NANDLAL PANDIT And ORS vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32771

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKH AND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 351 of 2006
[Against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
th
22.02.2006/23.02.2006 passed by learned 5 Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Case Nos.94/2005/13/2003]
---------

1. Jamuni Devi @ Jari, wife of Nandlal Pandit
2. Jhuni Pandit @ Jhuni Chand Pandit, S/o-Nandlal Pandit
All residents of village-Bariarpur, P.S.-Narayanpur, District-Jamtara

……Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sardhu Mahato, A.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
CAV On 16/09/2026 Pronounced On 06/11/2026

1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and learned
A.P.P.
2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed
by three accused persons, out of them, appellant No.1 Nandlal Pandit
had died and his appeal was abated vide order dated 16.09.2026. The
names of surviving appellants, Jamuni Devi @ Jari and Jhuni Pandit @
Jhuni Chand Pandit have been renumbered and this appeal is heard on
behalf of the aforesaid alive appellants.
3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2006/23.02.2006 passed by learned
th
5 Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara in Sessions Case
Page 1 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

Nos.94/2005/13/2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have
been held guilty for the offences under section 304(B) of IPC and
Section 4 of D.P. Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years
for the offence under section 304(B) of IPC and no separate sentence
has been awarded for the offence punishable under section 4 of D.P.
Act.
Factual Matrix:-
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per written report of the
informant, Dwarika Pandit is that his daughter, namely, Malti Devi was
married with Manik Pandit on 10.11.1993. After marriage, the husband
of the informant’s daughter along with his other family members started
demanding of Rs.5,000/- to start a business and a bicycle in the shape of
dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, they started
torturing his daughter mentally and physically and thereafter she was
brought to her parental house. After panchyati , the informant’s daughter
again went to her matrimonial house along with his father (informant)
and other two persons where they stayed in the night. At about 11:00
pm, the informant heard the sound of cry from inside the house,
thereupon he rushed inside the house and found his daughter dead with
froth coming from her mouth. The informant has suspected that the
accused persons have administered poison to his daughter and was done
to death.
Page 2 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

5. On the basis of written report of the informant, Narayanpur P.S. Case
No.68 of 1993 was registered for the offence under sections 498A and
302/34 of IPC.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
the appellant for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the
case was committed to the court of sessions, where charge has been
framed under sections 306/304(B)/34 of IPC and also under sections 3/4
of D.P. Act.
7. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and
claimed to be tried.
8. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed,
which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. In the course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1- Manik Pandit
P.W.2 -Dwarika Pandit (informant)
P.W.3 -Dhedho Mandal
P.W.4- Dr. A. Murmu
10. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidences have been adduced by the prosecution.
Ext.1 -Signature of informant on fardbeyan
Ext.2- Post-mortem report of Malti Devi
Ext.3- P.S.L report of viscera of Malti Devi
Page 3 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

11. On the other hand, the defence has examined only one defence witness,
namely, Pandu Mandal (D.W.1) and apart from which, two
documentary evidence, Ration Card in the name of Nandlal Pandit and
Chand Mohan Pandit (Ext.A and Ext.B) has been adduced by the
defence
12. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication
only on the basis of suspicion.
13. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record
held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them
as stated above.
Submission on behalf of appellants:-
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the informant has
merely raised a suspicion of the appellants having killed his daughter by
administering poison to her rather at the time of occurrence, the
informant was present along with Hira Lal Mandal and Jagdish Pandit
but none of them has heard the crying of his Samidhi as alleged in the
FIR nor they have been examined in this case, as such, it is a case of
suicide. It is further submitted that non-examination of the Investigating
Officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellants as they could not
cross-examined him on the point of recovery of any bottle or jar
containing any poison from the house of the appellants and where such
death can be caused because of bite of snake. The inquest report has
also not been exhibited. It is further submitted that Manik Pandit
Page 4 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

(P.W.1), who happens to be brother of the informant and anohter
witness, Dhadho Mondal (P.W.3), have also not supported the
prosecution story and declared hostile by the prosecution. It is further
submitted that the appellants have been seriously prejudiced because the
competent authority did not verify the chemical report, and the forensic
team was never examined. Consequently, the defense could not cross-
examine the experts regarding a critical technicality whether a viscera
sample preserved in a chemical long ago could naturally decompose and
generate its own poison. Learned trial court has miserably failed to
properly appreciate the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution in
its right perspective considering the core testimony of every witness and
arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellants. Hence, the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellants is absolutely illegal and based beyond the evidence available
on record, which is fit to be set aside and this appeal be allowed
Submission on behalf of State:-
15. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. controverting the aforesaid arguments
submitted that there is no substance in the points of argument raised by
the appellants. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered
the overall factual aspects of the case, which has been proved by the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution story cannot be disbelieved only
on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer of this case
and other two witnesses, namely, Hira Lal Mandal and Jagdish Pandit.
Page 5 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

The contents of FIR have been consistently proved by the ocular
testimony of the informant, who was present on spot and find
corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, P.W.4. Therefore, there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any
interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to
be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
16. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
17. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “ as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”
18. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume
of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to
substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants.
The most important witness of this case is the informant
Dwarika Pandit (father of the victim), who has been examined as
P.W.2 . According to his evidence, the occurrence has taken place 10
years back. His daughter has been married with Manik Pandit about two
years prior to the occurrence. After marriage, the husband of his
daughter along with his other family members, namely, Nandlal
Page 6 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

Pandit(father), Jamuni Devi(mother) and Jhuni Pandit( Bhaisur ) started
demanding one bicycle and Rs.5,000/- cash from the deceased in the
shape of dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, she
was tortured with the hands of the accused persons. Thereafter, his
daughter came to his parental house and stayed for 15-20 days and a
Panchyati was convened and his daughter was again sent to her
matrimonial home and he himself along with Hiralal Mondal and
Jagdish Pandit accompanied with her. In the same night, he stayed in the
matrimonial home of his daughter but at about 11:00 pm, he heard the
cry of his Samidhi , Nandlal Pandit and when he went inside the house,
he found his daughter died and from her mouth, forth is coming out. He
further states that his Samadhi Nandlal Pandit and Samadhin Jamuni
Devi and Bhaisur, Jhuni Ch. Pandit have committed murder of his
daughter by administrating poison to his daughter. He further states that
in the next morning, he instituted the case and proved his signature on
fardbeyan marked Ext.1.
In his cross-examination, he admits that he has never filed
any case as regards the demand of dowry. He further admits that he and
his Samadhi have never got treatment of his daughter in hospital at
Jamtara. After one year of marriage, he came to know about the demand
of dowry of one cycle and Rs.5,000/- cash from his daughter. He further
admits that a Panchyati was convened at the village Bariyarpur but no
paper was prepared. He further admits that at the time of incident, his
Page 7 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

son-in-law was not present. He has denied the suggestion of defence
that he has forcibly sent his daughter on foot to her matrimonial home
despite being her ill and subsequently died due to diarrhea and acidity .
He has further denied the suggestion of defence that he has falsely
implicated the accused persons due to non-payment.
P.W.1-Manik Pandit is the uncle of the deceased and he has
been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, he has stated that in
the year, 1991 the marriage of his niece, Malti Devi was solemnized
with Manik Pandit but after marriage, her in-laws did not prove her
proper treatment. He further states that prior to the occurrence, on
assurance of father-in-law of his niece, she returned back to her
matrimonial home but subsequently, he heard the news of her death.
P.W.3-Dhadho Mondal has also been declared hostile by
the prosecution and expressed nothing about the occurrence.
P.W.4-Dr. A Murmu has conducted autopsy of the deceased
and found following:-
(i) Froth on nostrils
(ii) Liver, spleen and kidney congested
Time elapsed since death within 24 hours from post-mortem
examination.
No definite opinion regarding cause of death has been given
by him.
The viscera report of the dead body was preserved.
Page 8 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

Viscera report of the deceased of FSL, Bihar, which shows
that “Methyl Parathion” was detected in the material sent for viscera
examination. It further shows that “Methyl Parathion is an oregano
phosphorous pesticides, which is commonly used in agriculture for
killing pesticides and is poisonous”.
19. On the other hand, the defence witness (D.W.1) has stated that Jhuni
Pandit, Manik Pandit and Nandlal Pandit are living separately with their
respective family for about 15-16 years. They have their houses
separately at about a distance of 300 yards. Ext.A is the ration card in
the name of Nandlal Pandit, which shows that this card was issued in
the year 1998 and according to the entries were made from that period.
Ext.B is another ration card in the name of Chand Mohan Pandit, which
shows that it was issued in the year 2004-05.
20. It is here pertinent to scrutinize the evidence, points of arguments raised
on behalf of the appellants in the light of relevant provisions of law,
which are extracted here as under:-
304 B. Dowry Death reads as under :
(i) Whether 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 relatives of
her husband for, or in connection with, in demand for
dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death” and
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.
Page 9 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section
“Dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(ii) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
498 A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty -
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation .-For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any 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
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.]
113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.
When the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon for 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 purpose of this section, “dowry
death” shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B
of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 10 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

21. In view of the above provisions, in order to convict an accused for the
offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC, the following
essentials must be satisfied:-
(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.
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.

22. 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.
23. In the instant case, the post-mortem report of the deceased proved by
Dr. A. Murmu (P.W.4) disclosed that the cause of death was poisoning.
The father of the deceased, who happens to be informant of this case
and examined as P.W.2, has also proved that on the date of occurrence,
Page 11 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

he along with other two persons, namely Hiralal Mondal and Jagdish
Pandit went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and at about 11
pm, he heard the cry of his Samidhi , Nandlal Pandit, thereupon, he went
inside the house and found his daughter dead with froth coming from
her mouth due to poisoning. Therefore, it is established beyond doubt
that the death of the deceased has occurred “otherwise than under
normal circumstances” and First Ingredient of offence under section 304
B of IPC is proved.
24. So far the Second Ingredient is concerned, it is admitted fact that the
marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Manik Pandit two years
before prior to her death and the deceased died in her matrimonial home
on 10.11.1993. Therefore, she died within seven years of her marriage.
Accordingly, the Second Ingredient is also proved.
rd th
25. So far 3 and 4 ingredients are concerned, it is specifically stated in
the FIR that there was a constant demand of a bicycle and Rs.5,000/-
cash as dowry from the deceased by her husband and other family
members i.e. Nandlal Pandit (father-in-law), Jhuni Chand Pandit
( Bhaisur ) and Jamuni Devi (mother-in-law). But in his cross-
examination, the informant has admitted that at the time of incident, his
son-in-law was not present in the house and he was not charge-sheeted
in this case. So far the other accused persons are concerned, the main
allegation of demand of dowry against Nandlal Pandit, who happens to
be father-in-law of the deceased, has been died during pendency of this
Page 12 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

appeal and present appellants have taken ground that they have no
connection with the family affairs of the deceased and his husband and
in support of their version, they have adduced two separate rations cards
carrying the names of Nandlal Pandit and Chand Mohan Pandit. Hence,
the question of demand of dowry and cruelty meted with the deceased
soon before her death is not proved.
26. In this connection reliance has been placed upon reported judgment in
Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 9 SCC 759 ,
wherein at paras 11 to 13, it is observed as under:-
“ 11 . It is imperative, for invoking the aforesaid legal
presumption, to prove that “soon before her death” she was
subjected to such cruelty or harassment. Here, what the
prosecution achieved in proving at the most was that there
was persisting dispute between the two sides regarding the
dowry paid or to be paid, both in kind and in cash, and on
account of the failure to meet the demand for dowry, Neelam
Rani was taken by her parents to their house about one and a
half years before her death. Further evidence is that an
attempt was made to patch up between the two sides for
which a panchayat was held in which it was resolved that she
would go back to the nuptial home pursuant to which she was
taken by the husband to his house. This happened about ten to
fifteen days prior to the occurrence in this case. There is
nothing on record to show that she was either treated with
cruelty or harassed with the demand for dowry during the
period between her having been taken to the parental home
and her tragic end.
12 . In the absence of any such evidence it is not permissible
to take recourse to the legal presumption envisaged in
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. That rule of evidence is
Page 13 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

prescribed in law to obviate the prosecution of the difficulty
to further prove that the offence was perpetrated by the
husband, as then it would be the burden of the accused to
rebut the presumption.
13 . The corollary of the aforesaid finding is that the appellant
cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
But this would not save him from the offence under Section
498-A of the IPC for which there is overwhelming evidence,
particularly of PW 3, Bhagwan Dass, who heard from his
daughter, which evidence is admissible under Section 32 of
the Evidence Act, besides his own direct dialogue with the
appellant and his father. As the trial court and the High
Court found his evidence reliable, we hold that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC.”
27. In the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5
SCC 207, it has been held as under:-
“ 15 …….. “soon before” is a relative term which is required to be
considered under specific circumstances of each case and no
straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The
term “soon before” is not synonymous with the term
“immediately before” and is opposite of the expression “soon
after” as used and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of
the Evidence Act. These words would imply that the interval
should not be too long between the time of making the statement
and the death. It contemplates the reasonable time which, as
earlier noticed, has to be understood and determined under the
peculiar circumstances of each case. In relation to dowry deaths,
the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty or harassment
to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but
normally refer to a course of conduct. Such conduct may be
spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or harassment or
demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed
Page 14 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

to be “soon before death” if any other intervening circumstance
showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on
record, before such alleged treatment and the date of death. It
does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any
period. Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based
on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be
proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry, cruelty or
harassment based upon such demand and the date of death
should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances,
be treated as having become stale enough.
16 . No presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
would be drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the
alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute stood resolved
and there was no evidence of cruelty and harassment thereafter.
Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused
a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or
harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to
have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before
the date of death of the woman……….”
28. From the evidence of aforesaid ocular witnesses, it appears that the
husband of the deceased has not been charge-sheeted in this case and
the main allegation regarding demand of dowry and consequent torture
meted with the deceased is alleged against Nandlal Pandit only, who
was asking a bicycle and Rs.5,000/- cash as additional dowry. It further
appears that no specific overt act has been attributed against the present
appellants, Jamuni Devi, who happens to be mother-in-law aged about
80 years at present and Jhuni Pandit, brother-in-law( bhaisur ) of the
deceased, who is also married person having no connection with marital
affair in between his younger brother and his wife. Therefore,
presumption invoked under section 113 B of Evidence Act against these
Page 15 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006

2026:JHHC:32771

surviving appellants without any materials prima facie proving the
foundational facts and ingredients of section 304 B of IPC against them
has wrongly been invoked by the learned trial court. The main accused,
Nandlal Pandit, who was guilty for commission of offence charged
under section 304B of IPC, has been died. There is no iota of evidence
proving the charge under section 304B of IPC against the present
appellants.
29. In view of the above discussion and reasons, it appears that learned trial
court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available
on record and wrongly held the appellants guilty for the offence under
sections invoking the rebuttal presumption under section 113 of
Evidence Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the surviving appellants are hereby set aside
and this appeal is allowed .
30. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from liability of their
bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
31. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
32. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back
to the court concerned for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:- 06/11/2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06 /11/2026
Page 16 of 16
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.351 of 2006