Criminal appeal by the informant challenging the acquittal of respondents in a dowry death case. The High Court reviewed the evidence and found no proof of dowry demand or cruelty soon before death. Relying on the double presumption of innocence, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.598 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2020 Thana- PIPRA District- Patna
======================================================
Paras Rai @ Paras Nath Rai, S/O Late Nandu Rai, R/O Village- Upharpura, PS.Phulwarisharif, Dist. Patna.
... ... Respondent
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Supragya, Advocate, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA)
7 02-02-2024 Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Supragya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 2/16
G.R. No. 761 of 2020) whereby the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges by the learned Trial Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 3/16
informant, Pipra P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020 was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted against accused Mahesh Yadav and Priyanka Kumari while charge-sheet was submitted against respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused. Thereafter, cognizance was taken against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons on which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 4/16
the evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted both of them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 5/16
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 6/16
no any panchayati was convened during this period. Since, the prosecution has not proved the essential ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C., the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused persons. Further submission is that the doctor in his statement has also stated that the deceased was operated and that no any case was made for suicide. Further submission was made that P.W. 2 (I.O.) in his crossexamination has stated in paragraph 14 that the deceased was suffering from spleen for which she was operated and after the operation, she did not want to go to the sasural and further that it was mentioned in the supervision note of the S.D.P.O., Masaurhi that the deceased has threatened her maika people that she would commit suicide if they would send her forcibly to sasural . Further P.W. 5 (mother of the deceased) also stated in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that her daughter was operated in Patna. P.W. 6 (doctor) in paragraph 8 of his crossexamination has stated that he has found old mark of scar over the stomach and left shoulder and he has discussed about the same in the post-mortem report. In the evidence of doctor, it was further found that the doctor has stated in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that he did not find any mark of injury from which it appears that any force was applied to her by anyone to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 7/16
cause her death. Lastly, placing reliance on judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134 (Lalit Kumar versus Superintendent & Remembrancer of L.A. Government of W.B.) and in AIR 2023 SC 2095 (Charan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand) , learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the trial Court has considered all evidence and has not committed any error in acquitting the accuseds persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 8/16
“… … the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded. But it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”
“ 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 purpose 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 9/16
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-
(a) any wilful 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
(b) 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.”
“ 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 had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
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 860).”
“ 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; 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 10/16
(Shariat) applies.
Explanation II.- The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 11/16
husband used to visit his house and stayed just before 8-10 days of the occurrence, and thus it cannot be said that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was subjected with cruelty. P.W. 5 (mother of the deceased) clearly stated in her deposition that no any cruelty or harassment was made. Neither any complaint was ever made before any public office and further that no panchayati was made. This shows that there was no such demand or cruelty imposed upon the deceased. Further, in the evidence of P.W. 6 (doctor), who has stated in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that he did not find any mark of injury which suggested that a force against the accused was applied. The doctor opined the death by hanging and found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased but he did not find any other injury on the body of the deceased to show that there was criminal force applied to her in order to kill her by hanging and if such force was applied, then there definitely would be mark of injuries of resistance. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly given the finding on this point and acquitted the accused persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the deeming fiction created by Section 304-B of I.P.C. and further strengthened by Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, cannot be invoked when the essential ingredients of offence of dowry
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 12/16
death remain unproved. In the case of Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar since reported in (2015) 16 SCC 369 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observation in its paragraph Nos. 66 and 68 which are as under:
66. It is well entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty on pure moral conviction. Howsoever grave the alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring the conscience of any court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof. The wellestablished canon of criminal justice is “fouler the crime higher the proof”. In unmistakable terms, it is the mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt.
68. In the supplementation, it was held in affirmation of the view taken in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808 that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 13/16
paragraph no. 42 as under:-
“ 42 . From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 14/16
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
(2023) 6 SCC 605 has observed in paragraph no. 22 as under:-
“ 22 . Recently, a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Supreme Court, it can be said that there is double presumption
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 15/16
in favour of the accused, when the order of acquittal has been accorded by the Trial Court, firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.598 of 2023(7) dt.02-02-2024 16/16
Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2020, (Arising out of Pipra P.S. case No. 47 of 2020, G.R. No. 761 of 2020), is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
( Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-
U T AFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal in a dowry death appeal?
Whether there was evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before the deceased's death?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalit Kumar v. Superintendent & Remembrancer of L.A. Government of W.B.Referred¶35
AIR 1989 SC 2134 (Lalit Kumar versus Superintendent & Remembrancer of L.A. Government of W.B.) · Who else cites this
Charan Singh v. State of UttarakhandReferred¶35
AIR 2023 SC 2095 (Charan Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand) · Who else cites this
Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The StateRelied on¶36
1952 SCR 193 (Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State) · Who else cites this
Rajiv Singh v. State of BiharRelied on¶60
(2015) 16 SCC 369 (Rajiv Singh versus State of Bihar) · Who else cites this
Kali Ram v. State of H.P.Referred¶62
1973 2 SCC 808 (Kali Ram v. State of H.P.) · Who else cites this
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶63
(2007) 4 SCC 415 (Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka) · Who else cites this
Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West BengalRelied on¶74
(2023) 6 SCC 605 (Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Paras Rai @ Paras Nath Rai
The State Of Bihar
Manish Kumar
Saroj Devi
Vipul M. Pancholi
Rudra Prakash Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
