Mithilesh Gaud vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2017/C.I.S. No. 362 of 2017 in connection with Vijaypur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017 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 eight years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, an additional period of simple imprisonment of six months and the period already undergone by him in custody shall be set off against the total period of his sentence.

The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan of informant Chandrabhan Gaud, is that his daughter Sandhya Devi @ Gudiya was married to the appellant Mithilesh Gaud. Soon after the marriage, the appellant, his father Mundrika Gaud, his wife Puja Kumari and other family members allegedly started demanding one lakh rupees as dowry and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand. On 16.01.2017, at about 2:00 P.M., the informant received information that his daughter had been killed by her matrimonial family. On reaching the matrimonial house, he found the dead body of his daughter lying near the door while the accused persons had allegedly fled away.

On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Vijaypur P.S. Case No.12 of 2017 was instituted under Section 304B IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Sections 304B/34 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1, namely, Chandrabhan Gaud is the informant and father of the deceased, who did not support the prosecution allegations regarding dowry demand, cruelty or homicidal death and was declared hostile. P.W. 2, Surama Devi is the mother of the deceased who was also declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 were also declared hostile and P.W. 6 to P.W. 9 also did not support the allegation with regard to dowry demand or cruelty. P.W. 5, namely, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar is the medical officer who conducted post-mortem of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that except the ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased. He stated that cause of death is ‘Asphyxia due to hanging’.

On the other hand, no defence witness was examined.

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

By denying the allegations, learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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. There is no material evidence on record to show complicity of the appellant in the alleged offence. He further submits that in this case Investigating Officer has not been examined during trial which has caused great prejudice as defence was deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge the investigation. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which would not be attracted because initial burden of proving the circumstances, as envisaged under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, rests on the prosecution. 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 no independent evidence has been collected, establishing the assault by appellant. P.W. 5, in his evidence, establishes the medical cause of death but does not indicate whether the hanging was suicidal or homicidal.

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 and sentence dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2017/C.I.S. No. 362 of 2017 in connection with Vijaypur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017 is, 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.