Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar Ray @ Anil Kumar Ray & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/Respondent No. 2.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI^th, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1087 of 2009, whereby these appellants, namely, Manoj Ray, Chandan Ray, Asha Devi and Seema Devi, have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant, Kumkum Rai, was solemnized with co-accused Durgesh Rai on 27.01.2008 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that, at the time of the Tilak ceremony, the accused persons demanded a Bolero vehicle, though ultimately a Pulsar motorcycle was given. It is further alleged that even at the time of Bidai, a demand for a Bolero vehicle was raised and thereafter, the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the alleged demand. The complainant subsequently went to Delhi, where she gave birth to a female child, and it is alleged that the demand for a Bolero vehicle or Rs. 5,00,000/- continued. It is further alleged that on the night of 20/21.05.2009, Durgesh Rai and Appellant No. 2, namely Chandan Rai, entered the room of the complainant and an attempt was made to cause her death by putting a pillow upon her mouth and applying pressure upon her neck.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, complaint case was registered and charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 406 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were sent up for trial.

In this case, in order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Dhruvdeo Rai, the father of the complainant, supported the prosecution case regarding the alleged demand of a Bolero vehicle and the alleged torture of his daughter. P.W. 2, namely Bajrang Bali, the brother of the complainant, also supported the prosecution case and deposed regarding the alleged demand at the time of Bidai and subsequent ill-treatment. P.W. 3, namely Uma Devi, the mother of the complainant, broadly corroborated the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the alleged demand and cruelty. P.W. 4, namely Kumkum Rai, is the complainant herself, who supported the allegations made in her complaint petition and also deposed regarding the alleged occurrence of 20/21.05.2009. P.W. 5, namely Dr. Bhagwan Lal Singh, examined the complainant and found a lacerated injury over the front of her neck and tenderness over the back of the neck; he advised X-ray examination and stated that such injury could be caused by pressure upon the neck. The prosecution has also exhibited the following documentary evidence:

On the other hand, the defence has also adduced five defence witnesses i.e. D.W. 1, namely Anil Rai, who was stated to have been connected with the settlement of the marriage; D.W. 2, namely Mahendra Rai, D.W. 3, namely Raghaw Rai, D.W. 4, namely Mukti Nath Rai and D.W. 5, namely Munna Rai, who were relatives or persons acquainted with the parties. Their evidence was substantially directed towards establishing the circumstances in which the marriage was settled, the Tilak and Barachha ceremonies and the fact that articles including a Pulsar motorcycle had been given at the time of the marriage. The defence case, in substance, was that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were false and that the marriage had been settled through the intervention of Anil Rai.

After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 406 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the four present appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinabove. The learned trial court proceeded to separately deal with the case of accused Durgesh Rai, who was husband of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffer from serious infirmities and are based upon a selective appreciation of the evidence. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses, except the doctor, are close family members of the complainant and no independent witness has been examined despite the fact that several independent persons were allegedly present during the relevant ceremonies and occurrences. It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material inconsistencies with regard to the alleged demand of dowry and the circumstances in which the marriage and the ceremonies were performed. Learned counsel submits that the allegations against the present appellants are general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been reliably established against each of them. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined, thereby causing prejudice to the defence as the appellants were deprived of an opportunity to confront him with the material omissions, contradictions and other aspects arising out of the investigation. It is, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants deserve to be acquitted.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated about the demand of a Bolero vehicle and harassment with the complainant. It is further submitted that the evidence of the complainant is corroborated by her parents and brother and, therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court requires no interference.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the conviction of the present appellants cannot be sustained. The prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 4, are all closely related to the complainant and their evidence is required to be scrutinized with greater care. Though the mere relationship of a witness with the victim is not a ground to discard his or her testimony, the evidence must nevertheless inspire confidence and be sufficiently reliable on the material particulars.

In the present case, there are material variations in the evidence regarding the alleged demand of the Bolero vehicle at the time of the Tilak, Bidai and subsequent ceremonies. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself discloses that the marriage had been settled earlier and that the Tilak and Barachha ceremonies were performed, during which a Pulsar motorcycle and other articles were admittedly given. The defence evidence also brings on record the circumstances relating to the settlement and performance of these ceremonies. More importantly, despite the prosecution witnesses referring to the presence of several other persons and villagers, no independent witness has been examined to lend assurance to the allegations of demand of dowry.

This Court further finds that the allegations of cruelty against the present appellants are largely general in nature. No clear and consistent evidence has been brought on record to establish what particular act of cruelty or harassment was committed by each of the appellants in connection with any specific demand of dowry. The most serious allegation relating to the occurrence of 20/21.05.2009 was specifically attributed to co-accused Durgesh Rai and Appellant No. 2, namely Chandan Rai, however, the learned trial court itself did not find the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused persons. Thus, the evidence relating to the said occurrence cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for maintaining the conviction of all the present appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

It is also significant that the evidence of P.W. 5, the doctor, establishes the existence of an injury upon the complainant, but the medical evidence by itself does not establish the identity or individual role of each of the present appellants in causing cruelty in connection with the alleged demand of dowry. The prosecution was required to establish, by reliable evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against each of the appellants. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has also caused great prejudice to the defence as the appellants were deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the material omissions, contradictions and other aspects arising out of the investigation On an overall consideration of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants, above named, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI^th, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1087 of 2009, so far as it relates to the appellants, above named, is hereby set aside.

The appellants, above named, are acquitted of the charges and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.