RAJENDRA CHOUDHARY vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1265 of 2005
------
Rajendra Chaudhary, Son of Babu Chaudhary, R/o-Vill.-Baijandih, P.S.-
Jarmundi, Dist.-Dumka (Jharkhand)
… … … Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Wakil Choudhary, S/o Rajeshwar Choudhary, R/o-vill-Nawadih,
P.S.-Saraiyahat, Dist.-Dumka (S.P.) Jharkhand
.... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anmol Deepak, Advocate
Ms. Saranya Vaure, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
CAV On 12/08/2026 Pronounced On 31/08/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 12.09.2005 for the offence under Sections 304B of the IPC
th
passed by learned 4 Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka in
Sessions Case No. 109 of 2002/388 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine years
for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and
learned APP.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s
daughter (since deceased) was married to accused Rajendra Chaudhary as
2026:JHHC:26184
per Hindu Rites and Customs in Basukinath Temple two years prior to the
occurrence. It is alleged that informant’s daughter after marriage lived
happily at her matrimonial home for sometime but thereafter, the husband
and father-in-law of the deceased used to ask her to bring a pump-set for
irrigation purpose and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased
was subjected to assault and cruelty. It is alleged that on 30.12.1999, at
about 10:00 PM, villagers of Baijandih namely Chandan Panjiyara, Gultan
Panjiyara and Sikander Pandiyara came to the house of informant and
informed that his daughter after returning from work in field could not
speak anything and suddenly died. Upon this, the informant, his son-
Pradeep Yadav, his naphew-Awadhesh Yadav and other villagers came to
the house of deceased and saw the dead body of the informant’s daughter
lying in front of house of accused person. It is stated that informant did not
find any injury on the body of his daughter but found foam was coming
out from her mouth and nose. It is stated that informant’s son-in-law and
his father told him that deceased had gone to work in the field in the
morning and returned and sat in the gallery of house and she was
shivering and fell down and became unconscious. The accused persons
took her to hospital for treatment but on the way, she died. The accused
persons did not disclose the reason of the death but it was suspected by the
informant that poison was administered to the deceased by his son-in-law
and his father.
2
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
4. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Jarmundi P.S.
Case No. 173 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Section 304B/34
of the IPC against the accused persons.
5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted
against above accused persons.
6. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 109 of 2002/388 of 2003 was registered.
Charges were read over and explained in Hindi to accused persons to
which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In course of trial, mother-in-law of deceased died, hence, the trial
against her was dropped.
8. After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court, which
has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence, has argued that the allegation made against the
accused persons that after the marriage, informant’s daughter was tortured
and subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry has not
been supported by any independent witnesses examined in this case. It is
further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to take into
consideration that there was tense relationship of the deceased with the
first wife of the accused Rajendra Chaudhary which may be cause for
commission of suicide. It has also been submitted that the accused
3
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
Rajendra Chaudhary was initially married with one Sarita niece of the
informant and since no child was born, the accused Rajendra Choudhary
solemnized marriage with the deceased without getting divorce from the
first wife hence being not married, there was no case of dowry death. The
learned trial Court has also failed to consider the above vital aspects of the
case, which clearly shows that no offence under Section 304B IPC is made
out against the appellant and wrongly recorded findings of guilt and
convicted and sentenced him. The finding of the learned trial Court is
based upon irrelevant evidence, conjecture, surmises and beyond the
weight of evidence available on record. Therefore, impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the
appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
Hence, this appeal may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the State
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposing
the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, has submitted
that the prosecution has conclusively proved that the deceased died under
abnormal circumstances at her matrimonial home and the death occurred
within seven years of her marriage as deceased was administered poison
by the husband and her in-laws. It is also proved beyond doubt that the
husband of the deceased was very much instrumental in demanding a
pump set as dowry and due to non-fulfilment of same, deceased was
subjected to torture and cruelty physically and mentally, at the hands of
her husband and in-laws. Therefore, the prosecution has proved all the
4
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
four foundational facts invoking the definition of offence of “dowry death”
under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned trial Court has committed no
error of law in invoking the presumption of dowry death under Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellant. There are
unrebutted, cogent and reliable evidence on record to conclusively prove
the guilt of the appellant. There is no reason to take a different view than
the learned trial Court. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment
in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
12. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether 6 witnesses
in this case.
P.W.-1 Awadhesh Yadav (Cousin Brother of the deceased)
P.W.-2 Pradeep Kumar (Brother of the deceased)
P.W.-3 Dr. Shesh Narayan Jha
P.W.-4 Kumud Yadav (Cousin Brother of the deceased)
P.W.-5 Wakil Choudhary (Informant)
P.W.-6 Brij Bihari Kumar (I.O.)
13. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution has
adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext. 1 Signature of Pradeep Kumar Yadav on Inquest Report
Ext. 2 Post-Mortem Report
Ext. 3 Signature of informant on Written Report
Ext. 4 Written Report
Ext.-5 Inquest Report
14. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the defence.
5
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
15. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers
from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal”?
Analysis, reasons and decision :
16. Before imparting verdict on the above point, it appears necessary to
take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case.
P.W.1 Awadhesh Yadav has deposed that his cousin sister namely
Chandrika Devi was married with accused Rajender Choudhary in
Basukinath temple in the year 1997. He has stated that after the marriage
both husband and wife lived together peacefully and their matrimonial life
was satisfactory. Thereafter, the father-in-law and husband of Chandrika
Devi demanded pump-set from the father of the Chandrika Devi and they
tortured her due to non-fulfilment of their demand. He has stated that he
told them that their financial position is not strong. So, they could not
fulfill their demand. But after sometime, when they would collect money,
they would give him a pump-set. He has further stated that on 30.12.1999,
in the night, at about 10 p.m,. one Chandan Panjiyara and Gultan Panjiyara
came at his house and they told him that his cousin sister Chandrika Devi
has died, then on the next day, he along with his uncle and others went at
village Baijandih where they found his cousin sister was lying dead on a
courtyard in front of the door of the accused persons. He has stated that
they found forth was coming out from her mouth and nose. When they
made inquiry about the cause of death, then her in-laws told them that she
had gone at the field and when she returned, she died. He has stated that
6
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
his cousin sister Chandrika Devi had no any Child. He has stated that
accused Rajendra Yadav was married with his sister namely Sharita Devi
10 years ago and when she did not give birth any child, then accused
Rajendra Choudhary solemnized his marriage with Chandrika Devi. He
has further stated that the said Sharita Devi is living with him at his house.
P.W.2 Pradeep Kumar Yadav has deposed that his sister Chandrika Devi
was married with Rajendra Choudhary in the year 1997 in the Basukinath
temple and after her marriage with accused, she remained quite well at her
matrimonial house near about 2 years. But thereafter, the accused persons
began to make demand from her a pump-set. He has stated that due to
non-fulfillment of the demands of the accused persons, they used to
assault his sister and this fact was disclosed to him by his sister. He has
further stated that on 30.12.1999, Chandan Panjiyara and others came at his
house and informed that his sister has died, then they went at the
matrimonial house of her sister where they found dead body of his sister
Chandrika Devi was lying on a courtyard in front of the main door of the
house. She has stated that the dead body of his sister was covered by a
wrapper and when they removed wrapper from her body, they saw forth
was coming up from her mouth and nose. He has stated that his sister
could not be blessed with any child. He has further stated that accused
previously married with his cousin sister namely Sharita Devi 10 years ago
of the occurrence and the said Sharita Devi was also not blessed with any
child. He has stated that his cousin sister Sharita Devi is living at his house.
7
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
He has proved his signature on the inquest-report prepared by the police
which has been marked as Exbt. 1.
P.W.3 Dr. Shesh Narayan Jha has conducted post-mortem
examination over the dead body of Chandrika Devi (deceased) on
31.12.1999. He has stated that rigor mortis present in both upper and lower
limbs. Eyes partially opened. Mouth closed. About 50 M.L. yellowish
fluids present in stomach. No ante-mortem or post-mortem injury found
over the body of the deceased. He has stated that no definite opinion can
be given regarding cause of death. Hence, the following viscera were
preserved in for chemical examination
(i) Stomach with its contents
(ii) One kidney
(iii) Spleen
(iv) A portion of liver
(v) A loop of small intestine.
He has proved the carbon copy of the post-mortem report which is
marked as Exbt. 2 This witness has stated in his evidence that Yellowish
contents of the stomach may be poison to be confirmed by chemical
analysis. He has further stated that some poison which cause death on
ingestion (taking by mouth) may evaporate which disappear from
stomach.
In the cross-examination, he has stated that there was no obvious
sign of poison. He has further stated that duration of evaporation of a
8
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
volatile poison depends upon his nature. He has stated that since he did
not find any clear cause of death, hence he preserved viscera.
P.W.4 Kumud Yadav has stated that his cousin sister namely Chandrika
Devi was married with Rajendra Choudhary in the year 1997 at Basukinath
temple. He has stated that his sister died on 30.12.99 and they were
informed by Chandan Panjiyara and others on that day at about 10 p.m. in
the night. He has stated that on 31.12.99, they went at the house of the
accused persons where they found his sister Chandrika Devi was lying
dead in front of the main door of the house of accused persons. He has
stated that foam was coming out from her mouth and nose. He has stated
that when they asked from the accused persons about the cause of her
death, then they replied that she had gone to work in the field and she
came there and died. He has stated that both accused persons used to
demand a pump-set from his sister and they also used to assault her. He
has stated that his sister told him and also to his uncle about this
occurrence. He has stated that his uncle gave assurance that he would give
pump-set after 2-3 months. But due to his poor financial condition, he
could not give them pump-set, then the accused persons administered
poison to his sister.
P.W.5. Wakil Choudhary is the informant of this case. He has stated
that his daughter Chandrika Devi was married with accused Rajendra
Choudhary, s/o Babu Choudhary, resident of Village Baijandih, two years
ago in the Basukinath temple. He has stated that after marriage his
daughter went to her sasural. He has stated that Chandan Panjiyara,
9
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
Gultan Panjiyara and Sikander Panjiyara told him that his daughter has
died, when he asked about the cause of her death, then they replied that
she was working in the field along with her husband and her father-in-law
and they cannot say how she died. He has stated that on the next day, he
went at the house of his daughter where he saw that her daughter was
lying dead in front of her house. He has stated that he did not find any
mark or injury on her body but he found a dry forth in her mouth and
foam was throwing up. When he asked from his son-in-law and the father
of his son-in-law about the occurrence, then they replied that she was
working in the field along with them and all of sudden, she began
trembling, then they proceeded for her treatment. But she fell down at his
door. He has stated that prior to the occurrence, his daughter told him that
her husband demanded pump-set and used to assault her. He has stated
that he believes that accused persons administered poison to his daughter
and killed her. He has further stated that his son-in-law was married with
his niece namely Sharita Devi 10 years ago and when she did not give birth
of any child, then his son-in-law told him that he will marry with another
woman, then the accused married with his daughter. He has proved his
signature on his written-report which is marked as Ext. 3. This witness has
also stated that before one month of occurrence, his daughter had come to
her parental home.
In his cross-examination, this witness has denied the
suggestion of the defnece that he has given false statement and there was
no demand of dowry.
10
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
P.W.6 Brij Bihari Kuwar is the investigating officer of this case. He has
proved the endorsement made by Officer-In- charge on the written-report
of the informant which is marked as Ext. 4. According to this witness, the
place of occurrence is the residential house of accused Rajendra
Choudhary which is a soil built wall thatched by tiles, located at village,
Baijandih, P. S. Jarmundi, District Dumka. He has stated that the main
door of the house opens towards South. He has stated that on the western
side of the house, there is Kitchen Garden where the deceased was
working along with the accused persons before her death. He has stated
that this field is adjacent to the house of the accused persons. He has stated
that there is a well in this Kitchen Garden where he found a motor pump
was set. He has given the detail boundary of the place of occurrence land.
He has stated that he found the dead body of the deceased at the side of
the house of the accused persons which was lying on a courtyard. He has
proved the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased which is
marked as Ext. 5. He has stated that probably the viscera has not been sent
for its examination.
17. The present appellant in his defence has pleaded his innocence and
committed no offence at all.
18. Before imparting verdict on the basis of evidence available on
record, the relevant provisions of law are required to be reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“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
11
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
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 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.”
-- When the question is
“113B. Presumption as to dowry death .
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 for 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 1860).”
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 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-
Any willful 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
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.]
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;
12
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
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 (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II. – The expression “valuable security” has the same
meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry- (1) If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be
recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to-
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any
demand having been made in that behalf)
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance
with the rules made under this Act.
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride groom
(without any demand having been made in that behalf)
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance
with the rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the
bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary
nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial
status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
19. From bare perusal of Section 304B of the IPC (Section 80 of B.N.S.,
2023), it is obvious that following ingredients have to be proved by the
prosecution as foundational facts for invoking the offence of dowry death:-
(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury
or otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(ii) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;
13
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with,
demand for dowry.
When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable
evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his
relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death and once the
prosecution establishes aforesaid ingredients, the burden of proof radically
shifts to the defence due to strict statutory presumption.
20. The provision of section 304-B of IPC as regards cause of death does
not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal or accidental rather any death
occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” may attract the
provision of section 304-B of IPC, if other ingredients are fulfilled.
21. In the instant case, the death of the deceased as per the evidence of
prosecution witnesses including brother and father is due to
administration of poison by the husband resulting in her death and it has
happened otherwise than under normal circumstance which confirms the
first requirement of Section 304B of the IPC.
22. The second requirement is also proved by establishing that the
deceased was married with the appellant in the year, 1997 at Basukinath
Temple and she died under unnatural death on 30.12.1999 i.e. within 7
years of marriage.
23. So far as, third and fourth conditions are concerned, there is
consistent evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 (informant-cum-
father) that husband of the deceased was demanding a pump-set for
irrigation purpose and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the husband of
the deceased used to harass and torture the deceased in various ways.
14
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
The other witnesses have also corroborated the factum that deceased
was married with the present appellant in the year, 1997. Thereafter, her
husband started demanding a pump set and due to non-fulfilment of
same, she was being tortured and harassed by her husband. The
unrebutted testimony of aforesaid witnesses also proves the ingredients
nos. (iii) and (iv).
24. Therefore, from the evidence of witnesses examined in this case as
discussed above, it is crystal clear that presumption under Section 113B of
the Indian Evidence Act against the husband (appellant) has legitimately
raised by the learned trial Court for convicting him for the offence under
Section 304B of the IPC.
25. In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellant-husband calling for any interference in the appeal. Accordingly,
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court
against the husband of the deceased (appellant) for the offence under
Section 304B of the IPC is hereby confirmed and upheld .
26. In result, this appeal is dismissed . Consequently, the suspension of
sentence granted to appellant vide order dated 22.11.2005 during
pendency of this appeal, is hereby cancelled and he is directed to
surrender before the learned Trial Court within two months from the date
of this Judgment and undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded
to him by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court
15
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26184
shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant for
sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.
27. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 31/08/2026
Basant/ -N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 01/09/2026
16
Cr. A. (S.J) No. 1265 of 2005