Dinesh Panjiyar vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2018 and order of sentence 01.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2015 in connection with L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 250 of 2014 whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan of Raj Kumar Purbey (PW-5), is that his daughter Rani Kumari was married to appellant Dinesh Panjiyar about 2½ years before the occurrence. After about one year of marriage, the appellant and his family members allegedly demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and subjected the daughter of informant to cruelty and assault for non-fulfilment of the demand. A village Panchayati was convened whereupon the informant, allegedly, paid Rs.70,000/- (Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- in two installments) to the appellant. Despite such payment, the harassment, allegedly, continued. On 17.10.2014, the informant received telephonic information that his daughter had been admitted to DMCH, Darbhanga. On reaching the hospital, he found his daughter dead, with bleeding injuries on her abdomen. Alleging that the deceased had died on account of dowry-related cruelty, the present FIR was instituted.

In this case, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant dated 17.10.2014, L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 250 of 2014 was registered against six accused persons, including the appellant, for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 304B/120B IPC against Dinesh Panjiyar (appellant) and Ramesh Panjiyar and charges were framed.

In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W. 1, namely, Vijay Mahto, P.W. 3, namely, Anita Devi, P.W. 4, namely, Manisha Devi and P.W. 7, namely, Vicky Panjiyar, did not support the prosecution case and during trial were declared hostile. P.W. 2, namely, Dr. P.K. Das who conducted post-mortem of the deceased and found that the injuries were caused by sharp-cut pointed weapon and the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock. P.W. 5, Raj Kumar Purbey, is the informant and during cross-examination he admitted that he is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He did not lodge any prior complaint before the police against demand of dowry and admitted that his daughter was admitted in the hospital by the accused persons. P.W. 6, Rinku Kumar, is the neighbour of appellant and in his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had cordial relation with in-laws and there was no torture for dowry. He also stated that at the time of incident, appellant was not present in the house and he heard that unknown persons stabbed the deceased. P.W. 8, namely, Shilakant Mishra is the Investigating Officer of the case who, in his deposition, admitted that the appellant was arrested on the next day of the incident and there were no blood stains on his clothes. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences, which are marked as:-

On the other hand, no defence witness has been examined.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted this appellant and sentenced him, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this order.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the order of conviction and sentence on several grounds. By denying the allegations, he contends that informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence. Appellant never demanded any dowry from the deceased and no prior complaint with regard to the dowry demand was filed by the informant. Appellant runs a footwear shop and was not present in the house, at the time of occurrence. As a matter of fact, appellant had taken loan for which creditors came for recovery at the house and deceased sustained knife injuries during quarrel with the creditors. There is no material evidence on record to show complicity of the appellant is the alleged offence. He contends that the trial court has wrongfully convicted this appellant only on the ground that he is husband of the deceased, ignoring material contradictions. He further contends that in order to convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, three essential ingredients are necessary to be present, which are:-

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case, there is no proof on record which can establish that there was any demand of dowry or torture soon before the death. Thus, it is a case of no evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is fit to be acquitted. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon judgments of this Hon’ble Court passed in the case of Shivjee Sah and another versus State of Bihar reported in 2021 (2) PLJR 374, Md. Jamaluddin Khan @ Mohammad Jamaluddin Khan versus The State of Bihar passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1190 of 2017 and Kaushaliya Devi and another versus The State of Bihar passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1012 of 2006.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State while refuting the submissions made on behalf of appellant has submitted that there is specific allegation that appellant committed torture and harassment upon the daughter of informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.

On going through the rival submissions, evidences and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment soon before the death of the deceased, which is a necessary ingredient to bring guilt of the accused under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) has not recovered any weapon or blood-stained clothes. No forensic material links appellant with the crime and no independent evidence has been collected, establishing the assault by appellant. This Court further finds that the incident took place in the year 2014 and appellant has remained in custody for about seven years. During the aforesaid period, no untoward incident has been reported against him.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that this appellant committed dowry death due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is well established rule of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete to establish the guilt of the accused person. There are several missing components in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The innocence of the appellant is a distinct possibility in the present case and when two views are possible, the benefit must go to the accused.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2018 and order of sentence 01.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2015 in connection with L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 250 of 2014 are, hereby, set aside.

Appellant, above named, is acquitted of all the charges and is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection with this case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.