Nirantari Devi And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 413 of 2017
------
Janani Pradhan, W/o Sri Ujjawal Pradhan, D/o Dhanu Pradhan, R/o
Vill.-Pansua, P.O.-Pansua, P.S.-Chakradharpur, Dist.-West Singhbhum.
… … … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 416 of 2017
------
1. Dulu Pradhan, Son of Sri Dhanu Pradhan,
2. Aditya Pradhan, Son of Sri Dhanu Pradhan,
3. Lankeshwar Pradhan, Son of Sri Dhanu Pradhan,
All are R/o Vill.-Pansua, P.O.-Pansua, P.S.-Chakradharpur, Dist.-West
Singhbhum. … … … Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
For the Appellant s : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
[ In both cases]
For the Resp. State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
[Cr.A.(DB) No. 413 of 2017]
: Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
[Cr.A.(DB) No. 416 of 20017]
------
J U D G M E N T
CAV On 29/09/2026 Pronounced On 05/11/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Appellant namely Nirantari Devi, wife of Dhanu Pradhan in Cr. Ap.
(D.B.) No. 413 of 2017 has expired, hence, the appeal preferred by her
th
stood abated vide order dated 29 September, 2026 and appellant
namely Dhanu Pradhan in Cr. Ap. (D.B.) No. 416 of 2017 has also
expired, hence, the appeal preferred by him also stood abated vide
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
th
order dated 29 September, 2026. Consequently, the surviving
appellants in both these appeals are re-numbered.
2. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mrs. Lily Sahay and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned
A.P.P.s in both these appeals.
3. These criminal appeals are preferred by the aforesaid appellants being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with their judgment of conviction dated
27.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2017 for the offence
under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC passed by
Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions
Trial Case No. 121 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, the appellants
named above have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years.
Factual Matrix:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals are that Ashwini
Pradhan (Informant-P.W.2) solemnized the marriage of his daughter
namely Janki Devi on 01.05.2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and
Customs with Dulu Pradhan, son of Dhanu Pradhan and just after
three month of their marriage, Rs. 50,000/- cash was demanded with
his daughter as a dowry by her in-laws and due to non-fulfillment of
the same, his daughter was tortured and ousted from her matrimonial
home and compelled to live in her parental home. It is further stated
that after mediation, the in-laws of his daughter took her to
matrimonial house but on 18.11.2009 at about 7:00 PM, the informant
received information through telephone that his daughter namely
Janki Devi has died due to burn injury. Thereafter, he along with his
2 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
family members and relatives rushed towards matrimonial house of
his daughter through vehicle and reaching there, saw the husband of
the deceased, Dulu Pradhan, father-in-law namely Dhanu Pradhan,
brother-in-law namely Aditya Pradhan and Lankeshwar Pradhan
were present at the place of occurrence and smell of kerosene oil was
coming from the body of the deceased. It is also alleged that mother-
in-law Nirantari Devi and Sister-in-law Janani Kumari fled away
seeing them. It is claimed by the informant that in-laws of the
deceased burnt his daughter pouring kerosene oil on her body.
On the basis of written report of informant, F.I.R. being
Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2009 was registered for the
offence under Section 304B/34 of the IPC against above named
accused persons.
5. After investigation of the case, the charge sheet was submitted on
31.03.2010 against all the above named accused persons and on
20.04.2010, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 121 of 2010 was registered. All
the accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and
pleaded innocent and claimed to be tried.
6. The learned trial Court after evaluating and considering the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record convicted and
sentenced the appellants as stated above.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, has argued that except P.W.-2
3 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
(Informant), no other prosecution witnesses have stated anything
against these appellants. It has further been submitted that the
informant in his deposition at para-2 has stated that he was demanded
Rs. 50,000/- but subsequently in Para-19, it is stated that his daughter
was demanded Rs. 50,000/-, hence, the evidence of P.W.-2 cannot be
relied upon due to inconsistent version in the deposition of the
informant, similarly, there is contradiction in the statement of the
informant made in F.I.R. and deposition which also falsify the case of
the prosecution that these appellants have ever tortured and
demanded anything as a dowry by his daughter. It has also been
submitted that the informant himself visited the matrimonial house of
his daughter on several occasions, but never complained of any
quarrel between the deceased and husband of the deceased. It has
further been submitted that the learned trial Court has also failed to
consider the fact that Dhanu Pradhan and Aditya Pradhan both were
not present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place
and had gone to relative’s house, which is situated far from the place
of occurrence and Lankeshwar Prasad was in duty at Adityapur
Factory, at the time of occurrence. The learned trial Court has also not
considered the evidence of P.W.-3 Anil Pradhan in proper perspective
where P.W.-3 has stated that he has no idea that demand of dowry
was made with the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of the same,
she was tortured. It is further submitted that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove any demand of dowry from the deceased or
her relatives, at any point of time as well as mental and physical
4 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
cruelty meted with her, due to non-fulfilment of any demand of
dowry. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the foundational facts of “dowry death” regarding
demand of any dowry by the appellants, soon before her death as well
as that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment on
account of non-fulfilment of such demand. Therefore, learned trial
Court has wrongly drawn the presumption of guilt under Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act and 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 order of sentence of the
appellants is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be
acquitted from the charges levelled against them and these appeals
may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the State
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State opposing
the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, have
submitted that the prosecution has very well proved that the deceased
died due to burn injuries under abnormal circumstances, at her
matrimonial home and the death occurred within seven years of her
marriage. It is also proved beyond doubt that the in-laws of the
deceased was very much instrumental in demanding Rs. 50,000/- as
dowry. Therefore, the prosecution has proved all the four
foundational facts invoking the definition of offence of “dowry death”
under Section 304B of the IPC. The learned trial Court has committed
5 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
no error of law in invoking the presumption of dowry under Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellants. There are
unrebutted, cogent and reliable evidence on record to conclusively
prove the guilt of the appellants. There is no reason to take a different
view than the learned trial Court. These appeals have no merits and fit
to be dismissed.
9. We have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment
in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.
10. It appears that the prosecution has examined altogether 8 (eight)
witnesses in this case.
P.W.-1 Kundan Pradhan
P.W.-2 Ashwini Pradhan, Informant
P.W.-3 Anil Pradhan
P.W.-4 Jai Prakash Pradhan
P.W.-5 Amarjeet Pradhan
P.W.-6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Medical Officer
P.W.-7 Pankaj Kumar Pradhan
P.W.-8 Fani Bhushan Marandi, I.O.
11. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution has
adduced following documentary evidence:-
Ext. 1 Signature of P.W.-2 on Written Report.
Ext. 2 Post Mortem report of the deceased.
Ext.-3 Signature of P.W.-7 on the seizure list.
Ext.-4 Written Report
Ext.-5 Formal F.I.R.
Ext.-6 Seizure List.
12. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the defence.
6 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
13. The sole point for determination in these appeals is “as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants
suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in these
appeals”?
Analysis, reasons and decision :
14. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, to satisfy our inner
conscience, it appears necessary to take brief resume of ocular
testimony of witnesses examined in this case.
P.W.-1 Kundan Pradhan has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.-2 Ashwini Pradhan is father of the deceased-cum-informant of
this case. He has deposed that the marriage of his daughter was
solemnized in the year 2009 with Dulu Pradhan and just after three
month of their marriage, in-laws of his daughter used to quarrel with
his daughter and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and also gave
threatening that if the same is not fulfilled, he would be in trouble.
Upon this, the informant went to the matrimonial house of his
deceased daughter and expressed his inability to pay Rs. 50,000/-.
This witness has stated that one week prior to the incident, father-in-
law and brother-in-law had come to take his daughter from her
parental home to matrimonial home and on the date of her death, in
the evening at about 7:00PM, he got information from telephone that
his daughter has died due to burn injury, thereafter, this witness
along with others went to the place of occurrence i.e. matrimonial
house of his deceased daughter and saw the dead body of his
7 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
daughter lying in the courtyard and all the accused persons were
present there. This witness asked as to how this incidence occurred,
then the above named accused persons did not tell anything and on
the same day, the informant along with others went to Police Station
and reported the occurrence to the Police.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he came to
know from his daughter that demand of Rs. 50,000/- as a dowry was
made. This witness has been cross-examined at length but has
remained intact.
P.W.-3 Anil Pradhan is the villager of the informant who had gone
to matrimonial house of the deceased along with the informant and
saw the dead body lying in courtyard and died due to burn injuries
and does not know what was the reason behind the occurrence.
P.W.-4 Jai Prakash Pradhan is also the villager of the informant who
had gone to matrimonial house of the deceased along with the
informant and P.W.-3 and saw the dead body lying in courtyard and
death was due to burn injuries and does not know what was the
reason behind the occurrence.
This witness in his cross-examination has stated that his sister
has got married in the same village where deceased was married
and due to that reason, this witness used to visit there and he never
heard that deceased was being tortured for want of dowry and he
came to know from the informant just a week before about the
incident that in-laws of the deceased demanded Rs. 50,000/-
8 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
P.W.-5 Amarjeet Pradhan is the brother of the deceased who has
deposed that just after three months of marriage, in-laws of his
deceased sister were demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash as a dowry and
this fact was narrated by deceased herself when she had come to
parental home. This witness further deposed that the husband of the
deceased was called upon to Sasural and then his sister went with
her husband. Thereafter, just after one week, he got informant
through telephone that her sister died due to burn injury and rushed
toward the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter and saw the
dead body of his sister lying in the courtyard. It is stated that prior to
incidence, husband, father and mother-in –law, both brother-in-law
and sister-in-law were demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash as a dowry. It is
also stated that kerosene oil contained was recovered just beside the
dead body.
In his cross-examination, this witness stated that two times
dowry was demanded and demand of dowry was made by all in-
laws members but why demand of dowry was made, was never
discussed with in-laws of the deceased except the husband.
P.W.-6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha
conducted the postmortem on the
dead body of the deceased and found following:-
External :- whole body burn 100%, skin white in colour, skin peel
out from the body, body limbs are rigid and flexed known as
pugilistic posture.
9 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
On dissection: - Skull intact, larynx and trachea tube contains soddy
particle and their mucus membrane congested and frothy mucus
inside.
Thorax : - No ribs facture. Lungs-congested, Heart-both chamber full
of blood and colour of blood is cherry red.
Abdomen:
- Liver, spleen and other organs are congested. Stomach
contains digested food materials, uterus-small in size.
Time since death: - Six to Forty-Eight hours.
Cause of death: - Asphaxial due to suffocation caused by burn
P.W.-7 Pankaj Kumar Pradhan is a hearsay witness who heard
about the occurrence from her maternal uncle i.e. informant and had
gone to place of occurrence where he saw the dead body lying in the
courtyard and police had also come there and seized red colour
container and prepared seizure list in which this witness had put his
signature.
P.W.-8 Fani Bhushan Marandi, I.O. has stated that on 19.11.2009, he
was posted as S.I. in Chakradharpur Police Station and on that day, a
written application was given in the police by the informant and
investigation of the case was given to him. He visited the place of
occurrence and seized five liter empty plastic bottle of red colour
having smell of kerosene oil from the place of occurrence in presence
of two independent witness namely Pankaj Kumar Pradhan (P.W.-7)
and Trilochan and prepared seizure list marked as Ext.-6 and the
inquest report was also prepared by him in his writing and signature
of informant and one Trilochan Prasad was taken over the same. He
10 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
also inspected the place of occurrence which is mud-tiled house of
the accused persons having facing towards north, the entrance of the
house is west-south direction, having five rooms and there is a room
after entering from main gate and the deceased was burnt in the east
side of veranda. This witness recorded the re-statement of informant
and statement of Kundan Pradan, Anil Pradhan, Pankaj Pradhan,
Amarjeet Pradhan. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-
mortem to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. This witness stated that all the
accused persons were absconding and did not find them at the place
of occurrence and after finding sufficient evidence, submitted charge-
sheet against all the accused persons.
15. On the other hand, the case of the defence is total denial from the
occurrence and pleaded that they have committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated.
16. Before imparting our 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 seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life.”
11 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
-- 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;
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)
12 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
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.
17. 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.
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.
18. 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.
13 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
19. Applying the aforesaid legal parameters for constituting dowry
death, we have to appreciate the evidence available on record led by
both the parties.
20. In the instant case, the death of the deceased as per post-mortem
report proved by P.W.-6 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha was found asphaxial
due to suffocation caused by 100% burn. The deceased died at her
matrimonial home while in custody of her husband and in-laws. It
has also come on record that the I.O. has seized and prepared a
seizure list of a red colour five litre plastic bottle having smell of
kerosene oil, hence, it is quite obvious that the death of the deceased
happened otherwise than under normal circumstance which
confirms the first requirement of Section 304B of the IPC.
21. The second requirement is also proved by establishing that the
deceased was married with the appellant-Dulu Pradhan on -
01.05.2009 and she died under unnatural death on 18.11.2009 i.e.
within 7 years of marriage.
22. So far as, third and fourth conditions are concerned, there is
consistent evidence of P.W.-2 Ashwini Pradhan that just after three
months of marriage, accused persons including husband of the
deceased daughter started putting pressure on his daughter to bring
Rs. 50,000/- and whenever the deceased used to come her parental
home, she used to weep and used to narrate her sufferings at Sasural.
It also appears that deceased’s father had convinced the in-laws of
his daughter and they took his daughter to her matrimonial home
and just after one week i.e. in 18.11.2009, P.W.-2 came to know that
14 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
his daughter has died at her matrimonial home, due to burn. The
other witness P.W.-5, brother of the deceased also corroborates the
factum of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted with the
deceased, which was disclosed to him by the deceased, when she
came to her parental home. It also appears that due to non-fulfilment
of the said demand of money, deceased was being subjected to
physical and mental cruelty and she was let at her parental home for
some time. He has further deposed that prior to the occurrence, he
had come to know from his sister that husband of his deceased sister,
her father and mother-in –law, both brother-in-law and sister-in-law
were demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash, as a dowry.
The unrebutted testimony of aforesaid witnesses also proves
the ingredients nos. (iii) and (iv).
23. It is trite that above presumption raised under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act is rebuttable one, but surprisingly, the defence has
neither adduced any evidence nor elicited anything in the cross
examination of witnesses setting up their defence and no specific
plea has been taken in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
while answering the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them. Therefore, the defence has failed to rebut the presumption of
law raised against them under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act can legitimately be raised in this case against the above named
accused persons.
15 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaggu
Ram reported in (2008) 12 SCC 51 has held that:-
“Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if
soon before her death a woman is subjected to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with any demand
for dowry by the person who is accused of causing her
death then the court shall presume that such person
has caused the dowry death. The presumption under
Section 113-B is a presumption of law and once the
prosecution establishes the essentials ingredients
mentioned therein it becomes the duty of the court to
raise a presumption that the accused caused the
dowry death.”
25. In view of the above discussions and reasons, we do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in
these appeals filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court
against the appellants is hereby confirmed and upheld .
26. In result, both these appeals stand dismissed.
27. Consequently, the suspension of sentence granted to the appellants
of both these cases during pendency of these appeals, is hereby
cancelled. Accordingly, the appellants named above 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 steps for arrest and
16 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32473-DB
detention of the appellants for sustaining the remaining period of
sentence awarded to them.
28. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
29. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent to
concerned trial court for information and needful.
( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
I agree
Ananda Sen, J.
Ananda Sen, J.)
(
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 05/11/2026
Basant/ - N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
17 Cr. A. (D.B.) Nos. 413 & 416 of 2017