Sanjay Ganguli & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

It is here pertinent to mention, at the very outset that appeal preferred by Uttam Ganguly stood abated vide order dated 22.07.2026.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P.

The instant criminal appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11^th July, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 443 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the appellants along with deceased appellant have been convicted for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304B of the IPC and R.I. for one year along with a fine of Rs. 300/- each under Section 498A of the IPC with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant solemnized marriage of his daughter Putul Kumari (since deceased) with Sanjay Kumar Ganguli (appellant No. 1) on 09.12.2002. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the informant was not financially sound and gave Rs.35,000/- to the accused persons by taking loan. It is further alleged that whenever the informant used to visit the matrimonial house of his daughter, she used to complain about her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law demanding money in dowry and consequential torture. It is also alleged that father-in-law had evil eyes upon his daughter and this matter was also conveyed to the husband but he did not pay any heed and therefore she used to remain in stress. It is further alleged that on 26.12.2003 at about 6:30 AM, husband and brother-in-law of the deceased came to the parental house of the deceased and informed about missing of his daughter that she went to discharge natural call in the morning at about 5:00AM and did not return. Father-in-law has also informed about missing of his daughter. On 28.12.2003, the informant came to know that her dead body was found into the well and on suspicion, he claimed that accused persons subjected his daughter with cruelty and atrocities and committed murder by throwing her dead body into the well.

On the basis of written report of the informant, Jharia (Tisra) P.S. Case No. 450 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B/498A of the IPC against the accused persons.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against above accused persons under aforementioned Sections and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 443 of 2004 was registered. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 Saresh Kumar Chakravarty

P.W.-2 Uttam Kumar Chakravarty

P.W.-3 Indrajit Chakravarty

P.W.-4 Nepal Bhattacharya

P.W.-5 Tanmay Mahato

P.W.-6 Prabir Kumar Mishra (Informant)

P.W.-7 Dr. Sailendra Kumar

Apart from oral testimony, documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution.

Ext.-1 Written Report

Ext.2 Post-Mortem Report

No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and there is no specific allegation against them to make any demand of dowry. Further, case of defence is that the deceased went to discharge natural call and accidently fell into the well and died due to drowning and they are innocent and committed no offence at all.

After conclusion of the trial, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment has argued that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the deceased has died due to drowning and there was no ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased. Prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has further been submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly assessed the evidence of witnesses that deceased was subjected with cruelty soon before her death on account of demand of dowry and torture and arrived at wrong conclusion. It is not a case of death under unnatural circumstances rather purely accidental death due to falling into well and drowning. It is further submitted that investigating officer has not been examined in this case, which also caused prejudice to the accused. No independent witness has been examined to corroborate the prosecution story. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court suffers from serious error of law warranting interference in this appeal which is fit to be set aside allowing this appeal.

In the alternative, it is argued that appellants have remained in custody for four years seven months during trial and post conviction. Case is of the year 2003. The appellants have sufficiently been punished hence sentence may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and apprised with the oral testimony of the witnesses available on record. It has also been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that the accused persons were demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and all the ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC are well proved. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal”?

Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it appears necessary to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case.

P.W.-1 Saresh Kumar Chakravarty has deposed that the deceased after marriage went to the matrimonial home and lived peacefully for six months and thereafter, her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law started to harass for demand of dowry from her parents and this witness came to know about the demand of dowry from the deceased herself who used to narrate the same when she use to came to the parental house. On 26.12.2003, the in-laws of the deceased informed that deceased had gone to discharge her natural call and did not return and on 28.12.2003, he came to know that dead body of the deceased has been found into the well. He has also deposed that accused persons committed murder of the deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. This witness has also proved his signature on the inquest report.

P.W.-2 Uttam Kumar Chakravarty has deposed that when the deceased had come to her parental house, he found that she was looking sad and when this witness asked, she told that her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law asked her to bring money from her father and consequential torture committed by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. This witness has also put his signature on inquest report.

P.W.-3 Indrajit Chakravarty has also deposed that for six months, in-laws and husband of the deceased behaved properly but thereafter, they used to demand Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 32.000/- cash as dowry. He has further deposed that this fact was disclosed to him by the deceased herself. He has stated that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased for want of money.

P.W.-4 Nepal Bhattacharya has also deposed that her in-laws asked her to give due money of dowry and on her inability to pay the same, she was being subjected with cruelty and torture.

P.W.-5 Tanmay Mahato has stated that after six month of marriage, the deceased had come to her parental house and was weeping in presence of her father and villagers narrating the atrocities meted with her due to non-

fulfillment of dowry by her father and after four to five days of her arrival at her parental home, her husband came and took her with him and on 28.12.2003, they committed murder of the deceased.

P.W.-6 Prabir Kumar Mishra is the father-cum-informant of the deceased who has stated that at the time of marriage, he arranged according to his capacity and by taking loan, he gave Rs. 35,000/- to the accused persons as dowry and after one month of marriage of his daughter when she came to my house complained against her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law about demand of dowry such as T.V. Motorcycle and other things and they were teasing her for want to dowry. He has further stated that the husband of her daughter Sanjay Ganguly had come to his house and assured that no demand of dowry would be made and would keep her well but again she was asked for money by the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law and this fact was known to the informant when he visited the matrimonial home of his daughter.

P.W.-7 Dr. Shailendra Kumar conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and he was one of the member of the Board who conducted the post-mortem and did not find any ante-mortem wound on the body of the deceased and on dissection-he found the respiratory system and trachea were full of soil and sand and mucus membrane were found balanced. Both lungs were swollen and blood mixed foam was coming out. Uterus and heart were found empty. There was 300 C.C. sand mixed fluid liquid in the stomach. Uterus was normal and internal organs were found with congestion of blood. He has opined that there was no proof to show that the neck of the deceased was pressed before her death and there was no sign of forceful rape. He has clearly stated that the death was due to drowning and failure of respiratory system. He has proved the post-mortem examination report as Ext.-2.

In order to deal with the above point, it is required to refer the relevant provisions of law herein below:-

From bare perusal of Section 304B of the IPC (Section 80 of B.N.S., 2023), it is obvious that following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution as foundational facts for invoking the offence of dowry death:-

When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death and once the prosecution establishes aforesaid ingredients, the burden of proof radically shifts to the defence due to strict statutory presumption.

The provision of section 304-B of IPC as regards cause of death does not categorize death as homicidal, suicidal or accidental rather any death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” may attract the provision of section 304-B of IPC, if other ingredients are fulfilled.

In the instant case, after going through the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses examined in this case, it appears that the death of the deceased is admittedly due to drowning which has happened otherwise than under normal circumstance as corroborated by the Doctor (P.W.-7) which confirms the first requirement of Section 304B of the IPC.

The second requirement is also proved as per the testimony of the witnesses that the deceased was married with the appellant No. 1 just before one year from her death which was also corroborated by the informant and other witnesses and she died unnatural death i.e. within 7 years of marriage.

So far as, third and fourth conditions are concerned, it appears from the testimony of the informant who is the father of the deceased that his son-in-law and in-laws of the deceased used to demand motorcycle, T.V. and cash and due to non-fulfillment of demand, the husband and in-laws of the deceased used to torture and assault the deceased and this fact was narrated by the deceased herself to her father and other witnesses when the deceased had come to her parental home. The unrebutted testimony of aforesaid witnesses also proves the ingredients nos. (iii) and (iv).

Therefore, presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act can legitimately be raised in this case against the appellants.

I have considered the defence version in the light of circumstances proved by the prosecution. It is crystal clear that all the four ingredients of dowry death have been proved by the prosecution against the appellants through cogent and reliable evidence and the defence has miserably failed to rebut the presumption invoked under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court against the husband (appellant No. 1) and father-in-law (appellant No.2) calling for any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC against the husband (appellant No. 1) and father-in-law (appellant No.2) is hereby confirmed and upheld.

So far as the sentence of the appellants are concerned, it appears that both the appellants have already undergone custody for a period of 4 years 7 months out of 7 years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. It also appears that the appellant No. 1 has crossed his age of 46 years and appellant No. 2 has crossed his age of 73 years and since 2003, they are facing the agony of the trial of this case. Therefore, it appears expedient for the ends of justice to modify the sentence of the appellants as already undergone by them.

Accordingly, the sentence of the appellants is modified to the extent of period already undergone by them.

Both the appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.

In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.