IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.640 of 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2009 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna

======================================================

RAJIV RANJAN Son of Laxman Ram Resident of Village- Khajekala, Ganga

Ghat Road, P.S.- Khajekalan, District- Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate

Mr. Shivam, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

Date : 19-09-2024

The present appeal has been filed under Section-

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction

dated 08.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2019

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna City, in

Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2011, (arising out of Khajekala P.S.

Case No. 203 of 2009), whereby the appellant/convict has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section-304B of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The

period of custody has been ordered to be treated as period of

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

2/38

sentence served.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel

for the appellant assisted by Mr. Shivam and learned APP Mr.

Sujit Kumar Singh for the respondent-State.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:

“As per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant father

on 17.09.2009, the daughter of the informant was married on

23.11.2005 with Rajeev Ranjan, younger son of Lakshman

Ram, resident of Khajekala. After 15-20 days of the marriage, a

dowry demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made from his daughter by

her father-in-law (Lakshman), mother-in-law, Ravi Ranjan and

her husband (Rajeev Ranjan). The informant managed to fulfil

the demand to the best of his capacity. His daughter was several

times beaten and sent back to his house. For last few days, a

refrigerator was being demanded which was given by the

informant. The informant was informed by his daughter that the

situation was tense for some days upon which he assured her to

go to her soon. Last evening, he had a talk with his daughter

when she wished happy birthday to his grandson. The situation

at that time was quite normal. Last day i.e. on 16.09.2009, at

08:30 at night the informant was informed on telephone that his

daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself. At once, he

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

3/38

reached Patna City with his family members at 11:00 hours in

the night and he found his daughter lying dead on the ground.

When he enquired as to how all this happened, Rajeev Ranjan,

son-in-law, informed that she was wearing half of the sari and

she used half of the sari to hang herself, which explanation did

not inspire confidence. Her neck was injured with bleeding and

deeply pressed from the front side and there was no injury on

the back portion of the neck. The tongue of his daughter was

not protruded. For the aforesaid reasons, the informant has

apprehension that his daughter Deepa Rani was done to death

by the appellant and other co-accused under a criminal

conspiracy.”

4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating

agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement

of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and

thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the

case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered

as Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2011.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajay

Kumar Thakur, at the outset, submits that there is a delay in

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

4/38

lodging the FIR in which, with mala fide intention, the present

appellant has been implicated. It is contended that, as per the

case of the informant, he got the information that his daughter

has committed suicide. Such information was received by him

on 16-09-2009 at about 8.30 p.m. on telephone and he reached

at 11:00 p.m. to the house of his daughter. However, the police

came at the place of incident. Despite the presence of the police

at the place, FIR was not filed by him immediately. It is further

submitted that the written complaint was given on the next day,

i.e. after funeral of his daughter, at about 2:00 p.m. on 17-09-

2009. Learned counsel would further submit that, in the written

complaint given by the informant, he had stated about the

telephone call from his daughter at 6:30 p.m. on the date prior

to the incident when she conveyed happy wishes. The situation

at that time was quite normal. However, the informant, P.W. 11,

had, for the first time, deposed before the court during the

course of his deposition that his daughter informed him about

the cruelty meted out to her for demand of dowry. Thus, it is

contended that the informant has improved his version before

the court and there are major contradictions, inconsistencies

and improvement in the deposition of the informant.

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

5/38

submitted that, even as per the case of the prosecution, the so-

called demand of dowry was last made in the year 2006 and in

January 2007. However, thereafter, the alleged incident took

place after a long gap in September 2009. The prosecution has

even failed to prove the cruelty meted out to the deceased by

the appellant herein. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove

the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. Learned counsel Mr.

Thakur further submits that, in the present case, the

investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution,

as a result of which serious prejudice has been caused to the

defense. It is submitted that because of the non-examination of

the investigating officer, the defense had lost the opportunity to

cross-examine the investigating officer. In fact, all the

independent witnesses, i.e. PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7, have

specifically deposed before the court about the cordial

relationship between the appellant and his deceased wife. It is

also submitted that P.W.1, P.W. 2 and PW-8 have turned hostile.

At this stage, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel that

some of the defense witnesses have specifically deposed before

the court that their statements were recorded by the police

during the course of investigation. However, the prosecution

has failed to examine the said witnesses and, therefore, the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

6/38

informant has examined them as defense witnesses. The

investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution.

The defense has lost the opportunity to cross-examine him and

thereby great prejudice has been caused to the appellant. In the

facts of the present case, such non-examination is fatal to the

prosecution.

6. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case

of Lahu Kamlakar Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra,

reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417 in support of the aforesaid

contention.

7. Learned counsel thereafter referred the trial

court record and pointed out the photographs which have been

exhibited. It is contended from the photographs produced by

the defense that it can be said that the relationship between the

appellant and his deceased wife as well as the informant were

cordial. It is further submitted that the appellant has invested

amount in Kishan Vikas Patra in the name of him and his wife

from time to time. It is also submitted that the FIR is also not

exhibited. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the trial court has

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

7/38

passed the impugned judgment and order and, therefore, the

same be quashed and set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh has opposed the present

appeal. Learned APP submits that the prosecution has proved

the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC by leading cogent

evidence, i.e. through prosecution witnesses P.W. 11,

informant, P.W. 9 Sunita Devi, wife of the informant, P.W. 3

Ritesh Kumar, son of the informant, and P.W. 4 Md. Arif

Hussain, a staff member of the informant. Learned APP, at this

stage, has also referred the deposition of P.W. 10 Dr. Ashok

Kumar who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of

the deceased. It is submitted that from the deposition of the said

witness, it is revealed that the cause of death is due to asphyxia

caused by pressure over the neck. Thus, the death of the

deceased was unnatural. Learned APP, therefore, urged that

when the deceased died because of an unnatural reason within a

period of four years from marriage, presumption under Section

113B of the Evidence Act is attracted. Learned APP further

submits that even after the death of the deceased, the appellant

married second time and thereafter the appellant tried to kill his

second wife also. However, she survived and thereafter an FIR

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

8/38

has been filed against the appellant and his anticipatory bail

application also came to be dismissed.

9. Learned APP, therefore, urged that when the

prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt, no error has been committed by the trial

court while passing the impugned judgment. He, therefore,

urged that the present appeal be dismissed.

10. We have considered the submissions

canvassed by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also

perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also perused

the documentary evidence exhibited.

11. At this stage, we would like to appreciate the

relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution as

well as defence before the Trial Court.

12. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined

11 witnesses. Defence has also examined 6 witnesses.

13. P.W. 1 Ramnath Prasad Yadav, P.W. 2 Ajay

Kumar and P.W. 8 Shiv Narayan Prasad have not supported the

prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the

prosecution.

14. P.W. 3 Ritesh Kumar has stated in his

examination-in-chief that Deepa Rani @ Joolie was his

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

9/38

younger sister. Her marriage was solemnized with Rajeev

Ranjan on 23.11.2005. On that occasion, 13 bhar Gold and

other household items were given. She went to her in-laws’

place and for 20-25 days she remained there happily and with

dignity. Thereafter, on the pretext of raising capital (in the

shop), a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made from his father by

Rajeev Ranjan, Ravi Ranjan, Tara Devi and Lakshman Ram.

They began to torture his sister to get the demand fulfilled and

after 20-25 days, they sent his sister back to Barh. His father,

with two other persons, namely Shri Sant Singh and Mannu

Singh, consoled her and brought back to her in-laws’ house and

gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused in presence of all the

accused. For some time, everything was fine with his sister, but

again the accused started torturing her. On 06.03.2006, the

deponent with Arif Hussain went to the in-laws’ place of his

sister and paid Rs.50,000/- to accused Rajeev Ranjan in

presence of all the accused persons. In July, 2006, his sister was

again sent to Barh where she gave birth to a male child in

Majholia Hospital, Patna City. Total cost of treatment was

borne by his father and nobody from the accused side came to

see his sister. Rajeev Ranjan took his sister to his own house

along with younger sister Sweety who returned the same day.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

10/38

On 06.09.2009, at 08:30 p.m., he received the information on

telephone that his sister has committed suicide. He had talked

with his sister two hours before that, when everything was

normal. On such information, they reached the in-laws’ house

of his sister. One of his sister’s slippers was lying at the door

and worshipping items were scattered in the house. On going

upstairs, it was found that the dead body of his sister was lying

on the floor. Her clothes were not in order. There was a ligature

mark caused by a wire. Her mouth was closed. Only Rajeev

Ranjan was present there and none else was present. He has

stated that the police had recorded his statement. He identifies

accused Rajeev Ranjan present in court.

14.1. In his cross-examination, he has supported

his statements given in the examination-in-chief regarding

dowry demand, fulfilment of the said demand and the torture

meted out to his sister. He has further stated that Sweety

returned from the in-laws’ house of her sister after 20-25 days.

He has denied to have stated before the police that Sweety

returned the same day. He has denied the suggestion to have

given false deposition. He has denied the suggestion that the

allegation of demand of dowry is false. He has also denied the

suggestion that the incident had not taken place due to non-

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

11/38

fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

15. P.W. 4 Md. Arif Hussain has stated in his

examination-in-chief that Deepa Rani was married to Rajeev

Ranjan on 23.11.2005. He has also supported the sequence of

events as stated by P.W. 3 such as demand of dowry, torture

meted out to Deepa Rani, birth of a male child to Deepa Rani

in 2006. He has further added that on 16.09.2006 he had gone

to Rajeev Ranjan’s house with 7-8 persons and he saw that

Deepa Rani was strangulated to death and her dead body was

lying on the verandah. Her mouth and eyes were closed. They

guessed that accused Rajeev Ranjan, Ravi Ranjan, Lakshman

Ram and Tara Devi had together committed the murder. He has

stated that the police had taken his statement. He identifies

Rajeev Ranjan, present in court.

15.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

his statement was taken 2-3 days after the incident. He has

further stated that he has given his statement as overheard by

him while Deepa Rani used to talk to Vijay Kumar Bhagat on

telephone. He is a staff of Vijay Kumar Bhagat. He was not

with Vijay Kumar Bhagat when he withdrew money from the

post office. He has denied the suggestion that no money was

given to the accused 06.03.2006. He has also stated that no sign

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

12/38

of assault was seen in the puja room and no blood was seen

anywhere. He did not see any broken bangles in the puja room.

He has denied the suggestion that he has given false deposition

in collusion with Vijay Bhagat being his staff.

16. P.W. 5 Susmita Devi is an independent

witness. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the

incident took place in the month of September, 2009. Rajeev

Ranjan was married to Joolie Devi who died. She does not

know as to how she died. She has further stated that she put her

signature on the inquest report prepared by the S.I. She has

claimed to identify Rajeev Ranjan.

16.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that

there was cordial relationship between Rajeev Ranjan and his

wife. Rajeev Ranjan used to live with his parents and brothers.

The police had never interrogated her.

17. P.W. 6 Jitendra Singh is also an independent

witness. He has deposed that he knows accused Rajeev Ranjan

who is from his locality. He was married to Deepa Rani. He

had a child also from her. Deepa Rani died at Khajekala.

17.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

Rajeev Ranjan was separate from his parents and brothers.

Partition took place in 2007. The police had never interrogated

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

13/38

him.

18. P.W. 7 Shankar Prasad Chaurasia is also an

independent witness. He has not supported the case of the

prosecution. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he

had not given statement before the police. He knows accused

Rajeev Ranjan who was married to Deepa Rani. The couple

lived together. He is not aware about any difference between

them. Deepa Rani is dead. Some incident had taken place

between them but he does not know the actual incident. He has

further stated that Rajeev Ranjan lived separate from his

brothers.

18.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

Rajeev Ranjan separated from his parents and brothers before

the incident. He has also stated that the accused had a good

relation with his wife. He had not heard about the demand of

Tilak-Dowry etc. being made. Police had not taken his

statement ever. Local people said that she herself committed

suicide.

19. P.W. 8 Shiv Narayan Prasad has not supported

the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the

prosecution. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he

put his signature on the inquest report of Deepika Rani

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

14/38

prepared by the S.I. He has denied the suggestion that Deepika

Rani and Rajeev Ranjan used to quarrel frequently.

19.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it

is true that Rajeev Ranjan’s wife Deepika Rani had once tried

to set herself on fire by pouring oil on her body for partition of

property. He has denied the suggestion to have stated half truth.

19.2. In his cross-examination on behalf of the

defence, he has stated that accused lives separate from his

parents and brothers. Partition among the accused persons had

taken place before filing of this case in which he was also an

arbitrator. He had not seen any fight between the husband and

wife. He has further stated that the deceased had a child from

the accused who is at his maternal house. He has denied the

suggestion to have concealed any aspect. He has also denied

the suggestion that the accused had made any demand of Tilak

or dowry.

20. P.W. 9 Sunita Devi has deposed in her

examination-in-chief that the informant Mr. Vijay Kumar

Bhagat is her husband. Her daughter Deepa Devi (deceased)

was married to accused Rajeev Ranjan on 23

rd

November,

2005. She lived with the accused in her in-laws’ place

peacefully for ten days, but thereafter the accused started

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

15/38

demanding Rs.2,00,000/- from Deepa and sent her back. In

December, 2006 Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the accused in cash

through her sister-in-law in presence of Ritesh and Arif which

did not satisfy the accused. On December 16, 2009 at 08:30

p.m., Rajeev Ranjan informed her husband on telephone that

Deepa has committed suicide. On such information, her

husband, she, Shrikant Singh, Mannu Singh, Ramagya Yadav,

Santosh Kumar, Raju Bhagat, Sanjay Kumar, Ritesh Kumar

and Arif Hussain reached the in-laws’ house of Deepa at 11

O’clock at night. They saw that one of Deepa’s slippers was

lying at the door and the other on the stairs. Her dead body was

lying below the almirah (worshiping place). Except her son-in-

law, no other family member was present in the house. There

was a mark on Deepa’s neck. Deepa’s broken bangles were

found beneath the bed. Police had arrived and had carried out

paper-work. Her husband filed the case in the morning of the

following day of the incident. The dead body was sent for post

mortem. She claims that her daughter was murdered by the

accused persons as the accused Rajeev Ranjan was greedy of

dowry, he wanted to marry a girl of white complexion and had

illicit relationship with another girl. She has also stated that her

statement was recorded by the police. She has identified

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

16/38

accused Rajeev Ranjan, present in Court and claims to identify

other accused persons by face.

20.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that

she cannot tell the exact time of filing of the case. She is not

aware as to who is the registered owner of the in-laws’ house of

Deepa. She only knows that her in-laws’ house stands

partitioned. She has further stated that whenever she went to

see her daughter, she used to talk to other family members as

well. Though her daughter used to allege about the demand of

dowry by the in-laws, but the in-laws did not make any such

demand from her. She has stated in para-10 that the birthday of

Deepa’s son was celebrated on 6

th

September, 2009 in which

she, her husband, her son Ritesh, daughter-in-law Gayatri Devi,

younger daughter Pooja Rani had gone to participate. Deepa

had herself arranged the party as the accused persons were not

willing to celebrate the birthday. She has accepted that Rajeev

Ranjan gave them a warm welcome on the occasion. There was

no exchange of money between her husband and the accused in

her presence. She has further stated that the accused wanted

custody of the child, but prosecution-side is not ready to hand

over custody of the child as they have apprehension that they

(accused) would kill the child. She has further stated that all her

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

17/38

family members had participated in the funeral of her daughter.

She has denied the suggestion that they broke the lock and took

away jewelry and other house-hold articles with them. She has

denied the suggestion that her husband, hatching a conspiracy

with Shankar Chaurasia, was pressurizing the accused and his

parents to transfer the property either to the son of Deepa or to

Daisy, the daughter of Shankar Chaurasia. She has also denied

to have given false deposition with an intention to grab the

property of the accused.

21. P.W. 10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav has stated in

his examination-in-chief that On September, 2009 he was

posted as Professor, Forensic Medicine at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna and had conducted post mortem examination of

Dipa Rani, wife of Rajeev Ranjan at 11:30 a.m. in the

N.M.C.H. Mortuary. Dead body was brought by constable No.

5214 Dinanath Ram. Following injuries were noted during the

post mortem examination:-

Rigor Mortis was positive, face red, eyes congested

and (illegible) at the (illegible) and lips.

One ligature mark and encircling the neck

measuring 13” long and 1/2”x1” wide was found.

Ligature mark was just above the thyroid cartilage

on the front of the neck 1/2” below the right ear on the right side

of neck, 2.5” below the left ear on the left side of neck and 1.5”

below the external (illegible).

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

18/38

Ligature mark was on the front of the neck was

more marked and lest marked on the back of neck.

On internal examination, the underlying area above

and below the ligature mark were found congested.

Above mentioned ligature mark was ante mortem

grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and

caused by pressure of ligature.

Cause of death- Asphyxia due to pressure over the

neck. Time of death within 12 to 24 hours from the time of

P.M. examination. The P.M. report is in his pen and signature

(Ext. 1).

21.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

Ligature mark was found on the neck which can be caused by

committing suicide by encircling sari around the neck. He had

not found any other injury on the body. The tongue was

protruding, eyes were at the place and not protruding. There

was no burn injury. The cause of death was suffocation. There

was no sign of froth coming out.

22. P.W. 11 Vijay Kumar Bhagat has deposed in

his examination-in-chief that he is the informant of this case

and the written complaint is in his pen and signature which he

identifies (Ext. 2). Deceased Deepa Rani was his daughter. He

had got her daughter married with Rajeev Ranjan on 23

rd

November, 2005 as per Hindu rites and rituals and had given

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

19/38

his daughter 13 bhar Gold, electric apparatus, Washing

Machine, Refrigerator, Cooler etc. His daughter went to her in-

laws’ place and stayed there for 15-20 days happily. Thereafter,

the accused persons started torturing her. All the accused

persons, namely Lakshman Ram (father-in-law), Tara Devi

(mother-in-law), Rajeev Ranjan (husband) and Ravi Ranjan

started demanding dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and threatened to

kill her in the event of non-fulfilment of the demand. His

daughter used to inform him about the same. After 20 days of

the marriage, they drove her back to his house and threatened

not to come back without paying Rs.2,00,000/-. He tried to

pacify the situation and negotiated with the accused. After 5-6

days, he managed to borrow Rs.1,00,000/-, went to the house

of the accused with his friend Manu Singh and Shrikant Singh

and handed over the amount to Rajeev Ranjan in presence of

all the family members. He had gone with his daughter and

implored Lakshman Ram, Tara Devi and Ravi Ranjan to keep

his daughter with them and they promised to keep her with

dignity. His daughter stayed there happily for two months.

Again the accused persons started demanding Rs.1,00,000/-

and torturing her. On 6

th

March, 2006, his son went with Ritesh

Kumar and Arif Hussain (staff) to the in-laws’ house and paid

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

20/38

Rs.50,000/- to Rajeev Ranjan in presence of his parents. For

some days thereafter, the accused kept his daughter with

dignity. Again the accused persons started torturing his

daughter and in July, 2006 brought his daughter to his house.

At that time, his daughter was pregnant. On 06.09.2006 she

gave birth to her son. Total expense of treatment and delivery

was borne by him. Nobody from the side of the groom turned

up. His son Ritesh was married on 28.01.2007 on which

occasion the accused did not allow his daughter to come to his

house and put a condition that she can go only if a Gold chain

and a Gold ring is given. He went after 3-4 days of the demand

and fulfilled the demand and only then they sent his daughter

with him. Four days after the said marriage, she went back to

her in-laws’ house. On 06.09.2009, his daughter had dialed and

had wished happy birthday to the grandson of his brother. At

that time she also informed that the accused persons were

torturing her. The same day, at 08:30 p.m. Rajeev Ranjan

informed him on his mobile that Deepa Rani had committed

suicide. Hearing this, he became senseless. He along with

Manu Singh, Shrikant Singh, his nephew Santosh and Sanjay,

his son Ritesh, Ram, Agya Yadav, Arif Hussain etc. reached the

in-laws’ house of his daughter. They went to the 2

nd

floor and

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

21/38

found that his daughter was lying dead in the verandah. Except

Rajeev Ranjan, no member from the in-laws’ family was

present there. His daughter was wearing a sari. He had also

seen a black mark on the neck. It looked as if she was murdered

by fastening a wire around the neck and pulling it. Tongue was

not protruding. His colleagues expressed strong suspicion that

his daughter has been killed by the accused. When the police

came, he narrated everything to the police and submitted a

written complaint. Panchnama of the dead-body was prepared.

He went to the police station from there. The dead-body was

sent for post mortem examination. Police had re-interrogated

him, but had not arrested anybody that day. He has identified

accused Rajeev Ranjan, present in Court. He further adds that

Rajeev Ranjan has contracted 2

nd

marriage and also he tried to

kill the bride by strangulating her neck, but on alarm being

raised by her, the local residents bate him regarding which a

case is pending in the Court. He has the F.I.R. of that case

bearing Case No. 713/13. He promised to bring the paper on

record on the next date.

22.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

he did not go to the police station as he had become senseless

on seeing the dead body of his daughter. Police had come there.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

22/38

The funeral was done after formalities done by the police. Only

his son-in-law had participated in the funeral. Other members

of his son-in-law’s family were absconding. Police had

recorded his re-statement in the office of Dy. S.P. while the I.O.

had gone to his house. He again states that the Investigating

Officer had also interrogated him and his wife at his own house

and thereafter took them to Dy. S.P. He has identified certain

photographs as Ext. 1 and 1/A. He always saw a refrigerator in

the house of the accused, but he cannot say from which shop it

was purchased because he had only given money for

purchasing the same. He had given huge amount twice, once in

December, 2005 and again on 6

th

March, 2006 Rs. 50,000/-. He

had gone to pay with his son and Md. Arif Hussain (staff). First

time he had gone alone. He had taken his son-in-law on

pilgrimage, once to Bindhyachal and second time to Deoghar.

He had taken him to Deoghar about one and a half-two years

before the death of his daughter. He does not remember

whether it was before or after the birth of his daughter’s son.

Further, he has identified certain photographs of the year 2007

as Ext. 1/B and 1/C in which he, his son-in-law, his daughter,

his grandson, granddaughter and his wife as also the wife of his

son figure. Birthday of his grandson (Nati) was celebrated on

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

23/38

6

th

September, 2009, about 10 days before the death of his

daughter in which he, his wife, his son Ritesh, his son’s wife

Madhbi, granddaughter Banshika had gone to participate. He

has also identified certain other photographs as Ext. 1/D to 1/G.

He has denied the suggestion that he had lost the case filed

against him in the Hon’ble High Court for misappropriation.

He has denied that he has kidnapped Amit Kumar and stated

that he is in his safe custody. He has also denied that he does

not permit Amit Kumar to talk with his father and grand

parents. He has further stated that his daughter had never

submitted any complaint, written or verbal, against any family

member of the accused side right from her marriage till her

death. He had deposed on the basis of the information provided

by his daughter second time on telephone, but he has not

procured the C.D.R. of his daughter’s mobile. He has further

stated that the incident of 16.09.2009 had not taken place in his

presence. He had reached after the incident. He was informed

about the incident by Rajeev Ranjan himself. He has denied to

have given false deposition and that his son-in-law used to

purchase Kisan Vikas Patra, sometime of Rs.10,000/-, at

another of Rs.20,000/-. He has also denied to have concealed

this fact intentionally. He has identified the photograph in

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

24/38

which his hand is on the shoulder of his son-in-law (Ext. 1/K)

and the photograph filed by the defense side in which his

daughter and son-in-law are together (Ext.1/L). He has denied

the suggestion to have given false deposition on the script of

the Dy. S.P.

23. DW-1Pankaj Kumar has deposed that on

16.09.2009 he had gone to the jewelry shop of Rajeev Ranjan

at 07:30 p.m. At that very time, a lady came with the son of

Rajeev Ranjan in her lap and told him that she had taken the

son to his house, but nobody opened the door to receive the

child. Saying this, she left the child there. At this, Rajeev

Ranjan closed down the shutter and proceeded towards his

house carrying his child. He also followed Rajeev Ranjan with

local people. When the door could not be opened by pushing

hard, Rajeev Ranjan informed the police station and police

came there. He was present there. He went inside the house

following the police along with others and saw that the wife of

Rajeev Ranjan was hanging with the ceiling fan of verandah.

On the instruction of Dy. S.P. the body was brought down.

During this, no member from the family of Rajeev Ranjan was

present nor anybody from the in-laws’ family of Rajeev Ranjan

had reached there. He had no acquaintance with Rajeev Ranjan

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

25/38

from before.

23.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

he had not seen any of the family members of Rajeev Ranjan or

his wife. He had deposed on the request made by Rajeev

Ranjan. He has denied the suggestion that Deepa was being

tortured for dowry and for that very reason she was murdered.

He has further stated that he had gone to the house of Rajeev

Ranjan at 07:40 p.m. and left the place at 08:00 p.m.

Panchnama was not done in his presence.

24. D.W. 2 Pramod Kumar has stated in his

examination-in-chief that he is acquainted with both sides. The

incident is of 16.09.2009. He was at his jewelry shop. Rajeev

Ranjan was also at his own shop. His wife brought lunch for

him, put the child at the shop and went back in a tempo. Rajeev

Ranjan sent his child to his house with a lady who returned

with the child and reported that the door was locked from

inside and was not opened despite knocking hard several times.

Police came and broke the door open. He returned home. He

had never seen the couple quarreling with each other. Even that

day their behaviour was normal.

24.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

Rajeev was married ten years before the incident i.e. on

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

26/38

23.11.2005. He has further stated that he has come to depose on

the request of the learned counsel (illegible) Kumar. He is

aware that a case is going on against Rajeev and his parents for

the alleged killing of Rajeev’s wife. He has denied the

suggestion that the family of the accused has committed the

murder for dowry. He has also denied the suggestion that he

has given false deposition to save Rajeev Ranjan from the case.

25. D.W. 3 Mohan Kumar has just corroborated

the version of D.W. 2 and has not added any material thing.

26. D.W. 4 Rajeev Ranjan is the appellant himself.

He has stated that he had not made any demand at the time of

his marriage. He had purchased the ornaments and house-hold

articles. He had also taken Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of

his wife. He has filed the Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 35000/-

bearing the signature of the Post Master (Ext. X). He had also

purchased the refrigerator on installment (Ext.X/7). He has

further stated that he had no complaint against any of his in-

laws, rather his wife Deepa Rani had some issue with her step

mother regarding some money deposited in her name. He has

also stated that his wife continued her education even after the

marriage and he used to go with her to the examination centre

to keep the child during examination hours. He has also filed

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

27/38

the admit card (Ext. 1). He has further stated that on the date of

incident, i.e. on 16.09.2009, he was at his shop. His wife came

with the lunch, left the child at the shop and went away saying

that she is going to meet his step mother. His mother lives at a

distance of 10-15 minutes. When she did not return, he sent the

child with Anita Devi, who is an adjacent shop-keeper. She

returned with the child and said that the door was locked. Then

he himself went to his house with 2-3 persons and saw that the

main gate is locked from inside. He informed the police on

telephone. At 08:20 p.m., the police came. Daroga Ji broke

open the gate, went inside with lady constable and saw that his

wife is hanging with the help of her sari. He informed his

father-in-law Vijay Yadav about the mishap. He performed both

funeral and last rites of his wife in which his father-in-law, his

brother, friend and staff all participated. His father-in-law had

taken the child with him on that very occasion. After

performing the last rites of his wife, he tried to contact the

child, but his father-in-law did not allow him to talk and put a

precondition to transfer the property in his child’s name.

26.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

he is the accused of this case lodged by his father-in-law

against him and his parents. He has further stated that police

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

28/38

had not arrested him, rather he had surrendered in November.

He was released from custody after 16 months on getting bail

from Patna High Court. In his further cross-examination, he has

stated that police had reached to his house at 08:20 p.m. and the

informant Vijay Kumar had reached at 12:30 in the night and

not at 11:00 p.m. Police had already reached there. The inquest

report was prepared in his presence, but he did not get the

opportunity to go through the same. He has denied the

suggestion that it is written in the inquest report that the dead

body was lying on the floor. He has denied the allegation to

have killed the deceased by strangulating her and that he has

given false deposition.

27. D.W. 5 Tej Narayan Mishra has also

supported the version of D.W. 2. He has also identified a

photograph which was marked Ext. B on protest. He has also

stated that he was a witness in the previous case.

27.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

he has been called by Rajeev Ranjan to depose. He has also

stated that the 2

nd

wife of Rajeev Ranjan has also lodged a case

against him alleging that he is not keeping her with him. He has

further stated that he does not remember the date on which the

Rajeev Ranjan’s wife died. He had not gone to the place where

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

29/38

her dead body was lying as the police forbade him to go there.

28. D.W. 6 Anita Devi has stated in her

examination-in-chief that the incident took place in 2009. She

was at her shop. Rajeev Ranjan’s shop is situated to the north

of her shop. As usual, Deepa Rani, wife of Rajeev Ranjan,

came with the lunch for him. The 2.5-3 year old child was also

with her. That day she returned leaving the child at the shop.

When, on the request of Rajeev Ranjan, the deponent went to

his house, the door was locked from inside. She knocked the

door several times, but the door was not opened. Lastly, she

came back to Rajeev Ranjan, informed him everything and

handed over the child to him. On being interrogated by the

Police, she stated to the police that she had gone to the house of

Rajeev Ranjan with his child, but when the door was not

opened even after knocking several times, she returned and

handed over the child to Rajeev Ranjan. She has further stated

that whatever she has deposed in the Court, she had stated

before the Police also. She has further stated that Deepa Rani

never disclosed to her about any differences with the husband.

She has also stated that except the couple, no other family

member was residing in the house.

28.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

30/38

she has been brought to depose by the accused. She has also

stated that she is acquainted with Rajeev Ranjan since 2007.

She has further stated that police had recorded her statement a

day after the incident at her shop. She has the knowledge that

Rajeev Ranjan was arrested. She has denied the suggestion to

have deposed on the instruction of Rajeev Ranjan that she went

to his house with the child and found the door locked. She has

also denied the suggestion that she has given false deposition to

save Rajeev Ranjan.

29. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence led

by the prosecution and perused the typed copy of the

depositions of the prosecution-witnesses supplied by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

30. It transpires from the record that the written

complaint has been given by the informant who is father of the

deceased at about 02:00 p.m. on 17.09.2009 for the alleged

incident which took place on 16.09.2009 at about 08:30 p.m. It

further transpires that in the written complaint the informant

has specifically stated that one day prior to the date of incident,

his daughter called him and wished happy birthday to his

grandson. Thus, from the said averment made in the written

complaint itself, it cannot be said that there was any cruelty

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

31/38

meted out to the deceased soon before her death. It is further

revealed from the deposition of the informant/P.W. 11 that, for

the first time, the said witness has deposed before the Court in

his examination-in-chief that his daughter informed him about

the cruelty meted out to her with regard to the payment of

dowry and she told about the same when she called one day

prior to the date of incident and congratulated and wished

happy birthday to his grandson. Thus, it is revealed that there is

an improvement in the version of P.W. 11, the informant. It is

also revealed from the written complaint that the informant has

stated about the demand of refrigerator made by the accused. It

is also stated that one refrigerator was given to the accused.

However, from the deposition of the defence witnesses and

from the bill produced on behalf of the defence, which has been

exhibited, it is revealed that the refrigerator was purchased by

the appellant. It is also revealed from the deposition of P.W. 11

and, more particularly from the examination-in-chief that at the

time of marriage Gold, electric instruments, washing machine,

refrigerator, cooler etc. were given by the informant to his

daughter. Thus, it can be said that if the refrigerator was given

in November, 2005, then there was no question of demand of

refrigerator again in 2009 (within four years). Thus, we are of

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

32/38

the view that there are major contradictions, inconsistencies

and improvement in the deposition of the informant.

30.1. It is further revealed that initially the

police made enquiry from the informant with regard to the

incident. However, at that time the F.I.R. was not registered nor

his fardbeyan was recorded. On the next day, after the funeral,

the written complaint was given by the informant. At this stage,

it is also required to be observed that from the deposition of the

prosecution-witnesses, it is revealed that the so called demand

of dowry was made in the year 2006 and thereafter in January,

2007. There is nothing on record to suggest that such demand

was made soon before the death of the deceased.

31. It would further reveal from the evidence of

the prosecution that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 have turned

hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution.

Further P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, who are independent

witnesses, have specifically deposed before the Court that

appellant was having cordial relationship with his wife

(deceased).

32. Thus, the prosecution has tried to prove the

case against the appellant by examining P.W. 3 Ritesh Kumar,

who is brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 Md. Arif Hussain, who

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

33/38

is a staff of P.W. 11, the informant, P.W. 9 Sunita Devi, mother

of the deceased and P.W. 11 Vijay Kumar Bhagat, father of the

deceased and informant.

33. We have gone through the deposition of the

aforesaid witnesses. However, there are major contradictions,

inconsistencies and improvement in their depositions and the

said witnesses cannot be termed as sterling witnesses.

33.1. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in

the present case the prosecution has failed to examine the

Investigating Officer who has carried out the investigation. The

F.I.R. has also not been exhibited. It is the specific case of the

appellant/defence that because of the non-examination of the

Investigating Officer, serious prejudice has been caused to him.

We have also observed hereinabove that the informant has

improved his version before the Court while giving his

examination-in-chief and stated certain aspect for the first time

which he has not written in the written complaint. Further, all

the independent witnesses i.e. P.W.5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, have

specifically deposed that their statements have not been

recorded by the Investigating Officer and, in fact, the

relationship between the appellant and the deceased wife was

very cordial. Further, the defence witnesses have also deposed

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

34/38

that their statements have been recorded by the Investigating

Officer. However, the prosecution has failed to examine the

said witnesses as prosecution-witnesses. In the aforesaid

background, because of the non-examination of the

Investigating Officer, the appellant lost the opportunity to

cross-examine. Therefore, we are of the view that in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, serious prejudice has

been caused to the defence i.e. the appellant herein.

34. Now, we would like to examine the

judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the

judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, Lahu

Kamlakar Patil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

observed at para 18 as under:-

“18. Keeping in view the

aforesaid position of law, the testimony of PW 1

has to be appreciated. He has admitted his signature

in the FIR but has given the excuse that it was

taken on a blank paper. The same could have been

clarified by the investigating officer, but for some

reason, the investigating officer has not been

examined by the prosecution. It is an accepted

principle that non-examination of the investigating

officer is not fatal to the prosecution case. In

Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1996) 2 SCC

317 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 271] , this Court has stated

that non-examination of the investigating officer is

not fatal to the prosecution case, especially, when

no prejudice is likely to be suffered by the accused.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

35/38

In Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar [(2000) 9 SCC

153 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1186], it has been opined that

when no material contradictions have been brought

out, then non-examination of the investigating

officer as a witness for the prosecution is of no

consequence and under such circumstances, no

prejudice is caused to the accused. It is worthy to

note that neither the trial Judge nor the High Court

has delved into the issue of non-examination of the

investigating officer. On a perusal of the entire

material brought on record, we find that no

explanation has been offered. The present case is

one where we are inclined to think so especially

when the informant has stated that the signature

was taken while he was in a drunken state, the

panch witness had turned hostile and some of the

evidence adduced in the court did not find place in

the statement recorded under Section 161 of the

Code. Thus, this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of

Bihar [(2001) 6 SCC 407 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1148] ,

Rattanlal v. State of J&K [(2007) 13 SCC 18 :

(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 349] and Ravishwar Manjhi v.

State of Jharkhand [(2008) 16 SCC 561 : (2010) 4

SCC (Cri) 50] , has explained certain circumstances

where the examination of investigating officer

becomes vital. We are disposed to think that the

present case is one where the investigating officer

should have been examined and his non-

examination creates a lacuna in the case of the

prosecution.”

35. From the aforesaid decision, it can be said

that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to

the prosecution-case, especially when no prejudice is likely to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

36/38

be suffered by the accused. However, from the aforesaid

evidence led by the prosecution in the present case, we are of

the view that the present case is one where the Investigating

Officer should have been examined and his non-examination

creates a lacuna in the case of the prosecution.

36. Thus, from the aforesaid observation made

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that essential

ingredients of the dowry death under Section-304B of I.P.C. is

that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in

connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and

that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume under

Section-113B of the Evidence Act that the accused has

committed the offence of dowry death.

37. In the present case, from the evidence led by

the prosecution, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to

prove that the appellant has subjected the deceased to cruelty in

connection with demand for dowry soon before her death.

38. From the evidence of defence witnesses

examined by the appellant and from the documents produced

by the defence, it is revealed that the appellant was in good

relationship with his wife (deceased). The photographs which

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

37/38

are produced and exhibited, the said aspect can be revealed.

Appellant has also purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of

his wife. He also encouraged his wife to continue her education

and rendered every kind of support to her.

39. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of the

prosecution-witnesses, we are of the view that there are major

contradictions, inconsistencies and improvement in the

deposition of the prosecution-witnesses.

40. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the

appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the

Trial Court has recorded the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence. As such, the same are required to be

quashed and set aside.

41. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 08.04.2019 and order of sentence dated

18.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII,

Patna City, in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2011, (arising out of

Khajekala P.S. Case No. 203 of 2009) are quashed and set

aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against

him by the learned Trial Court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.640 of 2019 dt.19-09-2024

38/38

41.1. Since the sole appellant is in jail, he is

directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if his

presence is not required in any other case.

K.C.Jha/-

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)

( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

AFR/NAFR A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 24.09.2024

Transmission Date 24.09.2024