Patna High Court
Bijli Paswan (Abated Vide Honble Courts … vs The State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.323 of 2004
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2001 Thana- MEHANDIA District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Bijli Paswan (Abated vide Honble Courts order dated 18-03-2026) S/O Late
Ramdev Paswan R/O Village- Bodh Bigha, P.S- Mahendia, Distt.-
Jehanabad.
2. Kalawati Devi W/O Bijli Paswan R/O Village- Bodh Bigha, P.S- Mahendia,
Distt.- Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 398 of 2004
======================================================
ASHOK PASWAN, Son of Bijli Paswan, Resident of Village- Bodh Bigha,
P.S. Mehendia, Dist - Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 323 of 2004)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sahil Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 398 of 2004)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansh Prasad, Amicus curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-04-2026
1. The Cr. APP (SJ) No. 323 of 2004 is
filed by Bijli Paswan and Kalawati Devi, who are the
in-laws of the Sarita Devi (hereinafter referred as
deceased) and Cr. APP (SJ) No. 398 of 2004, is filed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
2/53
by Ashok Paswan, who is husband of the deceased.
Both appeals are arising out of the judgment of
conviction dated 01.04.2004 and order of sentence
dated 05.04.2004, on the file of the Learned Ist
Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, in Sessions
Trial No. 111 of 200/ 56 of 2004 arising out of
Mehandia P.S. Case No. 18 of 2001, wherein all the
appellants were convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as "I.P.C."), and were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of ten years. Further, the appellants were
convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 201 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years, along with a fine of rupees 5000/- (five
thousand) each, and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the F.I.R.
was registered on 08.03.2001 on the file of
Mehandiya Police Station against the appellants for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
3/53
the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and
201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., based on Complaint Case
No. 108 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jehanabad, which was registered on
07.03.2001
. The complaint was filed before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad on
05.03.2001, by Ram Swaroop Pawan, i.e., father of
the deceased.
3. The contents of the complaint disclose
that Sarita Devi got married to Ashok Paswan at
Bodh Bigha, in the month of Vaishakh, 2000. After
marriage, the deceased went to her matrimonial
house, stayed there for ten days and then returned
to her parental house. It is the specific allegation in
the complaint that the deceased/ Sarita Devi
informed them, that all the appellants demanded
for a gold chain of two tolas. On 25.02.2001, Ashok
Paswan (husband of the deceased), along with ten
of his relatives, went to the house of the
informant/P.W. 6 and, without fixing any date,
asked them to arrange for ruksati. The informant
requested to arrange the ruksati in the month of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
4/53
Vaishakh, which was not agreed by the husband of
the deceased. P.W. 6 arranged the ruksati on
26.02.2001 and gave items as per his capacity but
the husband of the deceased and his relatives
were not satisfied with the said items and
threatened to harass the deceased. They further
warned P.W. 6 that if he wanted his daughter to be
alive, he has to fulfill the demand for dowry. The
complaint further disclose that on 01.03.2001, at
about 08:00 AM, two persons from Bodh Bigha
came to his house and informed him, that his
daughter was murdered by the appellants, and
asked them to go to the house of the appellants.
Thereupon, the nephew of P.W. 6, Shailesh Paswan
(P.W. 4), and Vidyanand Paswan (not examined)
went to Bodh Bigha and found that Sarita Devi was
dead and her dead body was burnt. Krit
Paswan/P.W. 1, the brother of P.W. 6, informed P.W.
6 about the incident and he returned to his home
from Hazaribag and went to Mehandiya Police
Station, to file a complaint on which the Sub-
Inspector asked him to approach the Court. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
5/53
complaint further disclose that the appellants
murdered the informant’s daughter for non-
fulfillment of the dowry demand.
4. The signature of P.W. 6 on the
complaint petition dated 05.03.2001 was marked
as Ext. 1. The endorsement of the Station House
Officer on the complaint petition dated 05.03.2001
was marked as Ext. 2. Further, the record reveals
that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, made
an endorsement on the complaint petition
directing the Mehandiya Police Station to institute
and investigate the case under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. The endorsement on Ext. 2 reads as
“registered Mehandiya P.S. Case No. 18 of 2001
dated 08.03.2001 under Sections 304-B/201/34 of
the I.P.C.; S.I. A.K. Panjikar will please investigate
this case.”
5. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
Section 156. Police
officer’s power to investigate
cognizable case. (1) Any officer
in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
6/53investigate any cognizable case
which a Court having jurisdiction
over the local area within the
limits of such station would have
power to inquire into or try under
the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a
police officer in any such case
shall at any stage be called in
question on the ground that the
case was one which such officer
was not empowered under this
section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate
empowered under section 190
may order such an investigation
as above-mentioned.
6. As per Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., a
Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of
Cr.P.C., may order such investigation by the police
in cases of cognizable offences.
7. It is just necessary to refer to Section
190 of the Cr.P.C. for better appreciation of the
case. Section 190 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
Section 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
7/53provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second
class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may
take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a
complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police
report of such facts;
(c) upon
information received from any
person other than a police
officer, or upon his own
knowledge, that such offence
has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial
Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to
take cognizance under sub-
section (1) of such offences as are
within his competence to inquire
into or try.
8. As per the above provision, a
Magistrate of the First Class may take cognizance
of an offence upon receiving a complaint which
constitutes the commission of an offence. In the
present case, the complaint was preferred by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
8/53
P.W.6. The Magistrate is empowered to refer the
complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the
police, for investigation; however, no cognizance
was taken by the Magistrate before referring it to
the police.
9. It is also relevant to mention that
Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. defines a complaint as
any allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate. Such a complaint is to be made under
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
10. Under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., if a
complaint is filed, if the Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence, he has to examine the
complainant and the witnesses present on oath. As
stated supra, it is a cognizable offence, the
Magistrate is empowered to refer it to the police
for investigation, therefore, the question of
recording the statement of the complainant or the
witnesses does not arise.
11. During the course of investigation,
the investigating authority recorded the
statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
9/53
charge-sheeted witnesses nos. 1 to 8, i.e.,
Ramswaroop Paswan (P.W. 6), Krit Paswan (P.W. 1),
Sita Paswan (P.W. 2), Shailesh Paswan (P.W. 4),
Ravindra Ram (D.W. 1), Devendra Paswan (D.W. 2),
Ramanand Ram (not examined), and Sumitra Devi
(P.W. 5). However, charge-sheeted witnesses no. 9,
Baleshwar Chaudhary; C.W. 10/Bundi Chaudhary,
and C.W. 11/Samkuri Devi (P.W. 3), were not
examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C by the
Investigating Officer. Nevertheless, their names
have been incorporated as charge-sheeted
witnesses, apart from the official witnesses, i.e.,
C.W. 12, Dr. Gautam Modi, and C.W. 13, Ajay Kumar
Panjikar, the Investigating Officer. The record
further reveals that the statement of one Fulmati
Devi was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.;
however, her name does not appear among the
prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet.
12. On perusal of the record, it is evident
that in the absence of statements under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C., the names of charge-sheeted
witnesses nos. 9 to 11 were incorporated as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
10/53
prosecution witnesses.
13. On completion of the investigation,
initially, the charge-sheet was filed against Ashok
Paswan alone, and no charge-sheet was laid
against parents of Ashok Paswan, i.e., Bijli Paswan
and Kalawati Devi. The record further disclose that
P.W. 6 preferred a protest petition on 08.06.2001,
and without any further order on the protest
petition, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, took
cognizance against all the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 r/w 34 of
the I.P.C. on 26.06.2002, later the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions on 08.02.2002.
14. During course of trial, charges were
framed against all three appellants for the offences
punishable under Section 304-B and 201 of I.P.C.,
read over and explained to all the appellants for
which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
15. On behalf of the prosecution,
altogether seven witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1-7 were
examined and Exhibits 1 and 2 were marked.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
11/53
Later, the appellants were examined under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of defence, D.Ws. 1 – 4
were examined and Exts. A, B and B/1 got marked.
The name and details of P.Ws. as well as D.Ws. and
list of exhibits are as follows:-
P.Ws.No P.W.s Name Relation
P.W. 1 Krit Paswan Uncle of the deceased
P.W. 2 Sita Paswan Aunt of the deceased
P.W. 3 Samkuri Devi Aunt of the deceased
P.W. 4 Shailesh Cousin of the deceased
Paswan
P.W. 5 Sumitra Devi Mother of the deceased
P.W. 6 Ram Swaroop Complainant/Father of
Paswan the deceased
P.W. 7 Ajay Kumar Sub-Inspector
Panjikar (Investigating Officer)
Sl. No. Exhibit Exhibit Details
1. Ext. 1 Signature of Informant on
complaint petition
2. Ext. 2 Endorsement of S.H.O. on
complaint petition
3. Ext. A Death Report of Sarita Devi
4 Ext.B & Payment of receipts
B/1
16. After considering the entire material
available on record, the trial Court convicted and
sentenced the appellants for the offences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
12/53
punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of the
I.P.C. However, the trial Court did not frame any
charge against the appellants under Section 34 of
the I.P.C. to prove the charge against Bijli Paswan
and Kalawati Devi, who were alleged to have
shared a common intention with Ashok Paswan.
17. As there is no assistance from the
Learned counsel for the appellants in both cases,
this Court was constrained to appoint amicus
curiae, Mr. Shahil Kumar (in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 323 of
2004) and Mr. Ansh Prasad (in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 398
of 2004).
18. Since both appeals pertain to the
year 2004, and there was no communication
between the appellants and the amicus curiae, this
Court deemed it necessary to call for a report from
the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, to
ascertain the status of the appellants. Pursuant to
the order dated 20.02.2025, this Court received a
report from the Superintendent of Police,
Jehanabad, stating that appellant no. 1/Bijli Paswan
(in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 323 of 2004), had died.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
13/53
However, Kalawati Devi and Ashok Paswan are still
alive.
19. Based on the report of the
Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, this Court
abated the criminal case against appellant no. 1/
Bijli Paswan (in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 323 of 2004), vide
order dated 18.03.2026.
20. Heard arguments on behalf of the
Learned Amicus cruie, Mr. Shahil Kumar, (in Cr. APP
(SJ) no. 323 of 2004), Mr. Ansh Prasad, (in Cr. APP
(SJ) no. 398 of 2004) and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh,
the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State in both appeals.
21. The Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Ansh
Prasad (in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 398 of 2004), contended
that essential ingredients under Section 304-B of
the I.P.C. have not been made out; the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the
appellants either under Section 304-B or under
Section 201 of the I.P.C. Consequently, the burden
does not shift on the appellants to disprove the
prosecution case. It is further contended that there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
14/53
are major contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the ruksati
ceremony and, the presence of P.W. 6 at the
relevant time. In view of such inconsistencies, the
benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the
appellants. It is further contended that the
prosecution has failed to establish the place of
occurrence and that no corroborative medical
evidence has been adduced in support of the oral
evidence, which is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. It is contended that, the trial Court
ought not to have convicted the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201
of the I.P.C. in the absence of the evidence of the
doctor and the post-mortem report. It is further
contended that, except for interested or related
witnesses, there are no independent witnesses to
prove the alleged harassment in connection with
the demand for dowry or to establish that, soon
before her death, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment, so as to attract the
ingredients of Section 304-B of the I.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
15/53
22. In support of his submissions, the
Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Ansh Prasad, relied
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court
relating to the evidentiary value of interested or
related witnesses.
23. The Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Sahil
Kumar, contended that there is no iota of evidence
before the trial Court with respect to harassment
or screening away of evidence insofar as the in-
laws are concerned, nor there is any material to
establish that the in-laws shared common
intention with the prime accused/ Ashok Paswan.
He further contended that the charge-sheet clearly
disclose that no incriminating material was found
by the the Investigating Officer against the in-laws
of the deceased and, accordingly the charge-sheet
was initially filed only against Ashok Paswan and
therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant,
Kalawati Devi, in this case.
24. On the other hand, the Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Anita Kumari
Singh, contended that the death of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
16/53
occurred within seven years of her marriage and
that too within two days of going to her in-laws’
house after ruksati. It is further contended that all
the prosecution witnesses, in one tone, have
stated that there was a demand for a gold chain by
the appellants, which clearly establishes the
offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., and
accordingly, she prayed to confirm the judgment of
the trial Court.
25. The points for determination in these
appeals are :-
(i) Whether the prosecution is able to
prove the guilt of the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of I.P.C.
beyond reasonable doubt?
(ii) Whether the trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellants for the
aforesaid offences?
26. In order to decide the aforesaid
points for determination, it is just necessary to re-
appreciate the evidence on record.
27. P.W. 1/Krit Paswan, is the uncle of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
17/53
deceased. His evidence disclose that the
deceased/Sarita Devi, got married to Ashok Paswan
two years prior to her death. After marriage, she
went to her in-laws’ house and, stayed there for
about ten days, during the said period, the
appellants allegedly demanded a gold chain.
Thereafter, she returned to her parental house. His
evidence further disclose that after one year, the
husband of the deceased came to the house of the
complainant/P.W. 6 and took his wife along with
him. At the time of ruksati, he threatened to teach
the deceased a lesson, if the articles were not
given to him. On the third day after the bidai, the
complainant came to know about the death of the
deceased. It is specifically testified by P.W. 1 that
the appellant/Ashok Paswan (husband of the
deceased) had murdered her by administering
poison.
28. P.W. 2, Sita Paswan, and P.W. 3,
Samkuri Devi, are the maternal aunts of the
deceased. Their evidence is also on the same lines
as that of P.W. 1. It is specifically testified by P.Ws.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
18/53
2 and 3 that the appellants murdered the
deceased for non-fulfillment of the demand for a
gold chain as dowry. Further, the evidence of P.W. 2
disclose that after receiving information about the
death of the deceased, they went to the village of
the appellants and found their house locked. The
villagers informed them that the body of the
deceased was cremated in a garden, and upon
visiting the said place, they found the ashes of the
dead body.
29. P.W. 4/Shailesh Paswan, is the cousin
of the deceased. His evidence disclose that the
deceased was married to Ashok Paswan about two
years prior to her death and had stayed for ten
days in her in-laws’ house. He further deposed that
the ruksati was arranged in the month of Falgun,
and that within three days thereafter, she was
murdered.
30. P.W. 5, Sumitra Devi, is the mother of
the deceased. Her evidence disclose that after the
marriage, the deceased stayed in her in-laws’
house for ten days and thereafter, she returned to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
19/53
her parental home. She further stated that the
ruksati took place in the month of Falgun, when
Ashok Paswan forcibly took her daughter without
fixing any date for ruksati and used abusive
language at that particular point of time. Her
evidence further disclose that P.W. 6/ her husband,
who was working at Hazaribag during that period.
31. P.W. 6/informant/Ram Swaroop
Paswan, who is the father of the deceased,
preferred the complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jehanabad. His evidence disclose that
his daughter was married to Ashok Paswan in the
month of Vaishakh, 2000. After marriage, the
deceased went to her in-laws’ house and stayed
there only for ten days. After returning from her in-
laws’ house, she informed them that the appellants
had demanded a gold chain and had threatened to
kill her. His evidence further disclose that in Falgun
of 2001, the husband of the deceased, without
fixing any date, took the deceased back, and at the
time of bidai, he threatened and used abusive
language, stating that since the demanded items
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
20/53
had not been given, the deceased would be killed.
It is further testified that two days after ruksati, the
appellants murdered the deceased and cremated
her dead body.
32. On perusal of the entire evidence on
behalf of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 to
6, it is evident that all of them are related to the
deceased in one way or the other. It is an admitted
fact that the deceased stayed with the appellants
only for a period of ten days immediately after
marriage, and thereafter, she stayed with them
only for two days following ruksati. The gap
between the marriage and ruksati is approximately
ten months. During this period, there is no
allegation made by the prosecution witnesses
against the appellants. Neither P.W. 6, P.W. 5, nor
the deceased preferred any complaint before the
police with respect to the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. for harassment on
account of demand for dowry. Admittedly, all the
witnesses, in one tone, testified that the deceased
was murdered two days after ruksati. However,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
21/53
there is no evidence on record to substantiate the
alleged murder punishable under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. Further, no independent witnesses from
Bodh Bigha village were examined, either by the
Investigating Officer or cited in the complaint
petition by P.W. 6 i.e., Ext. 2. The essential
ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C., and Section 313
Cr.P.C., as well as on the issue of cognizance shall
be discussed at the appropriate stage.
33. The defence of the appellants is that
the deceased died due to illness. Ext. A is the
death certificate which was exhibited before the
trial Court disclose that the deceased died due to
cardio-respiratory failure. In cross-examination, the
defence attempted to elicit that the deceased
succumbed to illness, and it was suggested that
some of the prosecution witnesses also attended
the cremation of the deceased. The defence also
adduced the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3, who,
consistently, testified before the trial Court, that
after the marriage, the deceased lived with the
appellants and there was no dispute regarding
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
22/53
tilak or dowry. They further stated that the
deceased fell ill, became unconscious, suffered
severe shivering, and bled from her nose and
mouth, for which she was initially taken to Arval,
where Dr. Shankar Prasad, examined her, and
adviced immediate referral to Patna due to her
critical condition. Thereafter, she was taken to
P.M.C.H., Patna, but due to strike, she could not
receive treatment and was subsequently shifted to
Kurji Hospital, where she was admitted, and, she
died during the course of treatment. Thereafter,
her dead body was brought back to the village and
her funeral rites were performed in the presence of
her family members, including her brother and
sister.
34. On perusal of the entire record, it is
evident that there are many inconsistencies in the
evidence of the witnesses. The first inconsistency
pertains to the issue of ruksati, as P.W. 1 testified
that ruksati was arranged in the month of Falgun,
whereas the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 disclose
that no such arrangement was made and that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
23/53
Ashok Paswan forcibly took the deceased away
from her home. Though it is testified by P.Ws. 1 to
4 that the deceased narrated to her mother about
the demand for a gold chain, that part of the
evidence can only be treated as hearsay, as the
deceased never informed them, about the demand
for a gold chain by the appellants. It is specifically
admitted in paragraph 13 of the cross-examination
of P.W. 1 that he was not present at the time of
ruksati when the deceased was sent along with
Ashok Paswan. In paragraph 14 of the cross-
examination, he also admitted that the deceased
did not give him any information with regard to the
demand for dowry.
35. Likewise, the evidence of P.W. 2 also
disclose that ruksati was arranged at the instance
of Ashok Paswan without fixing any specific date.
This evidence can also be treated as hearsay.
Further, his evidence disclose that the villagers
informed him that the dead body of the deceased
had been burnt in a garden; however, it is to be
noted that he had no personal knowledge about
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
24/53
the cremation of the dead body, as he had not
visited the said place. In the cross-examination,
P.W. 2 admitted that he received information about
the death of the deceased at about 7:00 A.M. and
reached Bodh Bigha along with others at around
4:00 P.M. and where he found only one person, who
informed him that the dead body had already been
cremated. This is also inconsistent with the
evidence of P.W. 6. P.W. 6 specifically mentioned in
the complaint that he came to know about the
death of the deceased at 8:00 A.M. It was further
testified by P.W. 2 that he did not know the name
of the person who informed him about cremation.
At paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, P.W. 2
specifically testified that he attended the ruksati,
that there was an arrangement for food, and there
was no scuffle or assault during the ruksati. He
also stated that P.W. 6 had the financial capacity to
provide a gold chain. However, this evidence is
completely inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.5.
36. The crucial evidence is that of P.W. 5,
the mother of the deceased. She testified that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
25/53
there was no scuffle or assault at the time of
marriage and that no food was arranged during
ruksati. As already stated, it is inconsistent with
the evidence of P.W. 6, who categorically stated
that food was arranged during ruksati. It is the
specific evidence of P.W. 5 that her sister-in-law’s
husband alone came at the time of ruksati and no
one else was informed about it. She fairly admitted
that they did not give any clothes to Ashok Paswan
during bidai and no assault took place. It is also
admitted by her that she neither informed her
husband nor the police that Ashok Paswan had
forcibly taken her daughter. Further, during ruksati,
Ashok Paswan informed her, that they were
extremely poor and could not expect anything
during bidai.
37. The evidence of P.W. 5 clearly
disclose that she informed her husband about the
death of her daughter after three days, and
thereafter, her husband came home after two days
and, after discussion, he preferred a complaint
against the appellants before the Magistrate.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
26/53
38. P.W.6, father of the deceased also
stated in the same lines in complaint copy. His
evidence disclose that ruksati was arranged in
Falgun, 2001, and Ashok Paswan, along with
others, came to his place and took his daughter
away, and during the course of ruksati, Ashok
Paswan used abusive language and threatened
them, as he did not receive any items. It is
admitted by P.W. 6 that he was not present in the
village and was posted at Hazaribagh at that
particular point of time. Therefore, his evidence
may also be treated as hearsay. It is testified in the
cross-examination, by P.W. 6 that he went to
Mehandiya Police Station on 4 th March and
thereafter, went to Jehanabad Court on 5 th March,
i.e., after three days. His evidence also disclose
that as Mehandiya Police Station refused to lodge
the case, he approached the Court.
39. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. envisages
that if the “Station House Officer” refuses to
register a case, the remedy available to the
informant is to approach a Senior Officer, i.e., the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
27/53
Superintendent of Police. It is testified by P.W. 6
that, in order to reach Mehandiya Police Station
from Arval, he had to cross the office of the
Superintendent of Police and Deputy
Superintendent of Police but he did not choose to
submit any report before the Superintendent of
Police. The delay in preferring the report before the
police, either immediately after the death of the
deceased or in filing the complaint before the
Jehanabad Court, has not been explained by the
prosecution. It is also testified by P.W. 6 that
although he mentioned in the complaint that seven
persons had attended ruksati, he himself was not
present at that time. Moreover, the fact that he
was at Hazaribagh at that time was not stated in
the complaint petition. Further, the allegation
regarding Ashok Paswan threatening or using
abusive language is also not the part of the
complaint petition. It is fairly admitted by P.W. 6
that no dowry was given at the time of marriage
and that he came to know that the accused
informed his family that the deceased had died
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
28/53
due to illness and was treated at Patna.
40. There are many inconsistencies in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as
stated supra, and none of the witnesses are eye-
witnesses either to the alleged harassment or
cruelty said to have been inflicted by the
appellants upon the deceased, prior to her death
or soon before her death.
41. The evidence of P.W. 7/ Investigating
Officer, disclose that on 08.03.2001, he took over
the investigation of this case. The place of
occurrence, as per his investigation, was the house
of Ashok Paswan. During the course of
investigation, he recorded the statements of other
witnesses and later arrested Ashok Paswan and
produced him before the Court for judicial remand.
It is admitted by P.W. 7 that the charge-sheet was
filed only against Ashok Paswan, as per the
instructions of his superior officers, as sufficient
evidence was not found against other accused.
42. In the cross-examination, it is
admitted by P.W. 7 that Ashok Paswan claimed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
29/53
himself to be innocent and informed him that the
health condition of the deceased suddenly
deteriorated on 28.02.2001, as she suffered severe
sweating and bleeding from her nose. Thereupon,
the appellants hired a jeep, and initially took her to
a private doctor at Arval, and thereafter brought
her to P.M.C.H., Patna. However, due to a strike,
she was admitted to Kurji Hospital, where she died
during treatment. His evidence further disclose
that Ashok Paswan informed him that after
bringing the dead body back to the village, the
family members of the deceased were duly
informed, and the dead body was cremated on
01.03.2001. He also admitted that he recorded the
statements of Rajendra Paswan, Devendra Paswan,
and Ramanand Paswan, under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. who stated that the health condition of the
deceased, suddenly deteriorated and she died
during treatment at Kurji Hospital. P.W. 7 further
testified that, after recording the statements of the
aforesaid persons, he went to Kurji Hospital to
verify the same where he inspected the available
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
30/53
registers and documents with the help of the staff,
and also collected a photocopy of the death
certificate of the deceased, which was marked as
“X”. He also testified that the certificate of Kurji
Hospital clearly disclose that the deceased, Sarita
Devi, was admitted on 01.03.2001 at 2:15 A.M. and
died at 03:07 A.M. He further recorded the
statement of Dr. Gautam Modi, which also disclose
that the deceased died during the course of
treatment.
43. Further, it is admitted by P.W. 7 that
the mother of the deceased did not state before
him that the appellants had murdered the
deceased, nor did she state anything about the
demand for a gold chain or that the deceased had
consumed poison. He also testified that Shailesh
Paswan/P.W. 4 did not state before him that the
accused persons murdered the deceased, Sarita
Devi, or about any demand for a gold chain.
Further, P.W. 5 also did not state under Section 161
of the Cr.P.C. that all the accused were involved in
the murder of her daughter. P.W. 7 also admitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
31/53
that after completion of the investigation, he filed
the charge-sheet and submitted a final form with
respect to the parents of Ashok Paswan,
considering them to be innocent.
44. The statements of D.Ws. 1 and 2
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded by
P.W. 7, who, at the first instance, deposed about
the ill health of the deceased and that her death
occurred while she was undergoing treatment.
Thus, the statements of D.Ws. 1 and 2 under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. corroborate with the
defence of the accused, though the statements
were not marked before the trial Court.
45. Furthermore, the evidence of D.W.
3/Awadh Paswan clearly disclose that he
accompanied the appellant/Ashok Paswan, along
with the deceased, Sarita Devi, when she was
shifted to the hospital, and also deposed about
the treatment and death of Sarita Devi at Kurji
Hospital.
46. D.W. 4/ Ramadhar Singh, is an
advocate’s clerk through whom the original copy of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
32/53
the death certificate was marked as Ext. A. Further,
two receipts of Kurji Hospital were marked as Exts.
B and B/1, which clearly disclose that Ashok Kumar
was the cashier who received the payments
towards the medical expenses of the hospital. The
evidence of D.W. 3 further disclose that after the
death of the deceased, the dead body was taken
back to the village, and he along with one Arun
Paswan, went to the house of P.W. 6 and informed
them about the death of Sarita Devi. Thereafter,
P.W. 5 and P.W. 4 came to the village of the
appellants, further, P.W. 4 accompanied them to
Bodh Bigha village.
47. As per the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, at the time of the death of
the deceased, P.W. 6 was not present at his house
and was at Hazaribagh. He came to know about
the death of the deceased only after three days,
when he reached home. Later, after two days of
refusal by the police to register the report, he went
to the Jehanabad Court and preferred a complaint.
As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
33/53
none of these witnesses have stated that
deceased was murdered by the appellant.
Therefore, it can be construed that the complaint
was filed before the Court, as an afterthought.
48. It is also pertinent to mention
that,even after receipt of death information of the
deceased was given to the P.W. 5/ mother of the
deceased, she did not go to the house of the
appellants, to attend the last rites of her daughter.
Being the natural parents, it was expected that
P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 would attend the last rites of their
daughter. If at all they attended, there is no
explanation, as to why they did not lodge a report
at the earliest point of time if the death of the
deceased occurred under abnormal circumstances.
49. In the present case, neither the delay
in lodging the complaint nor the failure to attend
the last rites of the deceased by the parents, has
been explained by the prosecution.
50. At this juncture, the Learned amicus
curiae relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
34/53
Haryana, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 1, wherein
their Lordships have given a vide interpretation for
the phrase “soon before” and held that “soon
before” cannot be construed to mean
“immediately before” and the prosecution must
establish the existence of “proximate and live link”
between the dowry death or dowry death and
cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the
husband or his relatives. Their Lordships have
categorically held that section 304-B of I.P.C. must
be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative
intent to curb the social evil, of bride burning and
dowry demand. Considering the significance of
such a legislation, a strict interpretation would
defeat the very object for which it was enacted.
Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the
legislature used the words, “soon before” they
should not mean “immediately before”. Rather,
they left its determination in the hands of the
courts. The factum of cruelty or harassment differs
from case to case. Even the spectrum of cruelty is
quit varied, as it can range from physical, verbal or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
35/53even emotional. This list is certainly not
exhaustive. No straitjacket formulae can therefore
be laid down to define what exactly the phrase
“soon before” entails.
51. Admittedly, in the present case, the
deceased stayed with her in-laws for a period of
only ten days at the first instance. There is a gap of
ten months between her initial stay at her in-laws’
house and her death. Upon her return, she stayed
there only for two days before her death. During
this gap of ten months, no allegation was made by
any of the prosecution witnesses against the
appellants regarding any demand for a gold chain
weighing about two tolas. As stated supra, neither
the deceased nor her parents preferred any report
against the appellants for cruelty or demand for
dowry. After ruksati, the deceased joined her
husband, and within two days, her death occurred.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
was murdered by the appellants, whereas the case
of the defence is that the deceased’s health
suddenly deteriorated, and all efforts were made to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
36/53
provide her medical treatment by shifting her from
Arwal to Patna. In view of a strike at the
Government Hospital, she was taken to Kurji
Hospital at midnight, i.e., on the intervening night
of 28th February/1st March, 2001, where she died
while undergoing treatment in the said hospital. In
support of the defence, the oral evidence of D.Ws.
1 to 4, as well as the death certificate (Ext. A),
clearly disclose that the deceased died due to
cardio-respiratory failure. Although the doctor was
not examined before the Court, the evidence of
D.Ws. 1 to 3 corroborates to Ext. A as to the nature
and cause of death of the deceased.
52. In order to attract the application of
Section 304-B of the I.P.C., the essential
ingredients are as follows:
(i) The death of a woman should be
caused by burns or bodily injuries, or otherwise
than under normal circumstances.
(ii) Such death should have occurred
within seven years of her marriage.
(iii) She must have been subjected to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
37/53cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of
the relative of her husband.
(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should
be made for, or in connection with demand of
dowry.
(v) Such cruelty or harassment which
shown to have been meted out to the women soon
before her death.
53. Admittedly, in the present case, the
death of the deceased occurred within seven years
of her marriage. The death of Sarita Devi occurred
due to cardio-respiratory failure, and not by burns
or bodily injuries, though it may be considered as
otherwise than under normal circumstances. There
is no evidence before the Court to show that the
deceased/Sarita Devi, was subjected to cruelty or
harassment during her lifetime. The entire
evidence, insofar as cruelty or harassment is
concerned, has been stated by the prosecution
witnesses only after five days of her death and not
during her lifetime. It is testified by P.Ws. 1 to 6
that the deceased was subjected to harassment, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
38/53
connection with the demand for a gold chain
weighing about two tolas, however, there is no
explanation from any of the witnesses as to why
they did not disclose about such harassment to
any independent witnesses or report it to the
police during her lifetime. Therefore, the phrase
“soon before” in this case cannot be said to have
been established by the prosecution in any
manner.
54. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Satbir Singh (Supra)
categorically in paragraph no. 38.6, deals about
the grave concern with respect to Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. Their Lordships have held as under:
38.6. It is a matter of
grave concern that, often, trial
courts record the statement
under Section 313 CrPC in a very
casual and cursory manner,
without specifically questioning
the accused as to his defence. It
ought to be noted that the
examination of an accused under
Section 313 CrPC cannot be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
39/53treated as a mere procedural
formality, as it is based on the
fundamental principle of fairness.
This aforesaid provision
incorporates the valuable
principle of natural justice “audi
alteram partem” as it enables the
accused to offer an explanation
for the incriminatory material
appearing against him. Therefore,
it imposes an obligation on the
court to question the accused
fairly, with care and caution.
55. On perusal of the examination of the
appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in the
present case, it can be construed that the
questions were asked in a very general and
omnibus manner, and the important incriminating
materials were not put to them. Therefore, it can
be construed that the appellants were not given a
fair opportunity to answer the incriminating
material. The above judgment squarely applies to
the present facts and circumstances of the case.
56. The Learned Amicus curiae, Mr. Ansh
Prasad, further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
40/53
Apex Court in case of Dharnidhar v. State of
U.P., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 759 wherein their
Lordships have held as follows:
12. There is no hard-
and-fast rule that family members
can never be true witnesses to
the occurrence and that they will
always depose falsely before the
court. It will always depend upon
the facts and circumstances of a
given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of
Pondicherry [(2010) 1 SCC 199 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 966] , this
Court had occasion to consider
whether the evidence of
interested witnesses can be relied
upon. The Court took the view
that a pedantic approach cannot
be applied while dealing with the
evidence of an interested witness.
Such evidence cannot be ignored
or thrown out solely because it
comes from a person closely
related to the victim. The Court
held as under : (SCC p. 213, paras
23-24)
“23. We are of the
considered view that in cases
where the court is called upon
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
41/53
to deal with the evidence of
the interested witnesses, the
approach of the court, while
appreciating the evidence of
such witnesses must not be
pedantic. The court must be
cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given
by the interested witnesses
but the court must not be
suspicious of such evidence.
The primary endeavour of the
court must be to look for
consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or
thrown out solely because it
comes from the mouth of a
person who is closely related
to the victim.
24. From a perusal
of the record, we find that the
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is clear
and categorical in reference to
the frequent quarrels between
the deceased and the
appellant. They have clearly
and consistently supported
the prosecution version with
regard to the beating and the
ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased by the appellant on
several occasions which
compelled the deceased to
leave the appellant’s house
and take shelter in her
parental house with an
intention to live there
permanently. PWs 1 to 4 have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
42/53
unequivocally stated that the
deceased feared threat to her
life from the appellant. The
aforesaid version narrated by
the prosecution witnesses viz.
PWs 1 to 4 also finds
corroboration from the facts
stated in the complaint.”
13. Similar view was
taken by this Court in Ram
Bharosey v. State of U.P. [(2010) 1
SCC 722 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 904 :
AIR 2010 SC 917] , where the
Court stated the dictum of law
that a close relative of the
deceased does not, per se,
become an interested witness. An
interested witness is one who is
interested in securing the
conviction of a person out of
vengeance or enmity or due to
disputes and deposes before the
court only with that intention and
not to further the cause of justice.
The law relating to appreciation of
evidence of an interested witness
is well settled, according to which,
the version of an interested
witness cannot be thrown
overboard, but has to be
examined carefully before
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
43/53accepting the same.
14. In the light of the
above judgments, it is clear that
the statements of the alleged
interested witnesses can be
safely relied upon by the court in
support of the prosecution’s story.
But this needs to be done with
care and to ensure that the
administration of criminal justice
is not undermined by the persons,
who are closely related to the
deceased. When their statements
find corroboration by other
witnesses, expert evidence and
the circumstances of the case
clearly depict completion of the
chain of evidence pointing out to
the guilt of the accused, then we
see no reason why the statement
of so-called “interested
witnesses” cannot be relied upon
by the court.
15. In the present case,
the circumstances are such that
we cannot find any error in the
concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the trial court, as well
as by the High Court that these
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
44/53
two witnesses were present at the
respective places and had
actually seen the occurrence.
Their statements about gunfires,
as well as the injuries caused by
the kulhari and spear respectively
are duly supported by the medical
evidence, as well as by the
statements of the investigating
officers. Thus, we find that the
contention raised on behalf of the
appellants is liable to be rejected.
57. Admittedly, all the witnesses are
related to the deceased/Sarita Devi and they may
be interested in getting the appellants convicted,
however; merely on that ground, the Court cannot
rule away their evidence. In the present case, none
of the witnesses have any special or direct
knowledge about the alleged harassment said to
have been meted out to the deceased in the hands
of the appellants. Therefore, their evidence may be
treated as that of interested witnesses.
58. The Learned Amicus curiae also
relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
45/53
reported (2009) 16 SCC 487, wherein their
Lordship has held as follows:
20. We cannot lose
sight of the principle that while
the prosecution has to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt,
the defence of the accused has to
be tested on the touchstone of
probability. The burden of proof
lies on the prosecution in all
criminal trials, though the onus
may shift to the accused in given
circumstances, and if so provided
by law. Therefore, the evidence
has to be appreciated to find out
whether the defence set up by
the appellant is probable and
true.
25. Coming to the facts
of this case we find that the
defence set up by the appellant
appears to be probable and
sufficient to rebut the
presumption against him. Apart
from the appellant, DW 2
Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch who
was a member of the panchayat
deposed in favour of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
46/53appellant. These facts cannot be
ignored altogether. On the
touchstone of probability, and
having regard to the facts of this
case, the defence of the appellant
appears to us to be probable.
26. It cannot be lost
sight of that the conviction of the
appellant is based on the
presumption drawn against him.
There is no direct evidence to
prove that he had administered
any poisonous substance to the
deceased. In all probability she
had committed suicide.
Ultimately, it is a matter of
appreciation of evidence, and
while we cannot say that the case
of the prosecution is proved to be
untrue, it is equally possible on
the basis of the evidence on
record to take the view that the
defence case may also be true.
Thus, applying the well-
established principle that if on the
basis of the same evidence, two
views are reasonably possible,
the one in favour of the accused
should be preferred, we allow this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
47/53
appeal giving the benefit of doubt
to the appellant.
59. Lastly, the Learned amicus curiae
relied on the judgment of Patna High Court, in case
of Rubi Khatoon v. State of Bihar, reported in
2006 SCC OnLine Pat 560 wherein, it has held as
follows:
6. So far as the
second category is concerned
that is on basis of charge-sheet,
it is now well settled by series
of decisions of this Court and
other Courts including in the
case of Kuli Singh v. State of
Bihar [1978 PLJR 500 (FB).] ,
wherein it has been held that
the Magistrate is not bound by
the manner in which charge-
sheet is submitted. That is in
the charge-sheet, there may be
three sets of persons. First who
are sent up for trial, second who
are not sent up for trial and
third those against whom
investigation is pending. The
Magistrate may, on perusal of
the case diary which is an
integral part of the charge-
sheet, find that there are
materials in the case diary as
against non-charge-sheeted
persons, persons not sent up for
trial, he may then disagree with
the charge-sheet to that extent
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
48/53
and take cognizance but the
Magistrate is precluded from
adopting a high breed system
whereby for facts he cannot
look into the protest petition
but still proceed on basis of the
charge-sheet. He has to
proceed either on the protest
petition exclusively or on the
charge-sheet exclusively. He
can reject the charge-sheet
without passing any order and
accept the protest petition and
proceed on basis thereof.
60. All the citations, relied upon, are
squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the case.
61. In the present case, there is no
medical evidence corroborating the oral evidence
of the witnesses to prove that the death of the
deceased occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances. The death of the deceased
occurred in the hospital, and post-mortem
examination was not conducted. The evidence of
some of the prosecution witnesses disclose that
the deceased was administered poison; however,
there is no such evidence on record to prove that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
49/53
the death of the deceased occurred due to
administration of poison by the appellants.
62. It was the specific contention of the
Learned amicus curiae that the place of occurrence
has not been established by the prosecution in any
manner to support their case. As far as this aspect
is concerned, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution need not establish the place of
occurrence, as the death occurred in the hospital
and not at the house of the appellants.
63. The conduct of the defence clearly
disclose that the appellant/Ashok Paswan, made
every effort to save the deceased by taking her
from Arval to Patna for treatment, which is
corroborated by the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3. The
death certificate of the deceased (Ext. A) clearly
disclose that she was admitted in the hospital on
01.03.2001 at 2:45 A.M., and the doctors made
every effort to treat her, but the deceased
succumbed to death while undergoing treatment.
64. The cardinal principle of criminal law
is that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
50/53
appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the
appellants shall be presumed to be innocent until
their guilt is proven. The burden or onus does not
shift upon the appellants to prove that they are
innocent. In the absence of proper evidence, the
trial Court ought not to have convicted the
appellants for the aforesaid offences. The record
also reveals that initially the charge-sheet was filed
only against Ashok Paswan and not against the
other appellants. In view of the protest petition,
the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, without passing
any appropriate order, took cognizance of the
offences against all the accused and committed
the case to the Court of Sessions, which is illegal
per se. Furthermore, no specific incidents were
narrated by any of the witnesses as to the alleged
harassment for additional dowry or demand of
dowry. It is admitted by P.W. 5 that they did not
give any items at ruksati, as they were extremely
poor, and further, the evidence of P.W. 7 also
favours the defence that no dowry was given at
the time of marriage.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
51/53
65. Admittedly, there is no direct
evidence in the case, and the entire case is based
on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the duty is
casted upon the prosecution to establish the
complete chain of circumstances. It is also the duty
of the trial Court to frame charges properly and to
examine the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and seek
their explanation with regard to the incriminating
evidence. Further, it is the case of prosecution that
P.W. 5 received information about the death of the
deceased on 01.03.2001 at about 08:00 A.M.
However, the complaint was made on 05.03.2001
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.
The delay of four days has not been properly
explained by the prosecution in any manner;
therefore, it can be construed that the private
complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate as an afterthought. This fact is admitted
by P.W. 5 that the complaint was preferred by her
husband only after discussion. Furthermore,
Section 201 of the I.P.C. clearly envisages that, in
order to screen away the offender, the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
52/53
should cause the disappearance of evidence. There
is no evidence on record to prove that the
appellants have caused the disappearance of
evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the
trial Court ought not to have convicted and
sentenced the appellants for the said offence
punishable u/s 201 of I.P.C.
66. In view of the aforesaid discussions,
this Court is of the considerable view that the trial
Court has erred in convicting the appellants for the
offence punishable u/s 304-B and 201 I.P.C. and
that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the guilt of the appellants, and as such, the
judgment of trial Court is liable to be set aside.
67. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction dated 01.04.2004 and order of sentence
dated 05.04.2004, on the file of the Learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, in Sessions
Trial No. 111 of 200/ 56 of 2004 arising out of
Mehandiya P.S. Case No. 18 of 2001, is hereby set
aside, and the appellants are acquitted for the
aforesaid offences.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2004 dt.02-04-2026
53/53
68. In result, both the appeals are hereby
allowed.
69. The record reveals that
appellant/Kalawati Devi, (in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 323 of
2004), was released on bail by this Court vide
order dated 31.08.2004, and appellant/Ashok
Paswan (in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 398 of 2004), was
released on bail by this Court vide order dated
28.03.2005. In view of the acquittal of the
appellants, the bail bonds of both the appellants
shall stand cancelled, and sureties will be
discharged. Let the records be transmitted to the
trial Court.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
AMANDEEP/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 28.04.2026 Transmission Date 28.04.2026
