BIFAN BHAGAT MALI And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:19045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
------
1. Pipashi Devi @ Sona Devi @ Pyasi Devi, wife of Late Bifan
Bhagat Mali,
2. Sanjay Bhagat Mali, Son of Late Bifan Bhagat Mali,
Both resident of village-Kishunpur, P.S. Patan, Dist.-
… .... …. Appellants
Palamau, Jharkhand
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Aditya Raman, Amicus Curiae
For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 10.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026

1. It is pertinent to mention, at the very outset, that Bifan Bhagat Mali
has died therefore the appeal preferred by Bifan Bhagat Mali stood
th
abated vide order dated 10 June, 2026 of this Court.
2. Heard the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and
learned P.P.

3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 09.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 10.03.2005
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI,
Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No. 270 of 1999, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants who were standing charged for the
offence under Section 304B/34 of the IPC has been held guilty for the
offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC instead of holding the guilt
for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 6,000/- each with
default stipulation.

2026:JHHC:19045

Factual Matrix:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s sister
Gayatri Kumari (since deceased) was married with Sanjay Bhagat
(appellant No.2) on 09.05.1997 in accordance with Hindu Rites and
Customs. After marriage, informant’s sister joined her matrimonial
home. When she returned to her parental home, she disclosed that her
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are demanding Rs. 10,000/-
and one T.V. as additional dowry. The informant again sent his sister
to her matrimonial home but the said demand could not be fulfilled.
Then, accused persons started assaulting and torturing his sister.
When informant came to know about the assault and torture meted to
his sister on account of non-fulfillment of above demand of dowry,
then he went to her matrimonial home on 03.12.1997 for Vidai of his
sister. It is alleged that till two days, the accused persons were
lingering but on 06.12.1997, in the morning, Sanjay Bhagat (husband of
the deceased) started saying to the informant that unless and until, he
would give Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V., Vidai of his sister would
not take place. It is further alleged that upon insistence of the
informant for Vidai , he was threatened and his brother-in-law went
inside the house and came about 1:00 pm and told that his sister
Gayatri Devi has committed suicide by hanging. The informant
desired to lodge report at Police Station, then, husband and father-in-
law of the deceased also started threatening him to be killed. The
informant has claimed that his sister has been killed by hanging by the
accused persons.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
2

2026:JHHC:19045

On the basis of above written report of the informant, Patan P.S.
Case No. 173 of 1997 was registered for the offence under Section
302/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the above
accused persons.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted
for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act.
After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of
sessions, where S.T. No. 270 of 1999 was registered. The learned
Sessions Judge, Palamau after hearing the prosecution and defence,
framed charge under Section 304B/34 of the IPC against all the
accused persons vide order dated 07.09.1999. The accused persons
denied the charge leveled against them and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution apart from documentary evidence.

6. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from occurrence
and false implication and defence has examined one witness i.e. D.W.-
1 Laxmi Chaudhary and no documentary evidence have been
adduced by the defence.
7. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record
arrived at a definite conclusion that it was a case of dowry death but
since the deceased has committed suicide as proved by the
prosecution, the offence comes under Section 306/34 of the IPC and
instead of holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section
304B of the IPC convicted and sentenced them for the offence under
Section 306/34 of the IPC.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
3

2026:JHHC:19045

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
8. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants assailing the impugned
judgment has submitted that the deceased has committed suicide due
to refusal of Vidai to her parental home. It is submitted that the
allegation of demand of dowry and consequent torture has not been
specifically proved by the prosecution but the prosecution has also
failed to prove that the appellants have abetted the deceased to
commit suicide for any reason whatsoever. The learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC
and there is no evidence constituting the offence under Section 306 of
the IPC. Hence, appellants deserve acquittal from the charges leveled
against them. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and this appeal
may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the State

9. On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing for the State controverting
the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, submitted
that although no appeal has been preferred by the prosecution but in
the facts and circumstances proved in this case, there emerges a
question of law that mere commission of suicide by the deceased
following all the ingredients of demand of dowry and subjected her to
cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the same, soon before her
death, the offence will fall under Section 306 of the IPC. It is
submitted that for constituting the offence under Section 304B of the
IPC, there is no difference as to death is homicidal, suicidal or
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
4

2026:JHHC:19045

accidental. Therefore, in the case of suicidal death also, if other
ingredients are proved, the commission of offence does not come out
of the ambit of Section 304B of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction of
the appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC is proved
in this case by cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution
which has been dealt with by the learned trial Court in detail but due
to misconception and wrong understanding of the learned trial Court,
the conviction has been passed for the offence under Section 306/34
of the IPC in this case. It is further submitted that it is within the
powers of the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence and pass
the judgment in accordance with law whatever offence have been
proved by the prosecution. The charge was also framed under Section
304B of the IPC and the appellants have faced trial thereunder with
full contest. Therefore, the conviction of appellants requires
modification from offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC to section
304B of the IPC without interfering in the sentence.
Analysis, reasons and decision :
10. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective
parties.

11. The only point for determination in this appeal is firstly “as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any
interference in this appeal?” and secondly, “as to whether the
conviction under Section 306/34 of the IPC may be altered or
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
5

2026:JHHC:19045

modified to the offence under Section 304B of the IPC by the
appellate Court particularly where the accused persons have faced
trial only for the offence under Section 304 B IPC?”
12. Before embarking to decide the above points, it is pertinent to take
brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced,
during trial.
The most important witness in this case is P.W.-4 Vijay Bhagat
who is informant-cum-brother of the deceased. This witness has
consistently proved the contents of written report and has deposed
that his sister Gayatri Devi was married with Sanjay Bhagat on
09.05.1997. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and after
sometime on Vidai came to her parental home, then, she disclosed
that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were demanding
Rs. 10,000/- cash and one T.V. as dowry. He has further deposed that
on 03.12.1997, he went to Sasural of his sister for her Vidai for 15-20
days, then, her mother-in-law suggested to talk with his brother-in-
law in this regard. He also stayed there for two days. When he asked
his brother-in-law (appellant No. 2) for Vidai of his sister, then, he
said in specific terms that unless Rs. 10,000/- Cash and one T.V.
would not be given by him, his sister would not be allowed to go her
parental home and declined for Vidai . He has further deposed that
thereafter, his sister was assaulted by her mother-in-law and
husband. He also attempted to save her but later on returned to his
home and reached near Bus-Stand, in the meantime, he got
information about the death of his sister. He again went to the
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
6

2026:JHHC:19045

matrimonial home of his sister and saw her dead body. He has
further deposed that his brother-in-law has killed his sister by
assaulting on neck by Lathi due to which she fell down and died.
Thereafter, this witness returned to his home and along with his
uncle went to Police Station and on his behalf, his uncle scribed the
written report which was signed by him and presented before police
station. He has proved his signature on written report which was
scribed by his uncle. He has identified all the accused persons behind
the Dock.
In his cross-examination, he admits that written report was
lodged at police station on 07.12.1997. This witness has been
examined at length but barring some minor discrepancies, nothing
has been elicited by prosecution touching the core of prosecution
case. He has further submitted that mother-in-law of the deceased
told that his sister has committed suicide by hanging. He has denied
the suggestion of the defence that he did not go to matrimonial home
of his sister on 03.12.1997, rather, his father had gone for Vidai . He
also admits that prior or at the time of marriage, there was no talk of
any dowry. He also admits that at the time of first Vidai of his sister,
his uncle, his elder brother Dineshwar Bhagat and younger brother
Sandeep had also gone to matrimonial home of his sister, at that
time, Vidai took place very happily and his sister stayed at her
parental home about 10 days and her brother-in-law came for Vidai
and his sister went to her matrimonial home. He has denied the
suggestion of the defence that he has not gone for Vidai of his sister,
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
7

2026:JHHC:19045

rather, his father had gone for Vidai and he has also denied the
suggestion of the defence that his sister has committed suicide
because she did not desire to live at her Sasural . He has expressed no
knowledge that in the post-mortem report of his sister, it was opined
by Doctor that she has committed suicide by hanging.
P.W.-1 Kedar Sao, P.W.-2 Girbar Bhuiyan and P.W.-3 Ashok
Prasad Kashyap came to know that wife of Sanjay Bhagat has
committed suicide but they have not seen the dead body and
declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.-5 Dr. Kundan Prasad
was posted as C.A.S. at Sadar
Hospital, Daltonganj and on 07.12.1997, he conducted the
postmortem examination of Gayatri Devi, wife of Sanjay Bhagat at
11:45 AM and found the following injuries:-
i. Blood mixed froth together with salvia coming out from
the angle of the mouth.
ii. A dark brown ligature mark is seen around the neck
placed obliquely interrupted backwards.
iii. There is ecchymosis and slight abrasions about the
ligature mark.
On dissection

i. There is laceration of the intimae of the carotid arteries
with extra Vissersion of blood with the walls.
ii. Rigor mortis was present in both the upper and lower
limbs.
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
8

2026:JHHC:19045

The cause of death in my opinion is asphyxia due to hanging.
Time of death is within 48 hours. The PM report has been proved by
this witness as ex.-2.
P.W.-6 Manoj Kumar is a police constable who has proved
formal F.I.R. as Ext.-3 bearing signature of the then officer-in-charge
Sri Ram Sahay Tigga.
P.W.-7 Ram Sahay Tigga
is the investigating officer of this
case. He has proved the formal F.I.R. and endorsement on formal
F.I.R. in his signature as Ext.4 and formal F.I.R. as previous Ext. 3. He
also admits that prior to registration of F.I.R., on application of
Sanjay Bhagat (husband of deceased) U.D. case No. 16/1997 was
registered for commission of suicide by his wife. In the course of
investigation of this case, after registration of F.I.R., he recorded
restatement of informant and visited the place of occurrence at
village Kisunpur which is the house of the accused Sanjay Bhagat
Mali. The place of occurrence of this case is the house of the accused
Sanjay Bhagat Mali where he also recorded statement of witnesses
Kedar Saw (P.W.-1), Girbar Bhuiyan (P.W.-2) and Ashok Prasad
(P.W.-3). He also sent the dead body for post-mortem at the time of
registering U.D. Case, thereafter, he was transferred and further
charge of investigation was given to S.I. S.P. Sinha. His attention has
been drawn towards the statement of witness Kedar Saw (P.W.-1)
who has stated before him that Sanjay Bhagat killed his wife by
hanging. He also stated that Sanjay Bhagat was demanding a T.V.
and Rs. 10,000/- cash from the deceased and due to non-fulfillment
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
9

2026:JHHC:19045

of which, she was subjected to cruelty and ultimately killed. Witness
Girbar Bhuiyan has also stated that Sanjay Bhagat has killed his wife
by hanging. He closed the U.D. Case, when F.I.R. was registered, on
the basis of written report of the informant. In his cross-examination,
he also states that informant Vijay Bhagat has not stated before him
any restatement in his presence that deceased was assaulted by Lathi
on her neck by his brother-in-law Sanjay Bhagat. He has also not
stated that he returned from matrimonial home of his sister and
reached at Bus Stand, then, received information about her sister
death and again went there. He has denied that his investigation is
defective and submitted charge sheet without sufficient evidence.
13. On the other hand, one defence witness namely D.W.-1 Laxmi
Choudhary has been examined, who has stated that Gayatri Devi,
wife of Sanjay Bhagat, died 6-7 years ago. On that day, her father
came to village Kisunpur to visit her, while, she was alive. Gayatri
Devi asked her father to go back to home but he replied that at
present, there are so many household works in your Sasural , hence,
he will come later on for her Vidai . He has further deposed that
Gayatri was insisting her father to go back her parental home with
her but he again forbade her and returned to his home. Thereafter,
husband of Gayatri Devi and other family members went to field for
work and Gayatri was alone in her house and she committed suicide
by hanging. Thereafter, father of the deceased was informed, who
came to village Kisunpur and in his presence, cremation of deceased
took place. At that time, brother of Gayatri Devi namely Vijay Bhagat
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
10

2026:JHHC:19045

started demanding expenses incurred at the time of marriage, which
was not given by the accused persons, since, this false case was
lodged. He has denied any demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- cash
and one T.V. by the accused persons and consequent torture to the
deceased by their in-laws, rather, there was cordial relationship
between the accused persons and the deceased.
In his cross-examination, this witness clearly admits that his
statement was not recorded by the police during investigation,
although, he resides at same village and is the neighbour of the
accused persons. He has come for giving his evidence on the request
of Sanjay Bhagat for the first time. He has denied the suggestion of
defence that he has given false evidence as tutored by Sanjay Bhagat.
14. 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 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
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
11

2026:JHHC:19045

seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life.”
“113B. 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 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).”

15. 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;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with,
demand for dowry.
16. 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.
17. From perusal of aforesaid evidence available on record and going
through the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that the
prosecution witnesses have proved the above foundational facts
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
12

2026:JHHC:19045

attracting ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the IPC. The
learned trial Court has simply by reason of fact that it was suicidal
death of the deceased has swept towards conviction of the appellants
for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. There is no other reason
to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the
IPC while the charge itself was framed for the offence under Section
304B of the IPC. It is consistently proved by the prosecution that the
deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, the deceased
was subjected to torture or cruelty by her husband and in-laws due
to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- cash and one
T.V. Therefore, the basic ingredients for invoking presumption under
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act also stands proved. 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.
18. As far as the second question of law i.e. whether the conviction under
Section 306/34 of the IPC may be altered or modified to the offence
under Section 304B of the IPC by the appellate Court particularly
where the accused persons have faced trial only for the offence under
Section 304 B IPC is concerned, it is pertinent to extract the provisions
of Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to powers of appellate Court
is extracted hereunder:-
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
13

2026:JHHC:19045

“386. Powers of the Appellate Court .—After perusing such
record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the
Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under
section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate
Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for
interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may—
(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and
direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or
committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass
sentence on him according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction—
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge
the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of
competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or
committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or
the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so
as to enhance the same;
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence—
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge
the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent
to try the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or
the extent, or, the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to
enhance or reduce the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order;
(e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order
that may be just or proper:
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the
accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such
enhancement:
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
14

2026:JHHC:19045

Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict
greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused
has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the
Court passing the order or sentence under appeal.”

19. In exercise of powers under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. in an appeal
from a conviction, the appellate Court may reverse the finding and
sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-
tried or alter the finding, maintaining the sentence. Therefore, in
exercise of powers under Section 386(b)(ii), the finding of the learned
trial Court and conclusion about the guilt of the appellants under
Section 306 of the IPC is hereby set aside and the conviction of the
appellants for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC is
maintained for which the appellants were initially charged and in
view of the clinching evidence available on record substantiating the
above charge.
20. So far as sentence of the appellants is concerned, the substantive
period of imprisonment for seven years as awarded by the learned
trial Court is upheld for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC.

21. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed
with modification/alteration in conviction of the appellants
maintaining his sentence. In result, suspension of sentence granted to
appellants during pendency of this appeal, is hereby cancelled and
they are 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 them by the learned trial
Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
15

2026:JHHC:19045

steps for arrest and detention of the appellants for sustaining the
remaining period of sentence awarded to them.

22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
23. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent
back to the court concerned for information and needful.
24. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.
Aditya Raman, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the
stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services
Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
25. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon
Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.


(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 30/06/2026

Basant / NAFR

Uploaded On: 01/07/2026
Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 406 of 2005
16