2026:JHHC:17071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

------

1. Pratima Devi, wife of Palku Tiwary,

2. Amar Tiwary, son of Palku Tiwary,

Both residents of village Tilodih, P.S. Deori, Dist.-Giridih

… … … Appellants

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Girdhar Kumar Tiwary, Son of Murlidhar Tiwary, Resident of village-

Bilotand, P.S.-Deori, Dist. Giridih .... .... .... Respondents

------

For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate

For the Resp. State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sandip Singh Munda, Advocate

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 01/05/2026 Pronounced On 12/06/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 23.04.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.04.2004

passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge-VI, Giridih in S.T. No. 90 of

2001/20 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been

held guilty for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC and

the appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years

with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation for the offence under

Section 306 of the IPC and appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to

2026:JHHC:17071

2

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC

along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. Both the

appellants have further been directed to undergo R.I. for one year for

the offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants and learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the

informant.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Arti Devi @

Guddi (since deceased) who happened to be sister of the informant,

was married with appellant No. 2 Amar Tiwary in accordance with

Hindu Rites and Customs, about three years prior to institution of this

case. It is alleged that after Gauna, she went to her Sasural, where she

resided about two months. Thereafter, her brother (informant)

brought his sister to parental home. Then, she disclosed that her

mother-in-law had asked her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her father for

the purpose of marriage of her sister-in-law. It is further alleged that

after six months, informant’s sister went to matrimonial home along

with her husband. It is further alleged that when the informant went

to matrimonial home of his sister on the occasion of Rakcha Bandhan,

then, mother-in-law of his sister started quarreling with him making

various complaints against his sister, whereby, the informant brought

his sister to his home, where she disclosed that she was always

subjected to assault and torture by her mother-in-law and Nanad on

2026:JHHC:17071

3

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

account of non-fulfillment of the aforesaid money. Thereafter, the

informant asked about the cruel treatment and torture meted to his

sister from the accused persons but they declined to reply anything,

rather, assured that such type of conduct shall not be repeated in

future and again accused Amar Tiwary along with his wife went to his

home. It is alleged that on 13.10.1999, Mahesh Pandey (P.W.-4),

maternal uncle of the informant came and told that Arti Devi is

missing from the evening from her matrimonial home. The villagers

made a search and the dead body of the informant’s sister was found

floating in a well adjacent to the house of the appellants. The dead

body was brought out and it was noticed that there was bleeding from

nostrils and injuries near the left ear, therefore, informant claimed that

his sister was thrown into the well after killing her by the accused

persons due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

On the basis of written report submitted by the informant,

Girdhar Kumar Tiwary, Deori P.S. Case No. 89 of 1999 was

registered for the offences under Section 498A/304B of the IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present

appellants namely Amar Tiwary, Pratima Devi and Mundrika

Kumari.

After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has

submitted first charge sheet against accused Amar Tiwary and

supplementary charge sheet against Pratima Devi. No sufficient

2026:JHHC:17071

4

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

evidence was found against Mundrika Kumari and she was not sent

up for trial.

4. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions, where S.T. No. 90/2001 & 20/2002 was registered and

charges for the offence under Section 498A, 304B of the IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the

accused persons. The accused persons denied from the charges and

claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid charges leveled against the

accused persons, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution apart from the documentary evidence.

6. On the other hand, one defence witness namely Shankar Tiwary

(D.W.-1) has been examined by the defence, who happens to be agnate

of accused persons and stated about cordial relationship between the

husband and the wife controverting the facts of any demand of

dowry and consequent torture meted with the deceased.

7. The learned trial Court after threadbare analysis of the ocular

testimony of the witnesses led by the prosecution as well as defence

and also taking into account the documentary evidence adduced by

the prosecution, arrived at conclusion of guilt of the appellants, for the

charges under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC and sentenced as

stated above, acquitting the accused persons for the offence under

Section 304B of the IPC with specific observation that the alleged

demand of Rs. 20,000/- was for the purpose of marriage of sister-in-

2026:JHHC:17071

5

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

law of the deceased as father of the deceased Murlidhar Tiwary (P.W.-

7) has admitted in clear terms that Rs. 20,000/- was demanded for the

purpose of marriage of sister-in-law of the deceased and he assured

the accused persons that he would provide help in the marriage.

Therefore, the said demand does not come within the ambit of

definition of dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and adopted under Section 304B of the IPC. Learned

trial Court on the basis of evidence, found that there are all the

ingredients constituting the offence under Section 306 of the IPC,

hence, convicted and sentenced them for the offence under Section 306

of the IPC.

Submissions on behalf of appellants: -

8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence of appellants, has strenuously argued that

the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in holding the

appellants guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC although

charge was framed under Section 304B of the IPC. It is further

submitted that the demand of dowry has not been proved by the

prosecution and also fortified by the observation of learned trial

Court. It is further submitted that so far as charge under Section 498A

of the IPC is concerned, it is simply mentioned that the present

appellants have subjected the deceased to cruelty in various ways

mentally and physically by their willful conduct for or in connection

with demand of dowry under Explanation (b) of Section 498A of the

2026:JHHC:17071

6

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

IPC. There is no whisper in the entire evidence or in the charge that

the accused persons ever abetted the commission of suicide by the

deceased or by their willful conduct caused apprehension in the mind

of deceased driving her to commit suicide. It is further submitted that

the offence under Section 304B and 306 of the IPC are mutually

exclusive and different offences having different ingredients,

therefore, unless and until all the ingredients constituting offence

under Section 306 of the IPC is proved by the prosecution, no

conviction can be made thereunder. The prosecution has neither been

able to prove suicidal death of the deceased nor its abetment at the

hands of the appellants. Therefore, the deeming provision under

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted in this case at

all. At best, the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is proved

against the appellants, which comes under Explanation (b) of the

Section 498A of the IPC.

In the alternative, it is contended that appellant No. 1 is an old

lady aged about 70 years and has undergone about 8 months custody

during trial and post-conviction. The appellant No. 2 has also

undergone imprisonment of 3 years 5 months during trial and post-

conviction. Therefore, both the appellants have sufficiently been

punished for their guilt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the

appellants may be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the State

9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the

informant defending the judgment of conviction and sentence of the

2026:JHHC:17071

7

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely

and aptly considered all the materials available on record and rightly

convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 498A and 306 of

the I.P.C. and has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing

the impugned judgment which does not call of any interference in this

appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

10. I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in

the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

11. In view of the points raised during arguments, following issues

emerges for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC is

tenable when charge is only under Section 304B of the

IPC?

(ii) Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants

suffers from any error of law, calling for any

interference in this appeal?

Analysis, reasons and decision:

12. For better appreciation of the above issues involved in this case, the

relevant provisions are quoted as hereunder:-

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

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;

2026:JHHC:17071

8

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection

with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include]

dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim

Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation II. – The expression “valuable security” has the same

meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry- (1) If any person, after the

commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of

dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen

thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is

more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be

recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of

less than five years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without

any demand having been made in that behalf)

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in

accordance with the rules made under this Act.

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride groom

(without any demand having been made in that behalf)

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in

accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf

of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a

customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to

the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such

presents are given.

Indian Penal Code

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.

2026:JHHC:17071

9

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

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.]

Indian Penal Code

“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.”

306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets

the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also

be liable to fine.

Indian Evidence Act

113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a

woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband

and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven

years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative

of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume,

2026:JHHC:17071

10

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide

had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall

have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code.

“113B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When the question is

whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is

shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such

person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for

dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry

death.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, dowry death shall

have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860).”

13. Before adverting to adjudicate upon the above points, I have to take

brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this

case during trial.

P.W.-8 is the informant-cum-brother of the deceased. According to

his evidence, his sister Arti Devi @ Guddi (since deceased) was

married with Amar Tiwary (appellant No. 2) in the year 1997. It is

alleged that after marriage Arti Devi @ Guddi went to her Sasural

and after five days, as per custom, she was brought to her parental

home. After staying six months at her parental home, her Gauna

ceremony was performed and again Arti Devi went to her

matrimonial home, where she stayed about two months and again

upon Vidai, she came to her parental home. Then, she disclosed that

her husband and mother-in-law were asking for Rs. 20,000/- for

expenses of marriage of her sister-in-law. This witness after getting

knowledge of above fact went to the matrimonial home of his sister

2026:JHHC:17071

11

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

and said to his brother-in-law Amar Tiwary that you should fix the

marriage of your sister and as per capacity, he would extend all

assistance. He has further deposed that after six months, his brother-

in-law Amar Tiwari came to his house and after taking Vidai,

proceeded along with sister of this witness. Thereafter, just after 15

days, on the occasion of Rakcha Bandhan, this witness again went to

matrimonial home of his sister, then mother-in-law of his sister

complained about her poor cooking and no interest in domestic

work. After one month, this witness again got Vidai of his sister and

brought to his home and she stayed at her paternal home for about 10

months, again, she disclosed that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law

and husband are harassing her for bringing Rs. 20,000/- cash. He has

further deposed that thereafter, husband of the deceased came for

Vidai of his sister and this witness complained to him about the

aforesaid demand and harassment meted with his sister, and then he

assured that such type of occurrence would not happen in future and

his sister went to matrimonial home along with her husband. He has

further deposed that on 13.10.1999, at about 9 PM, Arbind Tiwary,

Lakhan Tiwary and Sajjan Tiwary came from Tilodih and told to this

witness that Arti Devi @ Guddi is missing. Thereafter, this witness

started searching of his sister. After two hours, again, Arbind Tiwary

and Mahesh Pandey came on motorcycle and told that no clue of Arti

Devi was found. Thereafter, this witness along with other persons

went to village Tilodih and saw that there was crowd near a well

2026:JHHC:17071

12

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

situated adjacent to the house of Amar Tiwari (appellant No. 2),

where the dead body of his sister was being pulled out from the well

by Jaggar (Gal-thorn). He noticed that blood was present on both

nostrils of his sister. There was black spot below the eyes and pinna.

Thereafter, he lodged written report at the police station, which is

marked as Ext.-2/1. This witness has also produced a letter dated

05.10.1999 purported to be written by his sister in her handwriting,

just some few days prior to her death, addressed to his father, which

is marked as Ex.-3 (with objection).

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the letter

which was produced on that day (ext.-3), was not produced before

the Investigating Officer. This letter was given to him by Aniruddh

Tiwari. He also admits that there is no mention in his written report

about this letter. He has also denied the suggestion of the defence

that he has manipulated a fake letter of deceased. There is nothing

else to rebut his aforesaid testimony.

P.W.-7 Murlidhar Tiwari is the father of the deceased. According to

his evidence also, deceased was married with the appellant No. 2 in

the year 1997. He has stated in clear terms that after marriage, his

daughter went to her matrimonial home and while, she was residing

there, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law were not behaving properly.

They were pressurizing his daughter to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her

father. He also admits that his Samdhi (father-in-law of the deceased)

met this witness in 1998 and asked Rs. 20,000/- for solemnization of

2026:JHHC:17071

13

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

marriage of daughter. Then, this witness assured that if marriage is

fixed, he will extend his help. On 14.10.1999, he came to know from

his brother-in-law Mahesh Tiwary that his daughter has been killed

by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband and her dead body

is disposed of in a well. When, he went to visit the place of

occurrence, by that time, post-mortem was conducted.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he resides in

Dhanbad in connection with his service and after marriage, his

daughter, on several occasions, visited him at Dhanbad but till the

date of death of his daughter, he has made no complain before Police

or any authority that his daughter was being subjected to cruelty for

demand of dowry. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his

daughter was entangled with a Muslim boy and a photo of that boy

was found in her Box, hence, due to fear of defamation, she

committed suicide.

P.W.-1 Anirudh Tiwary is the cousin brother, who also came to

know from the deceased that Rs. 20,000/- has been demanded by her

mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law, for which, she was being

subjected to cruelty. This witness has also proved his signature on

inquest report which was prepared in presence of this witness which

is marked as Ext. 1.

In his cross-examination, he admits that after marriage of

deceased, he has never gone to her matrimonial home.

2026:JHHC:17071

14

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

P.W.-2 Arbind Tiwary is the local villager of place of occurrence i.e.

Telodih. According to his evidence, about one month prior to the

death of the deceased, he came to know from a village lady, wife of

Sidheshwar Tiwary that some scuffle was going on in the house of

Amar Tiwary and then, he went and saw that mother of Amar

Tiwary was assaulting and scolding to her daughter-in-law, when he

protested, then he was scolded and threatened to go away.

Thereafter, on 13.10.1999, he came to know that wife of Amar Tiwary

was missing and on a search, her dead body was found from a well

which was pulled out by Jhaggar.

In his cross-examination, he admits that prior to one month of

death of the deceased, he never disclosed about the occurrence to

anyone, even to the father and brother of the deceased.

P.W.-3 Swarup Pandey is also local villager of place of occurrence.

According to this witness, on 13.10.1999, in the evening, he came to

know that wife of Amar Tiwary was missing from the house. He

communicated this message to parental home of Arti Devi.

Thereafter, dead body was brought out from the well. He has also

stated that mother-in-law of the deceased was frequently scuffling

with the deceased.

P.W.-4 Mahesh Pandey is maternal uncle of the deceased. He has

also stated that Arti Devi was being harassed and tortured, just after

her marriage for dowry. Her mother-in-law and husband were

raising demand of dowry. On 13.10.1999, in the evening, he came to

2026:JHHC:17071

15

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

know that Arti Devi was missing from her matrimonial home. After a

search, her dead body was found in the well.

P.W.-5 Ramdhani Pandey is maternal grand-father of the deceased.

He has also stated that initially there was everything well after the

marriage but later on Rs. 20,000/- were demanded by mother-in-law

and father-in-law of his Natini, which could not be fulfilled.

Thereafter, Arti Devi was subjected to torture on her matrimonial

home and her dead body was found in the well near the house of

accused persons.

There is nothing else in his evidence in his cross-examination.

This witness has failed to disclose the date and day of the demand of

dowry.

P.W.-6 Barun Tiwary. He came to know from Informant Girdhar

Tiwary that his sister has been subjected to cruelty and torture and

due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/-. On

13.10.1999, at about 10 PM, he came to know from villagers that Arti

Devi has been killed in her Sasural and her dead body was disposed

of in a well. In the next morning, he went to her Sasural and saw the

dead body of the deceased brought out from the well.

This witness is scriber of this written report and also signed as

a witness which is marked as Ext.-2.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he was not

present at the time of marriage of the deceased. He has stated what

he heard from the informant.

2026:JHHC:17071

16

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

P.W.-9, Dr. B.P. Singh was posted as Civil Asst. Surgeon at Sadar

Hospital, Giridih and on that day at 3:30 pm he conducted post

mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and opined

that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning. However,

the viscera were preserved for chemical analysis, if needed. The P.M.

report was in his handwriting and bears his signature marked as Ext.

-4.

P.W.-10 Phirangi Tiwary is a home-guard and cousin brother of the

deceased. According to his evidence, initially Arti Devi was quite

well in her Sasural but he came to know that she has been killed and

dead body was found in a well in his presence. This witness has been

declared hostile by the prosecution as regards demand of dowry and

consequent torture meted to the deceased by the accused persons.

P.W.-11 Bhagwan Mishra and P.W.-12 Ram Lakhan Tiwary both

have been declared hostile by the prosecution.

14. On the other hand, one witness has been examined by the defence

namely Shankar Tiwary, D.W.-1. He is a close neighbour of the

accused persons. According to him, deceased was quite happy in her

Sasural and he has never heard about any cruelty meted to her on

account of any demand of dowry.

In his cross-examination, he admits that his statement was not

recorded by the police. He does not know whether Police had come

to his village after death of the deceased or not. He has also failed to

disclose the date of marriage of the deceased.

2026:JHHC:17071

17

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

15. It appears that on the basis of above evidence, the learned trial Court

has recorded objective findings that there was demand of Rs.

20,000/- for the purpose of marriage of sister-in-law of the deceased.

It is also evident from testimony of informant-cum-brother (P.W.-8)

and father (P.W.-7) that his daughter disclosed that her mother-in-

law and sister-in-law were demanding Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose

of marriage. It is also stated by P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 that they assured

the mother-in-law of the deceased that they would extend their help

in terms of money when the marriage would be fixed. It appears

from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the

informant and some local witnesses (P.W.-2 and P.W.-5) examined in

this case that a scuffle used to take place between the deceased and

her mother-in-law but what kind of cruel treatment was meted with

the deceased has not been proved except the fact disclosed by

informant (P.W.-8) in his evidence that when he went to the

matrimonial home of his sister on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan,

then her mother-in-law complained about her poor quality of

cooking and not good behavior with the family members, etc. It is

also disclosed that the deceased was not supplied with proper food

and clothes. Nothing more than that has been alleged. There is no

doubt that the demand of Rs.20,000/- in this case was not directly

made with any of the witnesses. It is not also disclosed that in spite of

settlement of engagement of sister-in-law of the deceased, no money

was given by the informant party, hence torture meted with the

2026:JHHC:17071

18

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

deceased was enhanced at the hands of her mother-in-law or

husband.

The learned trial Court has properly considered that the said

demand of Rs. 20,000/- does not come within the definition of

dowry. Therefore, the provision of Section 304B of the IPC read with

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act has no application in the

facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the appellants

were acquitted under Section 304B of the IPC convicting them for the

offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It further appears that the

learned trial Court after acquitting the accused persons from the

charge under Section 304B of the IPC and ¾ of the Dowry

Prohibition Act proceeded on its whim without dealing with

provisions under Section 306 of the IPC and section 113A of the

Indian Evidence Act and in absence of charge under Section 306 IPC,

convicted and sentenced the accused persons thereunder. The

learned trial Court simply observed that the deceased has died due

to drowning as per P.M. Report conducted by Dr. B.P. Singh (P.W.-9)

and in the suggestion extended to the father of the deceased (P.W.-7)

and P.W.-5 that deceased was having a photo of a Muslim boy in her

Box which was seen by the accused persons, hence, under same, she

might have committed suicide is also cruelty which tends to

imputation of adultery against the deceased leading to her suicide.

The evidence of cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased has

also been proved by the witnesses, hence offence under Section 306

2026:JHHC:17071

19

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

of the IPC read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is also

applicable in this case.

In this regard, the learned trial Court has placed reliance upon

a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Prema S. Rao &

Anr. Vs. Y. Srinivasa Rao & Ors., (2003) 1 East CRC 168 wherein it

has been laid down that in absence of charge under Section 306 of

the IPC, the Court can convict accused persons with the help of

Section 221 and 215 of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court further

observed that a conjoint reading of Section 306 of the IPC and section

113A of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with the fact that there is

evidence on record of cruelty or harassment meted to deceased Arti

Devi within seven years of her marriage by the accused persons for a

demand of Rs. 20,000/- and may be for some unfounded allegations

of adultery. The accused persons have abetted the commission of

suicide by the deceased Arti Devi punishable under Section 306 IPC.

Accordingly, the learned trial Court passed the conviction and

sentence thereunder.

16. It is trite that gravity of offence and severity of punishment imposes

an obligation on the Court to appreciate the evidence in threadbare

manner so that no injustice is suffered by any of the party. In the

instant case, the most important witnesses are P.W.-8 informant-cum-

brother of the deceased and father of the deceased (P.W.-7). Other

relevant witnesses are hearsay witnesses from above prime

witnesses. The local witness P.W.-2 is the only witness who simply

2026:JHHC:17071

20

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

stated about some scuffle and ill-treatment meted with the deceased

at the hands of her mother-in-law. The F.I.R. is the earliest version of

the informant in which he has disclosed several incidents that he

brought his sister to his matrimonial home, after that twice her

husband took her on Vidai to her matrimonial home. In not a single

word, it is complained that husband was demanding any money,

rather, the imputations are only against mother-in-law and sister-in-

law.

Similarly, the scuffle, harassment or ill-treatment whichever is

meted with the deceased is also stated at the hands of mother-in-law

and sister-in-law. The main reason for such treatment is that both

above accused persons were demanding Rs. 20,000/- in connection

with marriage of sister-in-law of the deceased, who has not been

made accused in this case. The prosecution has also not taken any

step to implead her as an accused even invoking the provision of

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. It is clear cut evidence of P.W.-8 Informant

Girdhar Tiwary that when after staying about six months at her

parental home, husband of the deceased came for Vidai of her, then

this witness complained as to why his sister is being harassed or

tortured for demand of Rs. 20,000/- and he also assured non-

repetition of such acts. When P.W.-8 again went to the matrimonial

home of his sister on the occasion of Rakcha Bandhan, he assured to

mother-in-law of deceased that whenever the marriage of sister-in-

2026:JHHC:17071

21

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

law would be fixed, he would arrange the money for helping in

marriage.

Similarly, P.W.-7 who happens to be father of the deceased has

also stated that although the marriage of his daughter subsist a very

short span of three years and in that period his daughter several

times visited Dhanbad at the work place of this witness and

complained that Rs. 20,000/- was being asked by her mother-in-law

for solemnization of marriage of her daughter. This witness has also

admitted that mother-in-law of the deceased never directly asked

him any money.

Similarly, P.W.-8 has also not stated that any demand was

raised before him by the mother-in-law of the deceased, rather, she

complained about bad cooking and improper conduct and behavior

of the deceased.

17. In the above factual background, which has been brought on record

by the prosecution, the charge under Section 498A of the IPC was

framed in following words ; “that on or about 13

th of October, 1999,

at night, at village Tilayadih, P.S. Deori, Dist. Giridih, after the

marriage and before the death of Arti Devi, at the same place, the

husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased subjected her to

cruelty in various ways mentally and physically by their willful

conduct for or in connection with demand of dowry and thereby

committed offence under Section 498A of the IPC and within my

cognizance.”

2026:JHHC:17071

22

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

18. The above charge admittedly shows that it has been framed under

Explanation (b) attached to Section 498A of the IPC which in general

terms consist in harassment and coercion of a married woman to

meet any unlawful demand of property. Admittedly, in the instant

case, the demand of Rs. 20,000/- even for the marriage of sister-in-

law cannot be recognized as legal demand, rather, it was unlawful

demand for which the victim lady was coerced and harassed at the

hands of her mother-in-law and the husband.

19. I have given anxious consideration to the overall factual aspects of

the case and the nature of cruelty or harassment as disclosed by the

witnesses. It does not appear to be 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 as enunciated in Explanation (a) attached to Section 498A of

the IPC.

20. In the case of Gurjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 14 SCC 264,

the Hon’ble Apex Court has occasion to decide as to whether

conviction under Section 306 of the IPC was tenable though charge

was only under Section 304-B of the IPC.

21. Now the question that would fall for consideration is as to whether

when the prosecution establishes cruelty under Explanation (b) of

Section 498A of the IPC and also establishes that the deceased

committed suicide within seven years of the marriage, could the

accused be also held guilty for the offence punishable under Section

2026:JHHC:17071

23

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

306 of the IPC with the aid of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence

Act. It was further observed that to attract the applicability of Section

113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the following conditions are

required to be satisfied:

(i) That the woman has committed suicide;

(ii) Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven

years from the date of her marriage;

(iii) And the husband or his relatives, who are charged had

subjected her to cruelty.

22. On the existence and availability of the aforesaid circumstances, the

court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her

husband or by such relatives of her husband. It has been held that the

presumption is not mandatory; but only permissive as the words

“may presume” suggests. It has further been held that the existence

and availability of the aforesaid three circumstances shall not, like a

formula, enable the presumption being drawn. It has been held that

before a presumption being drawn, the court shall have regard to all

other circumstances of the case. The consideration of all the other

circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may

dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the

presumption. It, thus observed that the expression “the other

circumstances of the case” used in Section 113A of the Indian

Evidence Act suggests the need to reach a cause and effect

2026:JHHC:17071

24

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of

raising a presumption.

23. The Hon’ble Apex Court placing reliance upon the reported

judgment in Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC

618 and State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73

wherein it was held as under: “when a case does not fall under clause

secondly or thirdly, it has to be decided with reference to the first

clause, i.e., whether the accused has abetted the commission of

suicide by intentionally instigating her to do so.” Instigation is to

goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.

Though the court observed that to satisfy the requirement of

instigation, it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. However, it has been

observed that a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must

be capable of being spelt out. Even if the presumption of Section

113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn, the burden of

proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the

accused is on the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had instigated, conspired

or intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide. It

was further observed that “the court should be extremely careful in

assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced

in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the

2026:JHHC:17071

25

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.”

Sections 498A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different

offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an

individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an

offence under Section 498A and may also, if a course of conduct

amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the

woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit

suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to

be punished under Section 498A IPC it does not follow that on the

same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having

abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned.

Another aspect that needs consideration is that the cases wherein

this Court has held that the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC

was tenable though charge was only under Section 304B of the IPC,

it was found the charge specifically stated that the deceased was

driven to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to the

deceased.

24. In the instant case, the prosecution is successful in proving the case

under Section 498A of the IPC but the prosecution has failed to

prove that the cruelty was of such a nature which left no choice to

the deceased than to commit suicide. The prosecution has not been

in a position to place on record any evidence to establish beyond

reasonable doubt that any act or omission of the accused instigated

the deceased to commit suicide. There is no material on record to

2026:JHHC:17071

26

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

show that immediately prior to the deceased committing suicide

there was a cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused due to

which the deceased had no other option than to commit the suicide.

There is no material placed on record to reach a cause and effect

relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of

raising presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.

25. In the above discussions and reasons, I arrive at a definite conclusion

that though there is no legal bar in convicting the accused for the

offence under Section 306 of the IPC when he was charged only for

Section 304B of the IPC and found not guilty hereunder but the basis

of cruelty meted with the deceased must be proved of such a degree

and extent that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on

account of cruelty meted out to her.

26. In the instant case, the charge of cruelty was framed under

Explanation (b) appended to Section 498A of the IPC and the factual

background of the case does not suggest that the cruelty meted with

the deceased was of such a nature that she was driven to commit

suicide having no option in the life.

27. At this juncture, Ext.-3 i.e. letter of the deceased proved and relied on

by the prosecution itself goes to show that all allegations are leveled

against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased that she

was assaulted and scolded frequently in indecent manner. This letter

was written on 05.10.1999 but no apprehension of any kind has been

expressed by the victim, rather, she states that now there is no scuffle

2026:JHHC:17071

27

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

and not to worry about her and console her mother. There is no

whisper about any ill-treatment or any kind of demand by the

husband. It was also brought on record that the family members of

the husband have sent message about missing of the deceased from

the evening. Thereafter, she managed to end her life by jumping into

well and cause of death has also been opined to be drawning. In such

circumstances, the conviction of appellants for the offence under

Section 306 of the IPC does not appear to be based on sound reasons

and the evidence available on record, rather, conviction under

Section 498A IPC is justified against both the appellants. Therefore,

conviction and sentence of appellants for the offence under Section

306 of the IPC is hereby set aside and the conviction under Section

498A of the IPC is maintained.

28. It appears that the appellant No. 2 has already undergone three years

two months imprisonment during trial and post-conviction of the

case and sustained the maximum sentence awarded to him.

Therefore, he is directed to set at liberty forthwith. So far as appellant

No. 1 is concerned, she has been sentenced one year R.I. for the

offence under Section 498A of the IPC and already undergone

custody for eight months out of one year imprisonment. Hence,

sentence of appellant No. 1 is reduced from one year to the

imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 498A

of IPC.

2026:JHHC:17071

28

Cr. A. (S.J.) No. 816 of 2004

29. This appeal is partly allowed with modification in conviction and

sentence as stated above.

30. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the

liabilities of bail bonds. The 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 Records be sent

back to the court concerned immediately for information and

needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi

Date: 12/06/2026

Basant/-A.F.R.

Uploaded on 12/06/2026