Raja Rai vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4728 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010990132024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2021 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur
======================================================
Raja Rai S/o Suraj Rai R/o Village- Jan Mohammadpur, P.S.- Sarairanjan,
District- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 30-10-2026
Heard Mr. Rambabu Yadav, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred
by the appellant against the Judgment of Conviction dated
02.09.2024 and the Order of Sentence dated 05.09.2024 passed
in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2021, arising out of Sarairanjan P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2021, by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur, whereby the appellant has been

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
2/30
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and
498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, “D.P. Act”). Upon such
conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under
Section 304B of the IPC. He has further been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He has also
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten
days. All the sentences imposed upon the appellant have been
directed to run concurrently.
3. Prosecution Story:-
The prosecution case, as unfolded from the
fardbeyan of PW-6, Rampreet Rai, is that he is the father of the
deceased. He stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his
daughter with the appellant/accused, Raja Rai, on 12.06.2020
according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, Raja

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
3/30
Rai and his family members allegedly subjected his daughter to
assault and abuse and repeatedly demanded a motorcycle and a
sum of Rs. 80,000/- as dowry. The informant stated that owing
to his financial condition, he assured them that he would
provide the motorcycle once he had sufficient money;
nevertheless, the alleged demand continued and his daughter
was subjected to assault and abuse. It is further alleged that on
10.04.2021 at about 2:30 P.M., the informant received
information that his daughter had been killed by her husband,
Raja Rai and his family members at her matrimonial home
situated at Jan Mohammadpur. Upon receiving the information,
the informant accompanied by some villagers, proceeded to the
matrimonial house of his daughter, where he found her lying
dead. According to him, all the members of her matrimonial
family had fled from the house. The informant thereafter
informed the Sarairanjan Police Station and upon making
enquiries from the persons present in the vicinity, came to know
that Raja Rai, Khushi Kumari, Jasamti Devi and Kajal Devi
were allegedly involved in the killing of his daughter. It was
further stated that the villagers informed him that the aforesaid
persons had assaulted and strangulated his daughter, Sangeeta
Devi, resulting in her death and thereafter fled away from the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
4/30
house.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant,
Rampreet Rai, Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 60 of 2021 dated
10.04.2021 was registered against the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC,
thereby setting the criminal law into motion.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, on
30.10.2021, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet
against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the D.P. Act.
6. On 30.11.2021, upon submission of the charge-
sheet, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the appellant.
7. The appellant stood charged on 14.03.2022 for
the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302 and 498A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The charges were
read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the trial, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
5/30
Sl. No. Name of Witness Description
PW-1 Ajeet Kumar @ Ajeet
Rai
Brother of the
deceased
PW-2 Sarvind Rai Hostile Witness
PW-3 Dinesh Rai Hostile Witness
PW-4 Sunil Rai Maternal Uncle of
the deceased
PW-5 Bhagat Prasad Yadav Investigating Officer
PW-6 Rampreet Rai Informant & father
of the deceased
PW-7 Yashwant Rai Hostile Witness
PW-8 Dr. Vishal Kumar Doctor
PW-9 Devnandan Rai Eye-witness
9. The prosecution also proved the following
documents and got them marked as exhibits:
Sl.
No.
Exhibit No. Description of
Exhibit
Proved
By/Attested By
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of the
SHO on the
written report
PW-5
2. Exhibit-1/1 Signature of the
informant on the
fardbeyan
PW-6
3. Exhibit-2 The signature of
the SHO on formal
FIR
PW-5
4. Exhibit-3 Postmortem report PW-8
10. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as the "Cr.P.C."). The appellant denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
6/30
evidences and c aimed to be innocent.
l
11. The appellant produced and examined following
witnesses in his defence:-
Sl. No. Name of Witness Description
DW-1 Ramnath Rai Co-villager of the appellant
DW-2 Ram Shreshth Rai Co-villager of the appellant
DW-3 Bhaiya Ram
Co-villager of the appellant
Sahni
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
12. Mr. Rambabu Yadav, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, has argued that as per the evidence of the
informant, who was examined as PW-6, the initial information
regarding the commission of the alleged occurrence was given
by one Nawal Rai, who was the best person to explain the
circumstances in which the deceased died, however, he was not
examined before the learned trial court by the prosecution. On
account of his non-examination, the prosecution failed to
establish the informant's claim that he had received information
regarding the death of his daughter through the said Nawal Rai.
Among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, there is a
serious contradiction with regard to the place where the dead
body of the deceased was allegedly found. The informant and
other prosecution witnesses made allegations regarding the
commission of the alleged dowry death merely on the basis of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
7/30
their presumption. The prosecution also failed to prove the
inquest report of the deceased. As per the allegation, a
panchayat meeting was held between the prosecution party and
the appellant's family, however, to prove the same, none of the
panches who participated in the said meeting, or any other
person belonging to the village of the appellant, was examined.
Even PW-1, the brother of the deceased, who is said to have
participated in the said panchayat meeting, stated in his cross-
examination that no document had been prepared in recpect of
the said meeting. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish that
any such panchayat meeting was ever convened in between the
parties during the relevant period. In fact, the alleged occurrence
took place at night when the deceased was asleep and at that
time, a brick wall of the appellant's house suddenly collapsed
upon the deceased, causing serious injuries to her. The
prosecution witnesses stated before the learned trial court
regarding the presence of bricks at the place of occurrence.
Further, all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were
on the left side of her body, which, according to learned counsel,
would not be consistent with the allegation that the deceased
had been subjected to physical cruelty by the appellant and his
family members during relevant period of time. While referring

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
8/30
to the deposition of PW-4, it was further submitted that there
was a cordial relationship between the members of the victim's
parental family and the appellant's family during the last period
of the victim's life. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that
before the panchayat meeting, he had gone to the appellant's
house and was properly welcomed there at that time. It was
further submitted that, as per the prosecution's allegation, the
accused persons, including the appellant, had been torturing the
deceased since the time of her marriage and between the date of
her marriage and the registration of the FIR in the present matter
there was no written complaint or any legal action taken by the
prosecution party against the accused persons, including the
appellant in respect of the alleged cruelty meted out to the
deceased as per allegation. Learned counsel has further
submitted that in the instant matter, the prosecution has failed to
establish the essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death,
particularly that the deceased was subjected to physical cruelty
or harassment soon before her death by the accused persons,
including the appellant. Therefore, the statutory presumption
under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would
not arise in favour of the prosecution. In support of this
contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
9/30
following judgments:
(i) Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2025) INSC 133 . Paragraph No. 16 upon which reliance has
been placed, is reproduced as under:-
“ 16. In the cross-examination, PW-7
stated that police had recorded his statements on 3rd
April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which were marked as
exhibits DG and DH, respectively. He accepted that
the allegation that the accused used to maltreat his
sister on account of insufficient dowry given in the
marriage and having brought broken furniture is not
found in both the police statements. He also stated
that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a
mixi does not find place in both statements. Therefore,
the version of PW-7 in his examination-in-chief about
the demands of dowry is a significant and relevant
omission. Hence, this amounts to a contradiction. The
public prosecutor claimed that the demand for a
refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned
in his third statement, which was recorded on 23rd
June 1998. The third statement, recorded belatedly,
obviously appears to be an afterthought. As regards
his statement that the accused used to give a beating
to his sister, it seems that he got this information when
he visited the matrimonial home of his sister three
months after the marriage. It is a very vague
allegation. Moreover, the witness has not stated that
this was disclosed to him by his deceased sister.
Assuming that what he has said is correct, this
incident of beating must have taken place between

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
10/30
25th June 1996 till end of September 1996. Therefore,
this incident did not happen soon before the death. It
is not his case that when the deceased allegedly
visited his house nine to ten days before the incident,
she complained about any cruelty or any harassment.
Thus, none of the three statements of the witnesses
contain any specific instances of cruelty or
harassment.”
(ii) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand reported in ( 2023) OnLine SC 454 . Paragraph
Nos. 23 and 25 upon which reliance has been placed are
reproduced as under:-
“23. In the aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution, none of the witnesses stated about the
cruelty or harassment to the deceased by the appellant
or any of his family members on account of demand of
dowry soon before the death or otherwise. Rather
harassment has not been narrated by anyone. It is
only certain oral averments regarding demand of
motorcycle and land which is also much prior to the
incident. The aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution does not fulfil the prerequisites to invoke
presumption under Section 304-B IPC or Section 113-
B of the Evidence Act. Even the ingredients of Section
498-A IPC are not made out for the same reason as
there is no evidence of cruelty and harassment to the
deceased soon before her death.
25. On a collective appreciation of the
evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
11/30
considered view that the prerequisites to raise
presumption under Section 304-B IPC and Section
113-B of the Evidence Act having not been fulfilled,
the conviction of the appellant cannot be justified.
Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the
matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will
not be sufficient to convict the accused under Sections
304-B and 498-A IPC. The cause of death as such is
not known.”
(iii) Chabi Karmakar & Ors vs. The State of West
Bengal reported in 2024 INSC 665. R eliance has been placed
upon the paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 which are being reproduced as
under:-
“ 6. After going through the evidence of PW-
1, PW-3, PW-4 and P- 16 (who are the brother, father,
mother and cousin of the deceased respectively), it
becomes clear that the deceased faced cruelty and
harassment at the hands of her husband (appellant no.2)
which compelled her to commit suicide. However, these
witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment
was in connection with the demand for dowry. With
respect to the demand for dowry, they have just made
some general statements which are not sufficient to
convict the appellants under section 304B of IPC.
7. Trial Court raised a presumption under
section 113B of Evidence Act to convict the appellants
under section 304B of IPC. The High Court did not go
into the question of whether the trial court was right in
relying upon section 113B of the Evidence Act. In

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
12/30
Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand 2023 SCC OnLine SC 454, where there
were allegations against the husband that he was
subjecting the deceased therein on the demand of a
motorcycle and some land, this Court in relation to
Section 113B of Evidence Act and section 304B of IPC,
had noted that:
“21…………………It is only certain oral
averments regarding demand of motorcycle and land which is
also much prior to the incident. The aforesaid evidence led by
the prosecution does not fulfil the pre-requisites to invoke
presumption under Section 304B IPC or Section 113B of the
Indian Evidence Act……
22.XXXXXXX
23. On a collective appreciation of the evidence
led by the prosecution, we are of the considered view that the
prerequisites to raise presumption under Section 304B and
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act having not being
fulfilled, the conviction of the appellant cannot be justified.
Mere death of the deceased being unnatural in the
matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be
sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304B and
498A of IPC.” Similarly, in the case at hand, it has not been
proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand
of dowry and hence we are of the opinion that this is not a
case of dowry death under section 304B of the Indian Penal
Code. PW-1 and PW-3 had only stated that deceased used to
tell them about her torture. PW-4 (mother of the deceased)
did not speak about any demand of dowry after marriage.
Moreover, this witness had said that appellant no.2 used to
assault her deceased daughter as the deceased had objections
to the illicit relation of appellant no.2 with another woman.
PW-16, who is the cousin of the deceased, had deposed in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
13/30
court almost a year after the testimony of PW-1, 3 & 4 and his
deposition regarding the physical assault of the deceased in
connection with the demand of dowry is also not believable.
Considering the aforesaid, in our view, the trial court erred in
raising a presumption under section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not
established.””
12.1. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-9,
upon which the trial court has placed reliance, is not credible as
admittedly the said witness has enmity with the appellant’s
family members and the same was accepted by him in the
cross-examination and there was litigation in between them
which was also accepted by him.
Submissions on behalf of the State:-
13. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad,
learned APP appearing for the State, has argued that it is an
admitted position that the deceased died within one year of her
marriage in the house of the appellant. All the material
prosecution witnesses have remained consistent with regard to
the alleged demand of Rs. 80,000/- and a motorcycle being
made by the appellant from the deceased since the time of her
marriage and according to them, the said demands continued
having been made by the appellant till the death of the deceased.
They have also remained consistent with regard to the alleged

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
14/30
harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant and his
family members for non-fulfilment of the appellant's demands
and in this regard, the evidence of PW-4, an uncle of the
deceased, is very relevant. Learned APP has further submitted
that several injuries, including fractures of the ribs, were found
on the body of the deceased, which fully corroborate the
allegation of physical cruelty with the deceased. As the injuries
were opined to have been sustained within 36 hours preceding
the date and time of the post-mortem examination and it is an
admitted position that the dead body of the deceased was
recovered from the house of the appellant, these circumstances
are sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to
physical torture and cruelty soon before her death. Thus, the
essential ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC have been
fulfilled, so the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would operate against the
appellant in respect of the dowry death of the deceased, which
the appellant has failed to rebut. As far as the evidence of the
defence witnesses, DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, is concerned, their
evidence is not reliable, because none of them is an eyewitness
to the incident which occurred inside the house of the appellant,
and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
15/30
the incident is highly doubtful. Learned APP has further
submitted that the defence, taken by the appellant, that the
deceased had sustained injuries accidentally due to the falling of
bricks upon her body is wholly unreliable, as there is nothing on
record in support of the same. None of the prosecution
witnesses, either in their examination-in-chief or in cross-
examination, has stated that a large quantity of bricks was lying
in a condition under which they could have fallen upon the
deceased at the place of occurrence. Further, the appellant has
remained silent with regard to this defence while his statement
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Consideration and Analysis:-
14. I have heard both sides, perused the impugned
judgment, considered the evidence adduced by both sides and
examined the statement of the appellant.
15. At the outset, in the light of the findings
recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment holding
the appellant guilty of the charged offences and having regard to
the relevant facts emerging from the prosecution case and the
arguments advanced by both sides, I deem it appropriate to
analyse, in brief, the evidence adduced by both sides.
16. PW-1, the brother of the deceased, stated in his

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
16/30
examination-in-chief that the marriage of his sister was
solemnized with the appellant on 12.06.2020 and after the
marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home. He
further stated that the appellant and his family members
subjected his sister to physical assault and demanded a
motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- from her. As the demands could
not be fulfilled by the members of the deceased's parental
family, a Panchayat meeting was convened between the parties,
in which he, one Balram Kumar and the in-laws of his sister
participated. During the course of the Panchayat, the appellant
assaulted his father and threatened that he would have to flee,
otherwise he would be killed. Thereafter, he and others returned
to their home. He further stated that on 01.04.2021, the
appellant telephoned him and informed that his sister had been
ousted from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, he brought his
sister (the deceased) back. On 10.04.2021, one Nawal Rai
informed him that his sister had died. On receiving the said
information, he, his aunt, namely, Sita Devi and several others
went to the matrimonial house of the deceased, where they
found her lying dead. The appellant and his family members
were not present there and had fled away. Thereafter, the police
arrived at the place of occurrence upon being informed. He

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
17/30
further stated that the police prepared the inquest report in
respect of the dead body of the deceased, on which he put his
signature as a witness. In his cross-examination, the witness
stated that after the marriage, his sister used to visit her
matrimonial home and that he used to meet her regularly. He
further stated that Nawal Rai, a resident of Janpur village, and
some other persons, whose names he did not know, had
participated in the Panchayat, but no person from his village had
participated as a Panch. He also stated that no document was
prepared during the Panchayat. He further deposed that the in-
laws of the deceased had started demanding dowry from her
sister after 2–3 months of her marriage. He stated that the
appellant's house was constructed with bricks and plastic sheets
had been put over it. He further deposed that he had given his
motorcycle to the appellant and the dead body was lying near a
trunk, where some bricks were also lying. He denied the
suggestion put to him in cross-examination that his sister had
sustained injuries on account of bricks falling upon her body
and such injuries had resulted in her death.
17. PW-2, a co-villager of the appellant, was
declared hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he initially stated
that he did not recognise the appellant or his wife. However, in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
18/30
the cross-examination, he stated that he knew the appellant as
he was his neighbour. With regard to the cause of death of the
deceased, he stated that during the night, bricks had fallen upon
the body of the deceased while she was sleeping, as a result of
which she sustained injuries and died.
18. PW-3, another co-villager of the appellant, was
also declared hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that
the deceased died on account of bricks falling upon her. He
further stated that his statement had not been recorded by the
police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the facts deposed
by him were those which had been told to him by his Munshi Ji.
19. PW-4, an uncle of the deceased, deposed in his
examination-in-chief substantially on the same lines as PW-1
and stated that he had also participated in the Panchayat
meeting. In his cross-examination, he stated that the appellant's
house was constructed of bricks and in connection with the
alleged demand of Rs. 80,000/- by the accused, neither he nor
any other person had given any Sanha (information) regarding
the same. He further stated that only about ten months had
elapsed since the marriage of the deceased, during that period
she had stayed at her naihar for about one month and during the
remaining period she had resided at her sasural. He further

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
19/30
stated that whenever he went to the house of the appellant, he
was welcomed there. With regard to the incident of marpit, he
stated that he had disclosed the same at that time, but had not
taken any action in respect thereof, as such incidents were
considered to be normal occurrences in every household. He
denied the suggestion that bricks had fallen upon the body of the
deceased. According to this witness, they (accused) threw a slab
of the septic tank/toilet tank upon the chest of the deceased, as a
result of which she died.
20. PW-5, the Investigating Officer, proved the
written report of the informant, on the basis of which the formal
FIR was registered, and the same were marked as Exhibits-1
and 2 respectively. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he
had inspected the place of occurrence and had given a
description of its boundaries, including the house of the
appellant and the materials used in its construction. However, he
did not state anything regarding any amount of bricks having
fallen or lying at the place of occurrence at the time of
inspection. In his cross-examination, he stated that the written
application (Exhibit-1) had been written by one Pradeep Rai, but
during the course of investigation, he did not record the
statement of the said person who had written the application. He

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
20/30
further stated that the written report was received by him at 7:00
p.m., whereas the inquest report had been prepared at 5:00 p.m.
by one Shri Ram Dubey, whose statement was also not recorded
by him during the course of investigation. He further stated in
his cross-examination that bricks were lying near the place of
occurrence.
21. PW-6 the informant and father of the deceased,
stated in his examination-in-chief that his daughter (the
deceased) used to reside at her matrimonial home, where her in-
laws used to demand a motorcycle and Rs. 80,000/- from her.
He stated that, in order to fulfill the said demand, an old
motorcycle was given to them, but the same was returned by the
in-laws of the deceased, as they were insisting upon a new
motorcycle, which he could not provide on account of being a
poor person. He further stated that, on account of non-fulfilment
of the said demand, the appellant, his parents and his sisters
used to assault his daughter. He further stated that, on account of
the assault upon his daughter, a Panchayat meeting was
convened at Gram Panchayat Jaan Mohammadpur on
01.04.2021, in which he, his son, his nephew, namely, Balram
and one Nawal Rai participated. He stated that during the
Panchayat, the accused assured that his daughter (the deceased)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
21/30
would be sent to her parental home (Bidagri) on 10.04.2021.
However, on the same day, Nawal Rai telephoned him and
informed him that his daughter had been killed. Upon receiving
the said information, he along with others, went to the
matrimonial house of his daughter, where he found her lying
dead. He stated that she had been killed by placing a slab upon
her body and all the accused including the appellant were not
present there and had fled away. He further stated that the
written application submitted by him at the police station had
been scribed by one Pradeep Rai. After the contents thereof
were read over and explained to him by the scribe, he put his
signature thereon. He identified his signature on the written
application, which was marked as Exhibit-1/1. In his cross-
examination, he stated that the appellant's house was
constructed of bricks. He further stated that after marriage, his
daughter had resided at her matrimonial home for about three
months, during that period she was assaulted. He further stated
that when he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter, he
was served Dal and Bhat, but the Dal served to him was meant
for animals. On that occasion, he requested the accused to allow
him to meet his daughter, but he was not permitted to do so and
was threatened that he would be killed if he did not leave.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
22/30
Consequently, he returned home. He further stated that
thereafter, the accused persons again assured him that his
daughter would be allowed to return on the day of 'Sammat', but
instead of being sent to her parental home, she was killed.
22. PW-7, a co-villager of the appellant, was
declared hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that a
brick wall had fallen upon the body of the deceased while she
was sleeping, resulting in her death. He further stated that his
statement had not been recorded by the police.
23. PW-8, the medical expert who conducted the
post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, stated in
his examination-in-chief that upon conducting the post-mortem
examination, he found the following injuries:-
“ External Finding:-
1- Rigor mortis present
2- Both eye open.
3- Mouth closed.
4- Blood clot present left side angle of
mouth.
5- Multiple black bruise of Size- 3” X 2”
present over left side back of thorax.
Internal Finding:-
1- Head- i- scalp on reflextion blood
extravasation of blood present over left parietal
area.
ii- Scalp- fracture of size 1” X 1” present
over left side of parietal temporal bone.
iii- Brain- Hemorrhage present over left
side of brain matter.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
23/30
2- Chest- i- fracture of ribs 4, 5, 6 & 7.
ii- Lungs- lacerated of left lung.
Iii- Heart- congested
3. All viscera congested.
4. Time elapsed since death- within 36 hrs.
In our opinion cause of death due to
hemorrhage and shock caused by above-
mentioned injury and produced by hard and
blunt substance. ”
23.1. According to him, the cause of death of the
deceased was haemorrhage and shock resulting from the
aforesaid injuries, which were caused by hard and blunt
substance. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the
injuries found on the body of the deceased were on the left side
of her body and that such injuries were possible if a large
quantity of bricks had fallen upon the body of the deceased.
24. PW-9, a co-villager of the appellant, stated in
his examination-in-chief that the deceased used to reside at her
matrimonial home and that her husband, the appellant, used to
assault her in connection with the demand for Rs. 80,000/- and a
motorcycle, which could not be fulfilled by the father of the
deceased. He further stated that the appellant told his father-in-
law that the deceased would be killed if the aforesaid demands
were not fulfilled within eight days.
24.1. As regards the independence of this witness

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
24/30
and the credibility of his testimony, the appellant has sought to
impeach his credibility on the ground that the relations between
his family and the witness were not cordial and cases had also
been instituted between them. In his cross-examination, the
witness admitted that a case had been instituted between him
and the family of the appellant.
25. The appellant, in his statement recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied all the material circumstances
appearing against him from the evidences adduced by the
prosecution, however, he said nothing regarding his defence of
accidental death of the deceased and simply stated that he was
innocent.
26. The appellant examined three witnesses in his
defence, namely, DW-1 Ramnath Rai, DW-2 Ram Shreshth Rai
and DW-3 Bhaiya Ram Sahni.
26.1 In their examination-in-chief, they stated that
on 10.04.2021, bricks had fallen upon the body of the deceased.
According to them, the bricks were removed from the body of
the deceased by the persons who had gathered at the spot,
whereafter the deceased was brought to the courtyard in an
injured condition, but she succumbed to her injuries there.
27. From the foregoing analysis of the evidences

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
25/30
adduced by both sides, I find that there are certain material
aspects of the prosecution case which are not in dispute. First,
the deceased died within one year of her marriage. Second, she
died on 10.04.2021 on account of the injuries sustained by her.
Third, her death occurred at the house of the appellant and was
an unnatural death resulting from bodily injuries. The
prosecution witnesses have remained consistent with regard to
the demand of Rs. 80,000/- and a motorcycle by the appellant
and his family members from the deceased and her parental
family, as alleged by the informant in the written FIR. The
informant and his son stated that in order to fulfill the said
demand, an old motorcycle was given to the appellant, but the
same was returned as the appellant was adamant to get a new
motorcycle. Since the said demand could not be fulfilled by the
deceased's father, the deceased was subjected to assault. The
deceased died an unnatural death within a short span of her
matrimonial life, which was only about ten months. From the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1,
PW-4, PW-6 and PW-9, it does not appear that the demand
made by the accused had ever ceased. Rather, their evidence
indicates that the demand continued throughout the matrimonial
life of the deceased and persisted till the occurrence resulting in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
26/30
her death. So far as the defence of the appellant that the
deceased sustained accidental injuries on account of a brick wall
of the appellant's house having fallen upon her body is
concerned, the same does not inspire confidence. There is no
sufficient and reliable evidence to substantiate the said defence.
Though some of the prosecution witnesses stated that bricks
were lying near the dead body of the deceased but none of them
stated that a large quantity of bricks were lying or a brick wall
had fallen upon her. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer, who
had inspected the place of occurrence soon after receiving
information regarding the incident, did not state anything about
the presence of a fallen brick wall either at the place of
occurrence or near the dead body of the deceased. Significantly,
no question in this regard appears to have been put to him in
cross-examination on behalf of the appellant. The appellant also
remained silent regarding the said defence in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In these
circumstances, the defence taken by the appellant does not
inspire confidence and the trial court rightly rejected the same.
Once the defence of accidental injuries on account of the falling
of a brick wall is not established, the circumstances pertaining
to allegation emerging from the evidence assume significance,

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
27/30
such as, the continuous demand of Rs. 80,000/- and a
motorcycle by the appellant and his family members from the
deceased and her parental family, the several injuries including
fracture injuries found on the body of the deceased and the
absence of the appellant and his family members from the house
when the persons claiming to have reached the place of
occurrence after learning about the incident arrived there.
Conclusion:-
28. The aforesaid circumstances, when considered
cumulatively, clearly indicate that the deceased was subjected to
physical assault by the accused including the appellant soon
before her death. The evidence of the defence witnesses does
not inspire confidence. Firstly, they are co-villagers of the
appellant and therefore, their evidence requires careful scrutiny.
Secondly, their claim of having reached the place of occurrence
immediately after the incident does not appear to be convincing,
as from their own statements, they are not immediate
neighbours of the appellant and their houses are situated at some
distance from the house of the appellant. There is also no
satisfactory explanation as to why none of the immediate
neighbours of the appellant reached the place of occurrence
immediately after the alleged incident. On the contrary, the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
28/30
evidence of the defence witnesses itself shows that neither the
appellant nor his family members were present at the place of
occurrence when they reached there as per their claim. If the
deceased had sustained injuries accidentally on account of the
falling of a brick wall, there appears to be no satisfactory
explanation as to why the appellant and his family members
would leave the house, leaving the deceased in an injured
condition. Thus, the evidence of the defence witnesses does not
assist the appellant, rather, their testimony, on material respects,
goes against the appellant's defence. So far as the non-
examination of Pradeep Rai, who had written FIR, and Nawal
Rai, who had participated in the Panchayat meeting, is
concerned, the same is not, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, fatal to the prosecution. The prosecution case is
required to be assessed on the basis of the evidence actually
brought on record. The testimony of the witnesses examined by
the prosecution, if considered as a whole, sufficiently
establishes the material circumstances relied upon by the trial
court. The prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the
essential ingredients of the offence of dowry death. The
deceased died an unnatural death on account of bodily injuries
within seven years of her marriage, and the evidence on record

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
29/30
establishes that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in
connection with the demand for dowry (Rs. 80,000/- and a
motorcycle) soon before her death. Consequently, the statutory
presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is attracted, and the burden shifted upon the appellant to
rebut the said presumption by establishing a probable defence.
The appellant has failed to discharge the said burden either by
adducing reliable and cogent evidence in support of his defence
or by eliciting any material circumstance from the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses. This Court is,
therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the essential ingredients constituting
the offence of dowry death. The evidence on record establishes
that the deceased died of bodily injuries within seven years of
her marriage and she had been subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with the persistent demand for Rs.
80,000/- and a motorcycle, which continued till the occurrence
resulting in her death. The defence of accidental death on
account of the falling of a brick wall has not been established.
Accordingly, the findings recorded by the trial court do not
warrant any interference from this Court. I find no ground to
differ from the conclusion arrived at by the trial court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4728 of 2024 dt.30-10-2026
30/30
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2024,
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and the
order of sentence dated 05.09.2024, whereby he has been
sentenced for the said offences, are hereby affirmed and upheld.
The present appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed.
29. The records of the learned trial court, along
with a copy of this judgment, shall be transmitted forthwith to
the concerned court for necessary compliance.

(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 05.10.2026.
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date 30.10.2026