2026:JHHC:210-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.23 of 1998 (R)

-----

1. Lakshman Prasad, son of late Bhukhra Sahu

2. Smt. Janki Devi w/o Lakshman Prasad

Both are residents of Kokar Choubey Colony, PS: Sadar,

District-Ranchi .… … Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) .… … Respondent

With

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1998(R)

-----

Dinesh Prasad, son of Sri Laxman Prasad, resident of Kokar Choubey

Colony, PS: Sadar, District: Ranchi .… … Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) .… … Respondent

-----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellants : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumder, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Spl.P.P.

------

C.A.V. ON: 06.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:06/01/2026

[Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. Since both the appeal arises out of the common judgment of

conviction dated 28.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 02.02.1998, as

such, they have been tagged together and taken up together for analogous

hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer:

2. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred under section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of

conviction dated 28.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 02.02.1998,

passed by the learned 4

th

Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in

Sessions Trial No. 289 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the learned

court below has convicted the appellants under section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB)

2026:JHHC:210-DB

2

No.22 of 1998(R) namely Dinesh Prasad to undergo RI for life and the

appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.23 of 1998(R) namely

Lakshman Prasad and Smt. Janki Devi were sentenced to undergo RI for

seven years each.

Prosecution Case:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report dated

28.09.1995, of the informant Jeewachh Sahu (P.W.-1) is that daughter of

the informant, Renu Sahu was married with the appellant Dinesh Prasad

in the month of July, 1991. His daughter was tortured by her husband

Dinesh Sahu and her in-laws and hence, a case being Sadar PS Case No.

47 of 1993 was lodged by her daughter. Informant further stated that

three months ago the said case was compromised on the saying of

Dinesh and his family members. On 28.09.1995, at about 04:00 PM, the

informant got information from his son-in-law (appellant Dinesh Prasad

herein) that his daughter had bolted the door of the room from inside and

is not giving any reply. Then, informant reached with his wife, at the

matrimonial home of his daughter and found that the door of the room

was locked from inside. Then informant pushed the door and when

dooropenedthey found his daughter Renu was hanging dead with sari

around her neck.

4. On the basis of written report of the informant Sadar P.S. Case no.

137 of 1995 dated 28.09.1995 was registered against the appellants

under section 306/34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge-

sheet no. 47 dated 22.12.1995, was submitted under section 306/34 IPC

2026:JHHC:210-DB

3

against the appellants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and case was

committed to the court of Sessions.

5. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 306/34 and

in alternative under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which

they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Trial commenced and at the conclusion of the trial appellants were

convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined altogether

four witnesses.PW-1 Jeewachh Sahu is the father of the deceased and

informant of the case; PW-2 Kamini Devi, is the mother of the

deceased; PW-3 is Dr. Ram Swaroop Sahu who had conducted post-

mortem on the dead body of the deceased and PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector

of police and investigating officer of the case.

8. Defence had examined one witness namely Basant Kishore Narayan,

who is a formal witness.

9. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses,

examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of

the accused persons, found the said appellants guilty and accordingly,

convicted in the manner as indicated hereinabove.

10. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present

appeals have been preferred.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants:

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case

where there is no ingredient of Section 304B IPC are available out of

three ingredients provided under the aforesaid section. One of the

2026:JHHC:210-DB

4

ingredients is that the demand for dowry must be shown to have

occurred soon before the death of the deceased and she was subjected

to cruelty. It has been contended that no such ingredient has been

established by the prosecution to attract this requirement, therefore, in

the absence of one of the essential ingredients, no case is made out

under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

12. The fact about the demand of dowry is also not established as being

committed immediately prior to death of the deceased, since the

deceased was living in the matrimonial house from July 1991, but the

death took place on 28.09.1995.

13. There is no bodily injury to attract any ingredient or evidence, as is

being claimed by the prosecution, showing the involvement of the in-

laws, the appellants herein, in either forcing the deceased to commit

suicide or in committing her murder.

14. It is further submitted that this is a case of suicide, as would be

evident from the medical report, which is also corroborated by the

investigating officer.

15. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in case of Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh vs. State of

Uttarakhand reported in (2024)13 SCC 649 and Karan Singh vs.

State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214, in order to

strengthen the arguments that no dowry was demanded immediately

prior to the death of the deceased.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

5

Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-State:

16. The following grounds have been taken on behalf of the learned

A.P.P. for the State: -

(i) So far as the argument of the appellants that there is no

ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code to the

effect no demand of dowry has been shown by the

prosecution soon before her death as the case under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code instituted in the year 1993

by the deceased was being contested by the parties and

ultimately culminated in acquittal due to the effect of the

compromise between the wife and husband on 28.09.1995,

in this regard learned counsel for the State has submitted

that when the said criminal case resulted in acquittal due to

the effect of the compromise, i.e., on 28.09.1995, and on the

same day i.e., on 28.09.1995, the deceased was killed by the

accused/appellants, so, the demand of dowry is said to be

proximate to the death of the deceased.

(ii) The conduct of the appellants is also suspicious in a

situation because when deceased had locked herself in the

room of the appellants house then instead of making an

effort to enter the room of the deceased and try to save the

life of the deceased, the appellant/accused had gone to the

in-laws' house and to give information about such an

incident.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

6

(iii) The suspicious conduct of the appellants is further evident

from the fact that when the father of the deceased went to

the matrimonial house of the deceased, it was the husband,

namely, Dinesh Prasad who gave an indication to the

informant to open the door of the southern side of the room

and when this door was pushed by the informant, the door

opened and deceased was found hanging from the fan, tied

with a saree.

(iv) It has been contended that giving the indication by the

husband to the father of the deceased to try to open the door

on the southern side of the house clarifies that the husband-

appellant was aware of the entire affair regarding the death

of the deceased, said to have been committed by them.

(v) It has been submitted as per the report of the doctor,

wherein a ligature mark of 1½ cm to 2 cm was found on the

upper part of the neck, as such the alleged incident has fully

been substantiated by the Medical report.

17. Therefore, learned counsel for the State submitted that learned

trial court on the basis of evidence of the witnesses and documents

available on record has rightly convicted the appellants under

section 304 B of the IPC and hence, requires no interference by

this court.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

7

Analysis

18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents

and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned

trial Court in the impugned order.

19. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of

the parties as also the legality and propriety of the impugned

judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses. For ready reference, the relevant portion of

their testimonies is quoted as under:

20. PW-1 Jeewachh Sahu, is the informant of the case and the father of

the deceased. Informant has stated in his evidence that marriage of his

daughter Renu Sahu alias Bimla was solemnized with the accused

Dinesh Prasad on 14.07.1991 and just after marriage Dinesh

(appellant husband) and his mother and father (appellants herein)

started demanding scooter, Rs.50,000/- and photocopy machine and in

this regard accused persons subjected torture to Renu(deceased). In

this regard Renu had written letter to him. Informant has identified an

envelope which bears informant’s address and stamp of Post Office,

to be in hand writing of Renu was marked as Ext.-1.On receiving this

letter informant had gone to the matrimonial home of Renu and tried

to pacify the matter, but, the accused persons pay no heed. It had

further been deposed that earlier his daughter (deceased) had lodged

Sadar PS Case No. 47 of 1993 under section 498A of the IPC and

section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Thereafter,

accused/appellant Dinesh Prasad had filed MTS Case No. 23 of 1993,

2026:JHHC:210-DB

8

for dissolution of marriage before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

Informant further stated that accused Dinesh and his mother and father

were arrested and after the intervention of court on 27.09.1995, GR

case no. 1448/1993 concluded and under the agreement the said MTS

Case No. 23 of 1993was withdrawn.

21. Informant had further stated that after the agreement, on 04.06.1995,

Dinesh took Renu to her matrimonial home at Kokar. Dinesh came to

his office on 28.09.1995 at about 4 PM in the evening and informed

him that his daughter had bolted the door of the room from inside and

closed herself. Then, informant along with his wife reached at the

residence of the accused/appellants at Kokar and on seeing the Renu’s

room closed, he raised alarm several times. He tried to open the

eastern side of the door and then, and on saying of Dinesh, he pushed

the door situated in the south and on pushing the door, the door

opened. When he entered the room, he found his daughter Renu was

hanging with sari draped around her neck with fan. They, tried to

remove her, so that she can be revived, but she was dead. Accused

persons were standing there, but, accused persons did not help.

22. Informant had further testified that accused persons on the conclusion

of the criminal case onb27.09.1995 had killed Renu(deceased) on

28.09.1995. Informant further stated that his daughter used to write

letter about her condition. Informant has identified three letters, two

inland letter and one envelop letter, which having the handwriting of

Renu and bears the stamp of post office.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

9

23. Letters were marked as Ext.1 to Ext.-1/3 and envelop were marked as

Ext.-2 and Ext.-2/1. Informant had filed two certified copies of MTS

Case No.-23/93, which were marked as Ext.-3 and Ext.-3/1 and

certified copy of G.R. case no. 1448 of 1993 was also filed, which

was marked as Ext.-3/2. The FIR was marked as Ext.-4

24. In his cross-examination P.W.1 informant has stated that the first

information report is in his handwriting and previous case 47/93 was

filed by his daughter and in that case also there was allegation of

demand of Canon machine, scooter and Rs.50,000/- and order was

passed in the said case on 28.09.1995 Judicial Magistrate in favour of

the accused/appellant. He does not know whether affidavit dated

20.06.1995 was given by her daughter and in that case, compromise

dated 04.09.1995 was filed. Informant further stated that MTS Case

no.- 23/1993 was filed by the accused and in this case compromise

application was filed. The aforesaid compromise was prepared on

consent of him and his daughter. He had seen the compromise petition

and his daughter had signed on the compromise in his presence.The

compromise was arrived on seven points and he has knowledge of

compromise.

25. PW-2 Kamini Devi, is the mother of the deceased. She has stated in her

evidence that her daughter was married to Renu alias Indra with Dinesh

on 14.07.1991 at Ranchi. Her daughter was tortured and beaten at her

matrimonial home for dowry and in this regard her daughter had written

letter to her. Her daughter had lodged a dowry case against the accused

persons in the year 1993 and accused Dinesh had filed divorce case, but,

2026:JHHC:210-DB

10

in the said divorce case was compromised in the court on some

conditions. After the compromise, her daughter had gone to her

matrimonial home. P.W-2 further stated that in the dowry case, her

daughter had compromised on 28.09.1995. On the day of occurrence at

4PM in the evening, her son-in law came to her house and informed

them that Renu had closed the door and is inside the room for four hours.

Then, she along with her husband, went to Kokar, where family

members of Dinesh were there. They raised halla several times, and

pushed the door, but, door did not open, then, Dinesh told to push the

other door and on pushing the said door, two times, the door opened.

When she entered the room with her husband, then she found her

daughter hanging with hook of the fan in saree.

26. In her cross-examination, P.W.-2 stated that on the saying of her son-

in-law, she had gone to the matrimonial home of Renu. All the three

doors of Renu’s roomwere closed and on raising halla, when Renu did

not reply, then her husband pushed the door 2-3 times, then door

opened.

27. PW-3 Dr. Ram Swaroop Sahu had conducted post mortem

examination of the dead body of the deceased Renu Sahu on

29.01.1995 and found the following injuries on her person-

(i) Ligature Mark- 1 ½ to 2 c.m. in width situated on the upper

part of the neck. It is oblique and high up towards back of the

neck. The ligature mark is prominent from left mastoid to the

right mastoid region on the front part and absent over the back

2026:JHHC:210-DB

11

of the neck. The ligature mark is abraded and contused at

places.

(ii) There is dry saliva on the front part of chest. Viscera has

been preserved.

(iii) Opinion – The ligature mark is ante-mortem. Death is due

to hanging.

Time elapsed since death is 12 to 36 hours from the time of post

mortem examination.

In his cross-examination doctor stated that such ligature marks

are found generally in suicidal cases and rarely in homicidal

case. In suicidal cases such injuries are found.

28. PW-4 Sheo Mangal Singh is the Sub-Inspector of police and

investigating officer of the case.Investigating officer has stated in his

evidence that on 28.09.1995, at 4 PM in the evening Jeewachh Sahu

came at the police station and gave his written report. Investigating

has identified the endorsement on the fardbeyan and formal FIR,

which were marked as Ex.-6 and Ext.-7 respectively.Investigating

officer further stated that on assuming the charge of investigation, he

went to the place of occurrence.The place of occurrence is at Jamun

Tola, in Choubey Colony, Kokar, P.S.Sadar, in a room of house of

accused Dinesh Prasad.The main door of the house is towards south,

which is grilled and there is a room in north in which there is three

doors in south, north and east and there is a window in the west and in

this room body of deceased Renu was laying. He found the head of

2026:JHHC:210-DB

12

the deceased in the east and in her neck, there was triangular mark and

neck was draped with sari.

29. Investigating officer had further stated that the northern door of the

room was closed and he did not find any table or chair and did not

find any hook on the ceiling of the roof. Investigating officer had

prepared the inquest report and he identified the inquest report which

was marked as Ext.-8.

30. In his cross-examination investigating officer stated that after reading

the written report, he commenced the investigation and in the said

written report Sadar P.S case no. 47/93 was mentioned. He had

reached at the place of occurrence at 16.40 hours, after registration of

the FIR and accused Lakshman Prasad, and Janki Devi, were not

presentthereand he came to know that both had gone to village. He

arrested the main accused Dinesh on 29.09.1995 at 5 AM in the

morning.

31. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis

argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to

examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence by formulating following questions

to be answered by this Court:

(I) Whether the material/evidence as has come in course of

trial, is sufficient to attract the offence committed

under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code?

2026:JHHC:210-DB

13

(II) Whether all the ingredients of 304 B IPC, are available

in the present case for invoking the provision of Section 304

B of the Indian Penal Code?

Re: Issue No.I and Issue No. II

32. Since both the issues are interlinked herein therefore will be taken

together.

33. Before proceeding further, it would be fruitful to discuss the admitted

facts which has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and

documents exhibited before the learned trial court. The admitted facts

are that-

(i) Appellant Dinesh Prasad and deceased Renu were married in

July, 1991.

(ii) Deceased Renu died on 28.09.1995

(iii) Deceased Renu had lodged Sadar PS Case No. 47 of

1993(G.R. case no. 1448/1993) under section 498A of the IPC

and section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act, against the appellants.

(iv) Appellant-husband Dinesh Prasad had filed suit for divorce

being MTS case no. 23/1993.

(v) The aforesaid Sadar PS Case No. 47 of 1993 was compromised

between the parties and based on the compromise petition

between the partiescourt of Judicial Magistrate,1

st

Class,

Ranchi, had acquitted the appellants for the charges under

section 498A of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961,

by order dated 28.09.1995.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

14

(vi) On the date of acquittal in Sadar PS Case No. 47 of 1993(G.R.

case no. 1448/1993) i.e 28.09.1995 Renu (deceased) was found

hanged in her matrimonial home.

34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect it would be apt to

discuss pertinent to analyses the law on dowry death. Section 304-

B IPC, which defines, and provides the punishment for dowry

demand, reads as under:

"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 purpose 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."

35. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that Section 304-

B (1) defines "dowry death" of a woman. It provides that "dowry

death" is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily

injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within

seven years of 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, in connection with demand for dowry. Sub-

clause (2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

15

36. Thus, it is evident that there are three conditions in the aforesaid

statute and if those three conditions are fulfilled then the case will

come under the purview of Section 304-B. Three conditions which

culled out from section 304-B are as follows:

i. The death caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs

otherwise within under normal circumstance.

ii. Death was occurred within seven years of her marriage.

iii. It has been shown that soon before her death she was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband in connection with any demand for

dowry.

37. It needs to refer herein that in order to sustain the conviction

under Section 304B of the IPC, it is mandatory to establish that soon

before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any

demand for dowry and death caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs

otherwise within under normal circumstance within seven years of

victim's marriage.

38. After going through the statutory provision relating to Section 304 B

IPC, it would be pertinent to see the judicial decisions related to

Section 304 B IPC.

39. In case of Major Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 5 SCC 201 a

three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the

guideline wherein it has been specifically observed that in order to

2026:JHHC:210-DB

16

sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, cruelty or harassment

is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment

is being quoted as under:

"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following

essential ingredients are to be established:

(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or

otherwise than under a "normal circumstance";

(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her

marriage;

(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or any relative of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with

demand of dowry; and

(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the

woman soon before her death."

40. It needs to refer herein that the cruelty or harassment differs from case

to case. Cruelty can be mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is

also of different shades. It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or

ridiculing or humiliating a woman. It can be depriving her of

economic resources or essential amenities of life. The list is

illustrative and not exhaustive.

41. Physical cruelty could be actual beating or causing pain and harm to

the person of a woman. Every such instance of cruelty and related

harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman. Some

instances may be so grave as to have a lasting impact on a woman.

Some instances which degrade her dignity may remain, etched in her

memory for a long time.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

17

42. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B IPC cannot

be construed to mean "immediately before". It 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.

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. 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.

43. The aforesaid position was emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1,

wherein it has been held which reads as under:

"15. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict

interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted.

Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the

words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before". Rather,

they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The factum of

cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the spectrum of

cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or even

emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No straitjacket

formulae can therefore be laid down by this Court to define what

exactly the phrase "soon before"entails.

17. Therefore, courts should use their discretion to determine if the

period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim

would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the

above determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live

link" between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim."

2026:JHHC:210-DB

18

44. When the prosecution shows that "soon before her death such woman

has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with,

any demand for dowry", a presumption of causation arises against the

accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Section 113-B of

the Evidence Act reads as under:

"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 before her death such woman has 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 304-B of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)."

45. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the word "shall" has

been stipulated therein which provides mandatory application on the

part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the

person who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection

with any demand of dowry and as such onus lies on the accused to

rebut the presumption and in case of Section 113-B relatable

to Section 304-B IPC, the onus to prove shifts on the accused.

46. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying on the provisions of Section

113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Evidence Act")

and Section 304-B IPC, where the words "soon before her death" find

mention, the following observations have been made in the case

of Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 :

2026:JHHC:210-DB

19

"17. Thus, the words "soon before" appear in Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act, 1872 and also in Section 304-BIPC. For the

presumptions contemplated under these sections to spring into action,

it is necessary to show that the cruelty or harassment was caused soon

before the death. The interpretation of the words "soon before" is,

therefore, important. The question is how "soon before"? This

would obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. It relates to the

mindset of people which varies from person to person. Cruelty can be

mental or it can be physical. Mental cruelty is also of different shades.

It can be verbal or emotional like insulting or ridiculing or

humiliating a woman. It can be giving threats of injury to her or her

near and dear ones. It can be depriving her of economic resources or

essential amenities of life. It can be putting restraints on her

movements. It can be not allowing her to talk to the outside world. The

list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Physical cruelty could be actual

beating or causing pain and harm to the person of a woman. Every

such instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact

on the mind of a woman. Some instances may be so grave as to have a

lasting impact on a woman. Some instances which degrade her dignity

may remain, etched in her memory for a long time. Therefore, "soon

before" is a relative term. In matters of emotions we cannot have fixed

formulae. The time-lag may differ from case to case. This must be kept

in mind while examining each case of dowry death.

18. In this connection we may refer to the judgment of this Court in

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5

SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] where this Court considered the term

"soon before". The relevant observations are as under : (SCC pp. 222-

23, para 15)

'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

2026:JHHC:210-DB

20

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 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.' Thus,

there must be a nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or

harassment, based upon such demand and the date of death. The

test of proximity will have to be applied. But, it is not a rigid test. It

depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and calls for a

pragmatic and sensitive approach of the court within the confines

of law."

(emphasis supplied)

47. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v.

Jogendra, (2022) 5 SCC 401 has pithily summarized the law on

Section 304-BIPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence. For ready

reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

"17.In the above context, we may usefully refer to a recent decision of

a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab

[Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, (2021) 6 SCC 108 : (2021) 2 SCC

(Cri) 771] that has restated (at SCC pp. 111-12, para 9) the detailed

guidelines that have been laid down in Satbir Singh v. State of

Haryana [Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2

SCC (Cri) 745] , both authored by N.V. Ramana, C.J. relating to trial

2026:JHHC:210-DB

21

under Section 304-BIPC where the law on Section 304-BIPC

and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been pithily summarised in

the following words : (Satbir Singh case [Satbir Singh v. State of

Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 745] , SCC p. 13, para

38)

"38.1. Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the

legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry

demand.

38.2. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the

necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-

BIPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable

presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act operates against the accused.

38.3. The phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-BIPC

cannot be construed to mean "immediately before". The prosecution

must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the

dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the

husband or his relatives.

38.4. Section 304-BIPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in

categorising death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason

for such non-categorisation is due to the fact that death occurring

"otherwise than under normal circumstances" can, in cases, be

homicidal or suicidal or accidental."

(emphasis supplied)

48. Reverting to the present case, Renu was married to the appellant

Dinesh Prasad in the month of July, 1991 and Renu died on

28.09.1995.Hence, deceased Renu died within seven years of her

marriage therefore, one of the essentials elements of the offence under

section 304-B IPC is satisfied.

49. Now, coming to the second condition which relate to deceased being

subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand by husband or

2026:JHHC:210-DB

22

any relative, soon before her death, this Court find that informant

P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased has stated that just after

marriage Dinesh and his mother and father started demanding scooter,

Rs.50,000/- and photocopy machine and accused persons tortured

Renu and in this regard his daughter had written letter to him and the

same has been exhibited before the learned Trial Court.

50. Further, earlier daughter of the informant had lodged Sadar PS Case

No. 47 of 1993 (G.R.case no. 1448/1993) under section 498A of the

IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The institution of

the aforesaid case itself substantiated the fact that deceased was meted

out with the cruelty by the hand of appellants.

51. Further, P.W-2, who is the mother of the deceased, has also stated that

her daughter was tortured and beaten at her matrimonial home for

dowry and in this regard her daughter had written letter and she had

lodged a dowry case against the accused persons in the year 1993.

52. Both informant father P.W.-1 and mother P.W.-2 of the deceased had

stated that her daughter had written letter to them from her

matrimonial home about demand of dowry and torture given to her by

the accused persons.In this regard prosecution had exhibited letters,

which are marked as Ext.-1, Ext.-1/1, Ext.-1/2 and Ext.-1/3 out of

which two are inland letters. Envelop were also exhibited which are

marked as Ext.-2 and Ext.-2/1.

53. On going through the record, this Court find that both the inland

letters and envelop bears the stamp/seal of the post office. On perusal

of these letters, we find that in these letters, deceased had written that

2026:JHHC:210-DB

23

she was being tortured in various ways for Rs. 50,000/- and Scotter

and for this she was beaten. She had apprehension of her death and

she was forced to sign on a divorce paper. Therefore, the demand of

dowry and torture has fully been corroborated from the aforesaid

letters which were written in1993.

54. This Court is conscious with the fact that as persection 304 B of IPC

the demand of dowry shall be “soon before the death of the deceased”

as discussed and referred hereinabove. In the aforesaid context we

find that the deceased had filed case under section 498A of IPC and

section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961against these appellants

being lodged as Sadar PS Case No. 47 of 1993, G.R.Case no.

1448/1993, and appellant-husband Dinesh Prasad had filed divorce

suit being had filed MTS no. 23/1993. On going through the record,

we find certified copy of order dated 28.09.1995 passed in G.R.Case

no. 1448/1993 by J.M. 1

st

Class, Ranchi. On perusal of this order, we

find that all the appellants were charged under section under section

498A of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, butdue to

compromise arrived between the parties, learned court had

acquittedthe appellants. Appellants have filed the copy of petition

seeking permission to compromise which has been filed before the

court of J.M. 1

st

Class, Ranchi, which was marked as Ext.-A and on

perusal this compromise petition, we find signature of deceased Renu

dated 16.08.1995on this compromise petition and in the said case

final order was passed on 28.09.1995 and Renuon 28.09.1995 itself,

was found hanged in her matrimonial.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

24

55. Hence, ongoing through this chronology of dates i.e. 16.08.1995, the

date on which deceased had signed on the compromise petition (Ext.-

A), order of acquittal passed on 28.09.1995, which was based on

compromise petition between the parties and again on the date of

acquittal itself i.e. on 28.09.1995, deceased was found hanging in her

matrimonial home. Hence, evidence of informant father P.W.-1 and

mother P.W-2 of the deceased Renu and documentary evidence

proves that there was proximate link for demand of dowry and related

torturer soon before the death deceasedRenu and she was subjected to

cruelty for dowry by the appellants as compromise in the G.R.Case

no. 1448/93 and death of the deceased all occurred within a span of

one and half month.

56. Now we shall discuss the remaining condition whether the death of

Renu occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance. It is

admitted fact that Renu died in her matrimonial home on 28.09.1995.

In the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W-2 it has come that on 28.09.1995

at about 4PM their son-in-law Dinesh Prasad had informed them that

Renu had bolted the door of the room from inside and closed

herself.Thereafter, father/informant P.W.-1 and mother P.W.-2 of the

deceased, had reached the matrimonial home of her daughter and

found the door locked.

57. In paragraph-7 of his evidence, informant P.W.-1has stated that on

raising alarm when, Renu did not open the door then informant P.W.-

1, tried to open the door of the eastern side of the room, but on saying

of Dinesh (appellant husband herein), informant pushed the southern

2026:JHHC:210-DB

25

door as a result door opened and they found her daughter hanging

with fan by saree.

58. P.W.-2 mother of the deceased in paragraph-5 of her examination -

in-chief had stated that they raised halla several times, but, door was

not opened, then, Dinesh told to push the other door and on pushing

the said door, two times, the door opened and in her cross-

examination at paragraph-7, P.W.-2 had stated that when her husband

pushed the door 2-3 times, then door was opened.

59. In the evidence it has come that in the alleged room, where Renu

(deceased) was found hanging, consisted of three doors and from the

evidence of informant P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it is apparent that one door

of the room was unbolted and pushing the said door, it opened.

60. As per the contention the learned counsel for the appellants, deceased

committed suicide by hanging herself.The question remains whether

death of the deceased Renu was suicide by hanging or homicidal

death.

61. From the evidence of doctor, argument of defence and prosecution

witnesses and evidences available on record, it is established that

death was not under ordinary circumstance and hence, it needs to be

explained. On going through the post mortem report, we find that

doctor had found ligature Mark- 1 ½ to 2 c.m. in width situated on the

upper part of the neck and opined that ligature mark is ante-mortem

and death was due to hanging.

62. So, this post-mortem report has to be tested in the light of the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other facts and

2026:JHHC:210-DB

26

circumstances.As per the evidence of informant P.W.-1 and P.W-2,

out of the three doors of the said room, where deceased was found

hanging with fan, one door of the room was unbolted and on pushing

the said door, the door opened.Hence, question arises why deceased,

who is going to commit suicide by hanging himself with fan, will not

close the door and that too when deceased was living inher

matrimonial home.

63. Here, it is pertinent to note that in his statement under section 313

Cr.P.C, appellant Dinesh had admitted that when door was pushed by

the informant it opened and Renu was found hanging. Hence, it

cannot be accepted that deceased had not closed the door and

committed suicide without closing the door.

64. The learned trial court also rightly came to the conclusion that

accused Dinesh Prasad had indicated the door which could be opened

as soon as it was pushed by P.W.-1 and hence, the room was not

actually closed from all side. Learned trial court had also noted that

the defense taken by the accused persons that deceased committed

suicide alone and on her own, is found imaginary and is not

acceptable.

65. But,even if contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is

accepted that deceased had committed suicide, then also appellants

will not be exonerated of the charges under section 304 B of IPC, if

ingredients of the section 304B IPC is fulfilled, reason being that the

Hon’ble Apex court in case of Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1

SCC 371, related to dowry death had come to the finding that death of

2026:JHHC:210-DB

27

the deceased was not natural and hence, held that “in the result it was

an unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming

that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had

occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section

304-B is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the

prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an

offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable

doubt.” Paragraph-5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below-

“5. Both the courts below have held that the two appellants did not

send the deceased to her parents’ house and drove out the brother as

well as the father of the deceased complaining that scooter and

television have not been given as dowry. We have carefully examined

this part of the prosecution case and we are satisfied that the

prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the

appellants treated the deceased cruelly and the same squarely comes

within the meaning of “cruelty” which is an essential under Section

304-B and that such cruelty was for demand for dowry. It is an

admitted fact that death occurred within seven years of the marriage.

Therefore three essentials are satisfied. Now we shall see whether the

other essential namely whether the death occurred otherwise than

under normal circumstances is also established? From the evidence of

PW 1, the father, PW 2 the brother, and PW 3 the mother, it is clear

that they were not even informed soon about the death and that the

appellants hurriedly cremated the dead body. Under these

circumstances, the presumption under Section 113-B is attracted. The

accused examined defence witnesses to rebut the presumption and to

show that the deceased suffered heart-attack. We have examined the

evidence of DWs 2 and 3 and we agree with the courts below that this

theory of natural death cannot be accepted at all. No material was

placed to show that the deceased suffered any such attack previously.

If it was natural death, there was no need for the appellants to act in

such unnatural manner and cremate the body in great and unholy

haste without even informing the parents. Because of this cremation

no post-mortem could be conducted and the actual cause of death

2026:JHHC:210-DB

28

could not be established clearly. There is absolutely no material to

indicate even remotely that it was a case of natural death. It is

nobody’s case that it was accidental death. In the result it was an

unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming

that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had

occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section

304-B is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the

prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an

offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable

doubt.”

(emphasis supplied)

66. Again, Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the viewof Shanti v. State of

Haryana(supra), in case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 8

SCC 633 and held that it is unable to concur with the contention that if

the dowry-related death is a case of suicide it would not fall within the

purview of Section 304-B IPC at all.The relevant paragraph is quoted

herein below-

“We are, therefore, unable to concur with the contention that if the

dowry-related death is a case of suicide it would not fall within the

purview of Section 304-B IPC at all. In Shanti v. State of Haryana and

in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab2 this Court has held that suicide is one

of the modes of death falling within the ambit of Section 304-B IPC.”

67. Accordingly, Issue no.1 and Issue No. 2 has been answered against

the appellants.

68. Since, in the case in hand the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are

satisfied, hence, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence

Act operates against the appellants, who are deemed to have caused

the offence specified under Section 304-B IPC.

2026:JHHC:210-DB

29

69. The burden therefore shifts on the accused/appellants to rebut the

aforesaid presumption. But, in the present case, the accused/appellants

failed to place any cogent evidence on record to prove that the death

was accidental or unconnected with the accused persons.

70. Therefore, the presumption provided in Section 113-B of the Evidence

Act takes full effect in this particular case, which has not been

rebutted by the appellants-accused persons herein. The appellants

have failed to make out a case to interfere in the finding of the learned

trial court, wherein the appellants-accused were convicted

under Section 304-B of the IPC.

71. In light of the above findings, after perusing the relevant material and

the evidence available on record, we find that the trial court has not

committed any error in convicting the appellants under Section 304-

B IPC as the appellants have failed to discharge the burden

under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

72. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and

considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the

view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under

section 304 B of IPC against all the appellants beyond all shadow of

doubts, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this

Court and are sustained and upheld.

73. Accordingly, Cr.Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1998(R) and Cr. Appeal (DB)

No.23 of 1998(R) are hereby dismissed.

74. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeals, appellants since are

enjoying the suspension of sentence after order passed by this court

2026:JHHC:210-DB

30

directing to release them during pendency of the appeal, the bail bond

of appellants are hereby cancelled and appellants are directed to

surrender before the learned trial court for serving out the sentence

passed against him.

75. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

76. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned

forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

I Agree

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Jharkhand High Court

Dated: 06 /01/2026

KNR/AFR

Uploaded On: 07/01/2026