of P.W.1 to P.W.7 ever stated in their testimony that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants; on the contrary they deposed that the deceased had good and peaceful relations with her husband and in-laws.

¶23

Key takeaways

It is very difficult for this Court to conclude that soon before her death the deceased was subjected by the appellants to cruelty or harassment for any demand of dowry; hence the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked and the prosecution has failed to establish that ingredient of Section 304-B IPC.ratio¶25
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 162 of 2006 is set aside, the trial court having failed to consider the above aspects; in the result, the appeals are allowed.ratio¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Arun Kumar Rai, J.), Criminal Appeals (S.J.) Nos. 888 of 2007 and 1443 of 2008 - allowed. Impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 162 of 2006 (conviction under Section 304-B IPC, R.I. for seven years) set aside. Marriage of deceased Mamuni Devi with appellant Shankar Pal on 03.03.2006; death by burn injuries on 29.04.2006, i.e. within two months of marriage - the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC as to cause of death and the seven-year period were held satisfied. However, no prosecution witness (P.W.1 to P.W.7) deposed that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry; several witnesses stated she lived peacefully and happily at her sasural, and P.W.2 denied in cross-examination the alleged statement regarding a Rs. 20,000/- dowry demand. The statutory presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act 1872 therefore could not be invoked, and the prosecution failed to establish the cruelty ingredient of Section 304-B IPC. Reliance placed on Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214. Appellants, being on bail, discharged from their bail bonds.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007

¶3

With

¶4

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶5

(Against the impugned Judgment and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 passed by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 162 of 2006 )

¶6

In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007

¶7

1. Balram Pal @ Swornkar S/o Late Hare Pal

¶8

Manju Devi w/o Balram Pal @ Searnkar

¶9

Resident of village-Sunderpur; P.S. Hiranpur, District Pakur (Jharkhand)

¶10

…… Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent

¶13

In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶14

Shankar Pal, son of Balram Swarnkar, resident of Village-Sundarpur, P.S. Hiranpur, District-Pakur …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent

¶15

----------

¶16

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate

¶18

For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.

¶19

----------

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶22

-----

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

C.A.V. On 09.11.2024 Pronounced On: 21 . 03 .2025

¶25

The appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 888 of 2007 has been filed by Balram Pal, father-in-law of the deceased, and Manju Devi mother-in-

¶26

law of the deceased, while the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1443 of 2008 has been filed by Shankar Pal, husband of the deceased.

¶27

Both the appeal arises out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence, as such, listed together for analogous hearing and hereby disposed of by the common order.

¶28

The instant appeal is preferred against the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge Pakur in S.C. No. 162 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the above appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C.

¶29

In nutshell case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of one Golak Swarnkar, Son of Guhi Swarnkar, village-Umbra, P.S.-Andal, District- Bardwan (West Bengal) who happens to be maternal uncle (mama) of deceased, who stated therein that his niece Mamuni Devi, daughter of late Vasudev Das, resident of Burdwan, West Bengal got married with Shankar Pal, son of Balram Swarnkar, resident of Sunderpur, District-Pakur on 03.03.2006 and he had given gift, utensils of Kansa and gold ring and one ear ring, other articles also worth of Rs. 40,000/- to her neice and she was sent to her in-laws house and on the same day Manju Devi (mother-in-law), Balram Swarnkar (father-in-law) and Shankar Pal (husband) started demanding Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and also said that if such demand is not fulfilled then they would not keep the girl and they would solemnize other marriage of the boy by which they would get more dowry. Informant requested that as per his capacity he had given gift and they should show mercy to her and he returned to his place. It is further alleged by the informant that after lapse of sometime, message was sent by deceased to the informant that her father-in-law, motherin-law, brother-in-law and husband repeatedly giving beatings to her

¶30

¶31

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶32

and extending threat to the deceased to get Rs. 20,000/- from her mama, then again informant along with others visited to the in-laws place of deceased and again tried to make them understand and on 29.04.2006 at about 05.00 a.m. in the morning he got information telephonically that her niece died on account of stomach-ache at about 04.00 a.m. in the morning, then informant, his sister (mother of deceased) and other persons visited to Hiranpur, Sunderpur i.e. inlaws place of his niece, then no one was present in the house and informant came across the fact from nearby person that his niece was put to fire by aforesaid persons. She succumbed to burn injury in Pakur hospital and they had circulated the news that his niece died on account of fire due to stove burst. Informant entered into the house of her niece and found that there was sign of fire in the room and an old stove in broken condition was kept and there was hole in the tank from outside and as no person was present in the in-laws house of deceased therefore they came to Pakur hospital where they found dead body of his niece in burnt condition. On the aforesaid basis, informant alleged that as dowry to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was not given, therefore, his niece was put to fire and accused persons have propounded a story of stove burst.

¶33

On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan , an FIR being Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2006 dated 29.04.2006 under Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C. has been lodged.

¶34

After due investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against all the three appellants as well brother-in-law of the deceased, Narayan Pal. Chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 302, 201, 304(B) of I.P.C. and learned court of C.J.M, Pakur has taken cognizance of offence and case was committed to court of Session and thereafter the present case got S.C. No. 162 of 2006. Charge under Section 304-B of IPC has been read over to all the three appellants and one Narayan

¶35

¶36

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶37

Pal, brother-in-law of the deceased, to which they denied and claimed to be tried.

¶38

To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine prosecution witnesses and has also bring on record fardbeyan as Exhibit 1/1. Signature of Informant (P.W. 2) on fardbeyan as Exhibit 1, endorsement of Officer-in-charge of Hiranpur as Exhibit 1/2, signature of P.W.7 on seizure list as Exhibit 2, signature of P.W. 6 on seizure list as Exhibit 2/1 and seizure list of stove as Exhibit 2/2, P.M. report as Exhibit 3 and death inquest report as Exhibit 4.

¶39

As far as deposition of P.W. 1 Gayatri Devi (mother of deceased), P.W. 2 Golak Swarnkar (mama of deceased), P.W.3 Kalicharan Swarnkar (maternal cousin brother of deceased), P.W. 4 Kalyani Swarnkar (mami of deceased) are concerned, they turned hostile at the time of their respective deposition before trial court. As far as P.W. 5, Rajesh Swarnkar who is alleged to have removed deceased alongwith other villagers to primary health center Hiranpur, P.W.-6, Md. Saiful Ansari and P.W.-7, Shyam Swarnkar are said to be neighbourer of the appellants have also not supported the case of prosecution and have become hostile in the present case. P.W. 8, Dr. Bindu Bhushan is the medical officer on 29.04.2006 at Pakur Sub-Divisional Hospital and had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mamuni Devi. Doctor has found:-

¶40

(i) Body was burnt about 65% from head to heel.

¶41

(ii) Rigor Mortis was present.

¶42

(iii) Burn area from face to upper part of the abdomen including both upper part of the hands and back upto the buttock.

¶43

(iv) Scalp hair was partially burnt.

¶44

On dissection it was found:-

¶45

(i) On opening the scalp, brain tissues and its membrane were congested.

¶46

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶47

¶48

(ii) On opening the chest wall, lungs tissues were congested. Left side of heart was empty. Right chamber of heart was full of blood.

¶49

(iii) On opening the abdomen, the stomach contained turbic liquid. Small and large intestine contained gas and fecal material. Liver, spleen and both kidneys were congested. Bladder was empty and the uterus was non-gravic.

¶50

Doctor has opined cause of death was due to hypovolenic shock following burn injury.

¶51

P.W. 9, Jai Bahadur Singh is the I.O. of the present case who has stated in his testimony that he has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and same has been marked as exhibit 1/1 and he has also inspected the place of occurrence and seized one old iron stove and it was found to be old one and it was in dilapidated condition and it was found that a hole was made in the tank by chheni and other part of the stove on which utensils rest was found rusted and there was no mark/sign of burning on it. The said stove was seized by him in the presence of witness Md. Saiful Ansari and Shyam Swarnkar.

¶52

I.O. has reiterated the restatement of informant and statement of witness Gayatri Devi, Kalicharan Swarnkar, Kalyani Swarnkar, Rajesh Swarnkar, Md. Saiful Ansari, Shyam Swarnkar. In crossexamination he has stated that stove was not sent to expert.

¶53

Apart from above said prosecution witnesses, defence has examined two witnesses, D.W.-1 Vishwanath Sah and D.W.-2 Md. Dukhu Ansari. These two witnesses on behalf of the defence tried to bring on record the fact that it was accidental fire by which deceased got burnt injury while she was preparing meal.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record the fact that “soon before death deceased was subjected to cruelty”, as none of the prosecution witnesses have ever stated in their respective testimony that deceased

¶55

¶56

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶57

was subjected to cruelty at any point of time. Learned counsel further pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses except the formal witnesses i.e. P.W. 8 & P.W. 9, who are doctor and I.O. respectively have not supported the case of prosecution and despite lengthy crossexamination on behalf of prosecution nothing has been extracted from them which could support the case of prosecution.

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that before invoking presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution has to prove that deceased was died on account of un-natural death that too within seven years of marriage and soon before death deceased was subjected to cruelty.

¶59

Upon aforesaid premise, submission has been made that it is a case where learned trial court has not appreciated/analyzed the evidence available on record in proper perspective and appellants were held guilty under Section 304-B of I.P.C.

¶60

Learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that no interference is required by this Court as there is proper appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court and it has come to conclusion that deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry and it is admitted case that such incident took place on 29.04.2006, whereas deceased was married on 03.03.2006, well within seven years of marriage. He further pointed out that this is also admitted case that death of the deceased has been caused on account of burn injury.

¶61

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.

¶62

Before analyzing the evidence available on record, it is required to be noted that before invoking Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution has to establish the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC which reads as under:-

¶63

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶64

¶65

“ 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.

¶66

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.”

¶67

A perusal of the above provision would indicate that the main ingredients of the offence required to be established are:

¶68

( a ) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;

¶69

( b ) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

¶70

( c ) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

¶71

( d ) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry.”

¶72

The presumption drawn relating to dowry death has been contemplated in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, which states as follows:

¶73

“ 113-B. 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 has 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.

¶74

Explanation .—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

¶75

Section 304-B of IPC read along with Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry

¶76

¶77

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶78

soon before her death by her husband or relative of her husband within seven years of marriage, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304-B of IPC. The said presumption comes with a rider inasmuch as this presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC have not been satisfied.

¶79

As stated in preceding paragraph, this Court finds that mama, mami, maternal brother of the deceased resiled from their earlier respective statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and they were declared hostile by the learned trial court.

¶80

From evidence available on record and statement of accused/appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is clear that marriage of deceased Mamuni Devi solemnized with Shankar Pal on 03.03.2006 and alleged incident took place on 29.04.2006. From the post mortem report vide Exhibit-3 and evidence of doctor P.W. 8, it is clear that deceased got burnt about 65% and she died on account of burn injury. So, undoubtedly prosecution has been able to established that deceased died on account of burn injury within two months of the marriage. As far as other ingredient i.e. deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before death on account of dowry is concerned, this Court finds that none of the prosecution witness has uttered a word about inflicting cruelty by the hands of appellants in their evidence recorded before trial court. However, P.W. 2 Golak Swarnkar, who has been declared hostile by the trial court has stated in his cross examination on behalf of prosecution, that he had stated to police that he solemnized marriage of his niece Mamuni Devi(deceased) with Shankar Pal, son of Balram Swarnkar, resident of Sunderpur, District Pakur according to Hindu Rites and by way of gift they had given

¶81

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶82

¶83

utensils of Kansa and gold ring and ear ring to his niece and articles worth of Rs. 40,000/-. He has also admitted that he had stated to the police that on the day of vidai of his niece, Manju Devi mother-in-law of deceased, Balram Pal father-in-law of deceased, Shankar Pal husband of the deceased started demanding Rs. 20,000/- as more dowry, thereafter this witnesses categorically denied that he has ever stated to police that accused persons told him that if Rs. 20,000/- was not given to him then they would not keep the girl and would solemnize second marriage by which they would get more dowry. This witness further denied all the fact as allegedly stated by him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. when it was confronted to him.

¶84

Impugned Judgment reveals that learned trial court has considered the fact as stated by P.W. 2 that he has stated before police that at the time of vidai Rs. 20,000/- was demanded by accused persons as more dowry and on this premise comes to conclusion that third ingredient of Section 304-B of I.P.C. has also fulfilled. Learned trial court further come to conclusion that the stove which was allegedly seized by I.O. was not in a working condition and there was no evidence found on it that it was recently being used. However, I.O. has stated in his testimony that at the time of his visit earthen chulha , wood and goitha was found in the house where incident took place. On this, learned trial court has come to conclusion that false plea has been taken by the accused and, as such they were not able to rebut the presumption, therefore, found appellants guilty in the present case.

¶85

This Court finds that none of the witnesses i.e. either P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W.3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W.6, P.W 7 has ever stated their respective testimony that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants rather P.W. 1 has stated in cross-examination by accused that deceased was having good relation with her husband and in-laws. Similarly, P.W. 2 has also stated that deceased was having good

¶86

¶87

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.888 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1443 of 2008

¶88

relation with in-laws and deceased never made complaint against her in-laws. Similarly, P.W. 3 has also stated that his sister (since deceased) was living at her in-laws house peacefully and happily. P.W. 4 has also stated that deceased was very happy in her sasural . Of course, in the cross examination on behalf of prosecution, P.W. 2 has stated that he stated to police regarding demand of Rs. 20,000/- as more dowry by the appellants but they did not pay. P.W. 2 at the same time in cross-examination on behalf of defence has categorically stated that he does not know hindi and whatever daroga ji has written on the paper was not read over to him and his niece was having no grievance with her in–laws and they are also having no complaints against them.

¶89

Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214, after appreciating evidence at length and applying the material ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304 B of I.P.C. did not find that deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and further observation was made that the Trial courts are committing the same mistake repeatedly and not considering the ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C.

¶90

Considering the legal proposition and facts as stated by P.W. 2 as well as other witnesses as discussed above, it is very difficult for this Court to come to conclusion that soon before death deceased Mamuni Devi had been subjected by the appellants to cruelty or harassment for any demand of dowry, so statutory presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish above said ingredient of Section 304-B of I.P.C. in the present case.

¶91