2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 1 of 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 574 of 2023

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated

31.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,

Godda, in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2018]

Prem Chand Shandil @ Santosh Jha, aged about 36 years,

Son of Nitya Nand Jha, resident of Village – Saidapur, P.S.-

Godda (M), P.O. and District – Godda, Jharkhand.

… … Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

…..

For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary , A.P.P.

…..

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 04.12.2025 Pronounced on 25.02.2026

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, learned

Additional P.P.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

31.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-III, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2018,

whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held

guilty and convicted for the offence under Section

304B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 2 of 28

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as

depicted in the F.I.R. in a narrow compass, is that the

informant’s daughter Snehlata Kumari @ Sweety

(since deceased) was married with the present

appellant on 30.11.2012 and out of their wedlock, a

girl child namely, Bhabhya Bharti was begotten, who

is at present 04 years old. It is alleged that for better

education of the girl child Bhavya, Snehlata Kumari

was residing at her parental house, but all of a

sudden, her husband (appellant) took his wife and

daughter at Lohia Nagar, Godda in the month of April,

2018 and left them in a rented house and got his

daughter admitted in St. Thomas School, Godda. It is

further alleged that the appellant, who is a CRPF

personnel left for his duty to Rajgir at CRPF Camp. In

the meantime, on 05.04.2018, the husband hatching

conspiracy with his sister Shweta Jha and mother

Nilam Devi committed murder of the informant’s

daughter in between night of 5/6.04.2018. It is

further alleged that from the beginning of marriage,

all the accused persons used to quarrel with the

deceased and demanded additional dowry in the

shape of 1 Katha land and one four-wheeler vehicle

and due to non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand the

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 3 of 28

deceased was subjected to torture at hands of

husband and in-laws, which was frequently disclosed

by the deceased to her mother Uma Devi (informant)

(P.W.-4).

4. On the basis of written report of the informant, FIR

being Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2018 was

registered for the offence under Section 304B read

with Section 34 of the I.P.C. In course of investigation,

the present appellant was arrested and after

conclusion of investigation against him, charge sheet

was submitted, keeping investigation continued

against rest of the co-accused persons.

5. The case of the appellant was committed to the court

of Sessions after taking cognizance of the offences,

where S.T. No. 187/2018 was registered. The

appellant denied the charges levelled against him and

claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were

examined by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 : Kameshwar Jha;

P.W.-2 : Manish Kumar Jha;

P.W.-3 : Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha;

P.W.-4 : Uma Devi (Informant);

P.W.-5 : Vikash Chandra Jha;

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 4 of 28

P.W.-6 : Dev Chand Shandil;

P.W.-7 : Sushil Kumar Jha;

P.W.-8 : Banke Bihari Jha;

P.W.-9 : Tarkeshwar Harijan;

P.W.-10 : Ananjoy Kumar Thakur.

P.W.-11 : Sunita Thakur.

P.W.-12 : Rakesh Kumar Singh.

P.W.-13 : Sunita Murmu.

P.W.-14 : Manju Murmu.

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following

documentary evidences have been adduced:-

Exhibit-1 : Signature of the P.W.-2 on

carbon copy of Inquest Report of

the deceased Snehlata Devi @

Sweety Kumari.

Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of the informant (P.W.-

4) on carbon copy of Death

Inquest Report of the deceased

Snehlata Devi @ Sweety Kumari.

Exhibit-1/2 : Writing and signature of P.W.-7

on Inquest Report of the

deceased Snehlata Devi @ Sweety

Kumari.

Exhibit-2 : Post mortem report of the

deceased.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 5 of 28

Exhibit-3 : Signature of the informant (P.W.-

4) on her written report.

Exhibit-4 : Signature of Sushil Kumar Jha

(P.W.-7) on Seizure list of mobile

phones.

7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence

has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence

is denial from the occurrence and false implication in

the case on the basis of suspicion. It is also pleaded

that there was cordial relationship between husband

and wife. There was no demand of any kind of dowry

or consequent torture meted to the deceased. The

ritual of cremation was also conducted by the

appellant in presence of family members of the

informant. The case is outcome of anguish due to

unfortunate death of the deceased.

8. The learned court, after evaluating evidence available

on record, arrived at conclusion of guilt of the

appellant for the offence under Section 304B of the

I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above, which has

been assailed in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously

argued that admittedly appellant was working as

CRPF personnel at Rajgir on the relevant date of

occurrence and his wife and daughter were left at

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 6 of 28

Godda for better education of their child. The

appellant was properly taking care of his wife and

child used to send money for their expenses. The

rental house was also belonged to the relative of the

deceased. It is further submitted that in the FIR, there

is general and omnibus allegation of demand of one

Katha land and four-wheeler, but there is not a single

allegation about torture meted to the deceased at the

hands of appellant, due to non-fulfillment of dowry. In

course of trial, mother and brother of the victim, who

are close relative of deceased, have been examined to

prove the demand of dowry and consequential torture

meted with the deceased, but surprisingly nothing

has been stated by them in this regard , rather the

mother of deceased states in clear terms that she was

thinking it to be joke when her son-in-law was raising

demand of money, land and four wheeler vehicle.

Therefore, the most vital ingredient of the offence of

dowry death i.e. “soon before her death, the deceased

must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by

her husband or any other relatives of her husband for

or in connection of any demand of dowry”, is lacking in

this case. Therefore, merely on the ground that the

deceased died an unnatural death within seven years

of her marriage, the penal deeming provision of dowry

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 7 of 28

death, cannot be invoked. It is always incumbent

upon the prosecution to prove the very foundational

facts constituting offence under Section 304B of the

I.P.C., only then presumption under Section 113-B of

the Evidence Act can be raised. In absence of proof of

foundational facts regarding demand of dowry from

the deceased or her parents and consequential

physical or mental torture meted with the deceased

due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand, the learned

trial court must not have held the appellant guilty for

the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. Therefore,

the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and

based upon conjecture and surmises and beyond

weight of evidence available on record, which is fit to

be set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal from the

charge levelled against him. Accordingly, this appeal

may be allowed.

10. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the

appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Bhupal

Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand [2025

Supreme (SC) 124] and The State of Uttarakhand

Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem Prakash;

[2025 Supreme (SC) 312].

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 8 of 28

11. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has

strenuously argued that the learned trial court has

very wisely and aptly apprised, evaluated and scanned

the oral testimony of witnesses examined in this case.

Prosecution witnesses have consistently proved the

demand of money and four-wheeler vehicle as well as

the appellant has forcibly retained landed property of

his wife and due to physical and mental torture

extended to deceased due to non-fulfillment of above

demand, she was driven away from matrimonial home

along with tender aged child and compelled to reside

at her parental home. Soon before the occurrence, the

deceased along with her daughter was forcibly

brought by her husband at Gooda and after

admission of child in a School, she was done to death

by strangulation. The plea of the appellant that he

was not present at the place of occurrence on the

relevant date and time is absolutely false and

concocted story because the appellant himself has

admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

that from 24.03.2018 to 09.04.2018, he was on leave.

The further point of argument that all the witnesses

are relative or interested witnesses is also not tenable

In such a case, circumstances play pivotal role since

the offences are often executed within four walls of

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 9 of 28

room giving no opportunity to other person to see ,

particularly the parents of the deceased, who reside at

another place. The deeming provision of dowry death

was enacted keeping in mind the aforesaid situations,

so that prosecution should not be handicapped in

absence of eye-witness of occurrence. In the instant

case, the foundational facts to attract the offence

under Section 304B of the I.P.C. has been

proved by prosecution beyond doubt. The informant

and other witnesses, although being close relatives

have stated true facts leading to conclusion that the

deceased was married with the appellant and she died

unnatural death while living with her husband under

tense relationship within seven years of marriage. It is

also proved that soon before her death, the deceased

was subjected to cruelty and harassment , physical

and mental, on account of or in connection with

demand of dowry from her. The learned trial court has

committed no error of law in holding the appellant

guilty for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and

imposing adequate and proper sentence, which

requires no interference by way of this appeal, which

is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

12. In the light of rival contentions of the parties, the only

question arises for determination in this appeal, is

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 10 of 28

that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order

of conviction and sentence of appellant is legally

sustainable or not?”

ANALYSIS

13. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we

have to apprise with the relevant provisions of law

applicable in this case along with evidence adduced

by prosecution. The relevant provisions of law

applicable in this case are reproduced hereinbelow:

“304B. 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.”

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty. [Whoever,

being the husband or the relative of the husband

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 11 of 28

of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall

be punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years and shall also be liable

to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,

"cruelty means"—

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to

life, limb or health (whether mental or

physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security

or is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.]

“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).”

14. In view of the above provisions, in order to convict an

accused for the offence punishable under Section

304(B) of the IPC, the following essentials must be

satisfied:-

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 12 of 28

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by

burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under

normal circumstances;

(ii) such death must have occurred within seven

years of her marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have

been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

husband or any relatives of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in

connection with, demand for dowry.

When the above ingredients are established

by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death

shall be called dowry death and such husband or

his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her

death.

15. From bare perusal of provision of Section 304B of the

IPC, it is evident that it does not categorize death as

homicidal or suicidal or accidental. This is because

death caused by burns can, in a given case, be

homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Similarly, death

caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be

homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death

occurring “otherwise than under normal

circumstances” can, in a given case, be homicidal or

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 13 of 28

suicidal or accidental. Therefore, if all the other

ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled, any

death (homicidal or suicidal or accidental) whether

caused by burns or by bodily injury or occurring

otherwise than under normal circumstances shall, as

per the legislative mandate, be called a “dowry death”

and the woman’s husband or his relative “shall be

deemed to have caused her death”. The section clearly

specifies what constitutes the offence of dowry death

and also identifies the single offender or multiple

offenders who has or have caused the dowry death.

16. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B

IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which

is required to be established is that “soon before her

death” she was subjected to cruelty or harassment

“for, or in connection with the demand for dowry”. The

expression “soon before her death” used in Section

304-B IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act has

been explained by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of

judgments, Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11

SCC 359; Mustafa Shahadat Shaikh v. State of

Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 397; Ramesh Vithal

Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 11 SCC 516,

Maya Devi & Anr. V. State of Haryana , (2015) 17

SCC 405. Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 14 of 28

(2021) 6 SCC 1. It has been observed that though the

language used is “soon before her death”, no definite

period has been enacted and the expression “soon

before her death” has not been defined in both the

enactments. Accordingly, the determination of the

period which can come within the term “soon before

her death” is to be determined by the courts,

depending upon the facts and circumstances of each

case. However, the said expression would normally

imply that the interval should not be much between

the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in

question. In other words, there must be existence of

a proximate and live link between the effect of

cruelty based on dowry demand and the death

concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote

in time and has become stale enough not to disturb

the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it

would be of no consequence.

17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh &

Anr. v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1 has held

that the phrase “soon before” in section 304B IPC 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

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 15 of 28

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. Thus, a 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.

18. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down

rebuttable presumption of law in respect of dowry

death. If the ingredients under Section 304-B IPC are

attracted, the court shall presume and it shall record

such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved by

the accused. However, it is open to the accused to

adduce such evidence for disproving such conclusive

presumption as the burden is unmistakably on him to

do so and he can discharge such burden by getting an

answer through cross- examination of the prosecution

witnesses or by adducing evidence on the defence side

as such putting reverse onus of proving on the

accused.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 16 of 28

19. Further, it appears that altogether 14 witnesses have

been examined by the prosecution in order to

substantiate the charges levelled against the

appellant.

20. P.W.-1 Kameshwar Jha is father of the deceased.

According to his evidence, his daughter Snehlata was

married with Prem Chand Shandil. She was residing

in rented quarter at Lohia Nagar, Godda along with

her four years daughter, who was admitted in St .

Thomas School, Godda. He has further deposed that

his daughter was frequently tortured by her husband,

mother-in-law, sister-in-law, due to non-fulfillment of

demand of dowry. He has further deposed that on

03.04.2018, his daughter’s husband visited with his

wife Snehlata at Lohia Nagar, Godda and on pretext of

joining his duty went on 04.04.2018, but in the night

of 05/06.04.2018 itself, he committed murder of his

wife Snehlata. This witness after receiving information

went to Lohia Nagar and saw his daughter was died.

There were injuries on her eyes and some marks of

injuries on neck and left leg.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he is not

the eye-witness of the occurrence. When he went to

Lohia Nagar, he found his daughter was lying dead.

Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were also present

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 17 of 28

along with some neighbours. He also admits in his

cross-examination that last ritual of his deceased

daughter was performed by her husband . This

witness denied the suggestion of defence that due to

her own wrongful acts, the deceased might have been

killed by enemies and her husband has been falsely

implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion.

21. P.W.-2 Manish Kumar Jha is the brother of the

deceased. According to his evidence, on 06.04.2018,

he received telephonic call from Shweta Mishra

(sister-in-law of deceased) about death of his sister

Snehlata at Lohia Nagar, Godda. It is further stated

that his sister was married with Prem Chand Sandil

on 30.11.2012 and also blessed with a daughter. After

receiving the aforesaid information, he informed to his

father and requested him to come at Lohia Nagar,

Godda. He along with his mother and father went to

Godda on 06.04.2018 and reached there at 9:00 A.M.,

where police personnels were also present. He saw the

dead body of Snehlata @ Sweety lying on the bed and

there were some injuries near right side of neck, right

eyes appear to be blackish, abrasion on left leg. The

dead body was sent by police for post-mortem. He has

also proved the signature on inquest report as

Exhibit-1.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 18 of 28

In his cross-examination, this witness states that

the deceased had told him that the accused persons

were asking for one Katha land and four-wheeler

vehicle. When he went to Lohia Nagar, his brother-in-

law Prem Chand Sandil was not present. He also

admits that his sister was living in rented quarter of

Dhananjay Thakur through the assistance of brother

of Prem Chand Sandil.

He has denied the suggestion of defence that his

sister has died due to any other reason and he has

falsely implicated his brother-in-law only on

suspicion.

22. P.W.-3 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha is the Doctor, who

conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased

Snehlata Devi @ Sweety, aged about 28 years, Wife of

Premchand Sandil and found following ante mortem

injuries:-

(a) Two curved abrasion 1/2" of upper part of leg in

front and another on the right side of neck 1” apart.

(b) Three bruises 1/2" x 1/2" on the right side of

neck 1/2” apart from each other and three on the

right side of the neck 1/2" x 1/2", half inch apart.

On dissection subcutaneous tissues under the

marks are lacerated and ecchy mosed with

laceration of neck muscle beneath the injury.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 19 of 28

(c) Abrasion 1” x 1/2" on the left leg entirely in the

middle.

Cause of death is due to shock and asphyxia

due to strangulation by throttling. Ante mortem

Injury No. 2 was grievous in nature.

He has proved the post-mortem report as

Exhibit-2.

23. P.W.-4 Uma Devi is the informant-cum-mother of the

deceased. According to her, her daughter Snehlata

was married with Prem Chand Sandil. She has further

deposed that from the very inception of marriage, her

son-in-law Prem Chand Sandil was demanding 01

Katha land and four-wheeler vehicle, but it was not

taken seriously. Hence, no complaint was lodged

anywhere. She has further stated that her daughter

was living with her along with her girl child. The

deceased was brought to Godda just before the

occurrence by her husband and admitted the girl

child in St. Thomas School, Godda and was living

alone and her husband was in service. She has

further deposed that on 06.04.2018 at about 6:30

A.M., her son Manish Jha received a telephonic

message from sister-in-law of her daughter namely,

Shweta Mishra about her illness, but when this

witness along with other family member went to Lohia

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 20 of 28

Nagar, Godda. She saw mark of injury on neck, left

forehead and his daughter was lying dead. Police also

arrived and inquest report was prepared. She has

proved her signature as Exhibit-1/1. Cremation of

dead body was conducted by her husband. She has

denied suggestion of defence that her daughter was

alone in the house, hence, she used to go outside

frequently due to that reason, anyone else tak ing

advantage of her loneliness has killed her and she has

falsely implicated husband of the deceased only on

the basis of suspicion.

24. P.W.-5 Vikash Chandra Jha has been declared

hostile by the prosecution and states no knowledge

about the occurrence.

25. P.W.-6 Dev Chand Shandil is the brother-in-law of

the deceased and brother of the appellant. He has

expressed no knowledge about the occurrence, rather

stated that he came to know about death of his sister-

in-law (bhabhi) Snehlata in her rented house through

telephonic message given by her landlord and went

there, where he saw dead body of the deceased and

knows nothing else.

26. P.W.-7 S.I. Sushil Kumar Jha is the Investigating

Officer. This witness has state that on 06.04.2018, he

took charge of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 80 of 2018.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 21 of 28

He visited the place of occurrence, which is house of

Dhananjay Kumar Thakur, situated at Lohia Nagar,

Ward No. 13/10, wherein deceased was living on rent

in a room. He recorded re-statement of the informant

and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C . of the

witnesses namely, Manish Kumar Jha, Kameshwar

Jha, Ananjay Kumar Thakur, Sunila Thakur, Kumari

Nisha, Dev Chandra Sandil, Nityanand Jha,

Rampravesh Gupta, Manjula Murmu, Sunita Kisku,

Pushkar Jha, Banke Bihari Jha, Bikash Chandra Jha

and Tarkeshwar Harijan etc. He also prepared inquest

report (Exhibit-1/2) of the deceased in presence of two

witnesses namely, Manish Kumar Jha and Uma Devi.

He arrested Prem Chand Sandil on 17.04.2018 and

seized two mobile phones bearing nos. 7992339517

and 95341290311 and prepared seizure list (Exhibit-

4) and sent the same to the technical cell for collecting

the call detail reports. Having sufficient evidence

against the accused, arrested the accused and also on

direction of superior police officers, he has submitted

charge-sheet against Prem Chand Sandil, keeping

investigation continuing against other co -accused

persons.

In his cross-examination, no contradiction from

the evidence of any of the witnesses examined by

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 22 of 28

prosecution has been drawn by the defence, rather he

has stated that in presence of two independent

witness disclosure statement of Prem Chand Sandil

was recorded by him after his arrest. The accused has

given confessional statement of his guilt.

He has denied the suggestion of defence that he

has submitted charge sheet against the accused

person without sufficient evidence only on the basis of

extracted confessional statement.

27. P.W.-8 Banke Bihari Jha is not an eye-witness of the

occurrence, rather he came to know about death of

wife of Prem Chand Sandil at Godda , then he

attended the funeral ceremony at Godda, but in-laws

of Prem Chand Sandil lodged a case against him for

dowry death.

28. P.W.-9 Tarkeshwar Harijan has also attended the

funeral ceremony and knows nothing about the

factual aspect of the case.

29. P.W.-10 Ananjoy Kumar Thakur is the landlord of

the deceased. He came to know about the occurrence

in the morning that Snehlata has been died.

Thereafter, some villagers and parents of the deceased

and other family members assembled. He does not

know about factual aspects of this case.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 23 of 28

30. P.W.-11 Sunita Thakur is the land lady of the house.

According to her evidence, the occurrence is of

05.04.2018. The room was rented to her on

14.03.2018 on the request of her dewar Bullu. The

main reason for letting out the house was the

education of the daughter, who was admitted at St.

Thomas School, Godda. She has no knowledge about

any other material particularly of this case.

31. P.W.-12 Rakesh Kumar Singh is neighbour of the

deceased. He has deposed that after hearing hulla in

the morning, he went to the house of Ananjoy, where

he came to know that a lady has been murdered . He

has stated nothing else.

32. P.W.-13 Sunita Murmu has been declared hostile by

the prosecution and expressed no knowledge about

the case.

33. P.W.-14 Manju Mumru is hearsay witness and

expressed no knowledge about the case.

34. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence

has been adduced by the defence. As per the

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is denial

from occurrence and false implication. The accused

has also stated that he has never made any

confessional statement before police, rather signature

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 24 of 28

was obtained in plain paper putting him on physical

torture. He also admits that from 24.03.2018 to

09.04.2018, he was on leave, but failed to disclose the

real reason for taking leave.

35. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of

witnesses, it emerges that the appellant was married

with deceased on 30.11.2012, who died on

05/06.04.2018 in her rented house, where she was

residing along with her girl child, aged about 04

years, who was admitted in St. Thomas School, Godda

for prosecuting her studies. It also transpires from the

evidence of informant Uma Devi (P.W. -4), who has

proved the contents of F.I.R. that due to tense

relationship of husband and wife on account

of demand of additional dowry in the shape of one

Katha land and one four -wheeler vehicle and

consequent harassment and torture meted with the

deceased, she was compelled to live at her parental

home along with her tender year child. It is also

stated that all of a sudden on 14.03.2018, the present

appellant brought his wife and minor child to Godda

and got admitted his daughter in St. Thomas School,

Godda. The landlady Sunita Thakur, who has been

examined as P.W.-11, has admitted that the deceased

started living in her rented house from 14.03.2018 at

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 25 of 28

the request of her dewar Bullu. The factum of demand

of dowry and consequent torture meted with deceased

at the hands of her husband is also proved by P.W.-1,

Kameshwar Jha (father of the deceased), P.W. -2,

Manish Kumar Jha (brother of the deceased), who in

his cross-examination has categorically stated that

the accused persons were asking one Katha land and

one four-wheeler vehicle. The cause of death of the

deceased has also been opined by P.W.-3 Dr. Pradeep

Kumar Sinha due to shock and asphyxia due to

strangulation by throttling. Ante mortem injuries were

also found on the dead body, which was opined to be

grievous in nature.

36. From the aforesaid unimpeachable evidence, there

remains no doubt that the deceased has died an

unnatural death while she was residing with her

husband in rented house at Godda. She has not only

sustained grievous ante-mortem injuries, but also

strangulation by throttling, which was main cause of

death. Therefore, first two ingredients of Section 304B

of I.P.C., as quoted above, stands established.

37. So far as other two ingredients regarding demand of

dowry and consequential torture meted with the

deceased soon before death is concerned, there are

clinching evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 that

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 26 of 28

just after the marriage (solemnized in the year 2012),

present appellant was asking one Katha land and one

four-wheeler vehicle, which was initially not take

seriously, but the subsequent conduct of the accused

in leaving his wife at parental home to coerce her to

meet the demands and ultimately taking her back to

Godda at rental house just on 14.03.2018 forcibly and

getting admission of tender year child in a School and

thereafter, taking leave from 24.03.2018 to

09.04.2018, the present appellant was living with her

and on the fateful night, the unfortunate death by

strangulation of the deceased occurred, which has not

been explained by the present appellant, rather

imaginary suggestions have been extended to the

P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 that the deceased was

residing alone and used to go hither and thither,

therefore, someone else taking advantage of her

loneliness caused her murder, is absolutely far away

from the proved facts and cannot be relied upon.

38. So far as reported judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the appellant in the case of

Bhupal Singh & Another (Supra) and The State of

Uttarakhand (Supra) do not fit with the facts and

circumstances of the case, hence are of no assistance

in the context of present appeal.

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 27 of 28

39. We have given anxious consideration to the overall

attending circumstances brought on record by the

prosecution and defence and of the clear cut view that

the prosecution has established the foundational facts

constituting offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C.

(now Section 80 of BNS) against the appellant,

legitimately raising the presumption under Section

113-B of the Evidence Act against the appellant, but

the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence to

rebut the aforesaid presumption of law. Therefore, we

do not find any valid reason to interfere with the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the

appellant passed by the learned trial court and no

illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.

40. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we do

not find any error of law in the impugned judgment

and order, calling for any interference. We also do not

find any legal substance in the points of argument

raised on behalf of appellant and no merits in this

appeal, which stands dismissed.

41. Appellant is on bail, hence, his bail bond is cancelled

and he is directed to surrender before the concerned

trial court to undergo the sentence awarded to him by

learned trial court within one month from the date of

this judgment, failing which, the learned trial court

2026:JHHC:5622-DB

Page 28 of 28

shall take all coercive steps to secure arrest of the

appellant and send him to jail custody for sustaining

the sentence.

42. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

43. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court

concerned for information and needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay , J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated, the 25

th

February, 2026.

Sunil /N.A.F.R.

Uploaded On : 26/02/2026