Niraj Mahto @ Niraj Singh vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2018 and order of sentence dated 03.04.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur arising out of Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B/34 IPC and further RI for two years under Section 201/34 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for two months. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that daughter of the informant, namely, Chandu Devi was married to appellant Niraj Mahto @ Niraj Singh in the year 2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the appellant along with his parents, brother and sister, allegedly, started demanding cash and a television, as dowry. On account of non-fulfilment of the said demand, the deceased was allegedly subjected to continuous cruelty and physical assault. It is alleged that on 27.11.2016, the informant received information that the appellant and his family members had, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Chandu Devi by burning her and thereafter, secretly disposed of her dead body. When the informant and her relatives reached the matrimonial home, they allegedly found that all the accused persons had absconded.

On the written report submitted by the informant, Gangabridge P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016 was instituted under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance was taken. Charges were framed under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. P.W. 1, Raj Kumar Mahto and P.W. 2, Chandra Devi are uncle and bua of the deceased, respectively, who supported the allegation of dowry demand and cruelty. P.W. 3, namely, Anju Devi is the informant and mother of the deceased. P.W. 4, Chotan Kumar is brother of the deceased and P.W. 5, Mina Devi is the grandmother of the deceased. Both of them supported the prosecution story. P.W. 6, Nand Kishore Singh is the Investigating Officer, who inspected the place of occurrence and seized burnt articles including burnt bed-sheet, curtain and stove. Though, he did not record statements of the neighbouring independent witnesses.

On the other hand, the defence has also examined two witness. D.W. 1, Umesh Rai, who stated that the deceased died due to illness after childbirth and there was no demand of dowry and D.W. 2, Nawal Kumar, who is brother of the appellant, also supported the defence case and denied the allegation of dowry demand.

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

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant questions the conviction and sentence using several arguments. He contends that no dowry was ever demanded and Chandu Devi died due to illness after childbirth. It has been further pleaded that a false case has been instituted due to monetary dispute and pressure exerted by the maternal family of the deceased. P.W. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are hearsay witnesses and informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and no independent witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer, which is a serious lapse in investigation and has highly prejudiced the case of prosecution. 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 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 evidence 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. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant contends that order of conviction under Section 201/34 IPC is also illegal and misconceived. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no basis or any evidence to suggest commission of offence under Section 201 IPC by the appellant and he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 201 IPC only on the basis of suspicion without there being any material to prove the offence. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1953 SCR 94. He has placed reliance on para 14 of the judgment of aforesiad judgment which reads as follows:

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that there is no need of any interference in this appeal since death of the deceased occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, the death was for unnatural causes, there was dowry demand by the accused-appellant and the evidence of P.W. 1- P.W. 5 suggest that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry before death. He further submits that the appellant hurriedly cremated the deceased without informing and waiting for arrival of the parents and other relatives of the deceased. He submits that the appellant has been rightly found guilty for committing offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced and the Trial Court judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

From going through the evidence and perusal of the records, it appears that none of the six prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence and except P.W^. 6, all the five witnesses are highly interested witnesses. The prosecution has not brought on record any proof with regard to the torture or demand of dowry prior to death of the deceased. Doctor or seizure list witnesses have not been examined. Post mortem report or inquest report have not been brought on record. In my view, non-examination of the doctor has also made the case of the prosecution doubtful.

It is also pertinent to mention here that in order to establish the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove the three essential ingredients, as discussed above. If the prosecution, proves all the three essential ingredients, then the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act will operate. Such presumption is rebuttable and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused person. If the prosecution fails to establish the aforesaid ingredients, then the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not apply and in such cases, the burden does not shift to the accused persons to rebut the presumption under the law.

In this case, it is evident that there is nothing on record to show that soon before the death of the deceased, there was any demand or torture by the appellant, which is a necessary ingredient to bring guilt of the accused under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Since one of the essential ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is absent on record, in my view, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, it is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that this appellant committed dowry death due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The offence under Section 201 IPC is also not proved because there is no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid charge and the basis of holding the appellant guilty under Section 201 IPC is based on suspicion.

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 nonfulfillment 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.

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur arising out of Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016 is, hereby, set aside and order of sentence dated 03.04.2018 is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.

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

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.