IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 518 with 574 of 2004
(29.11.2025)
Vijay Tanti @ Bijay Tanti@ Bijay Tanti & Ors (in 518)
Munna Tanti & Ors. (in 574) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-B and 201 read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Dowry death and disappearance of evidence – Conviction and sentence – This is not a case where dead body of deceased was recovered from her matrimonial home – Death was within seven years of marriage – Most important factors as to whether occurrence was due to demand of dowry as alleged is not appearing convincing – it is unsafe to say that the foundational aspect under Section 304-B IPC is established as to import presumption available u/s 114-B of Evidence Act – Prosecution has failed to answer number of doubts as surfaced during trial, benefit of which must be given to appellants/accused – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside and appellants/accused acquitted from charges levelled against them – Appeals allowed. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 30, 31 and 32)
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
In compliance of order dated 30.1.2025, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur has sent a report to this Court through Letter No. 195, which speaks that the appellant no.3 namely, Bisulia Devi, wife of Bhushan Tanti had died, whereas other appellants are alive and, therefore, the present appeal stands abated against appellant no.3 Bisulia Devi (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.574 of 2004).
2. Now, the present appeals survive against appellants Vijay Tanti @ Bijay Tanti, Shambhu Tanti, Kanhai Tanti (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.518 of 2004), Munna Tanti and Bhushan Tanti (in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.574 of 2004).
3. As learned counsel appearing for respective appellants/convicts has failed to appear repeatedly when this matter was taken on Board for final hearing, therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Abhas Chandra, learned Advocate as an Amicus Curiae to assist in disposal of appeals.
4. Both appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants-convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2004 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.770 of 2003 arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.4 of 2002, whereby the trial court has convicted all above-named appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 read with 34 of the IPC. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
5. The brief case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of informant namely, Suresh Tanti (PW-3), recorded by police on 06.01.2001 at about 3.30 P.M. at the bank of Golphara Katiara river that his daughter Rinki Devi was married with accused/appellant Munna Tanti two years ago according to Hindu Rites and Rituals in which he has paid Rs. 15,000/- against dowry demand of Rs.20,000/- at the time of marriage and balance amount of Rs.5,000/- was due to be paid. After the marriage, the deceased Riki Devi gone to her matrimonial home and when she returned her parental home after some days, she complained to her father that appellant Munna Tanti (husband), father-in-law, namely, Bhushan Tanti, cousin father-in-law Shambhu Tanti, Kanhai Tanti, Vijay Tanti and her mother-in-law always used to abuse and assault her due to non-payment of balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and they always used to told her that she would allow to return her sasural only after paying the said amount otherwise she would be done to death and her husband would perform second marriage. It was further stated that daughter of informant Rinki Devi fled away to her “nanihal” at Saino in the house of one Prasadi Tanti, where at the time of Dashhara, the appellants came there and requested for bidai and gave assurance that henceforth no torture would be meted to her. Believing on them, the informant allowed Rinki Devi to go with them to her “sasural”. On 16.01.2002, when the informant came to sasural of her daughter at Chhote Yogibir, then he found his daughter and all members of her matrimonial house absent from the house. Thereafter, he searched for them and then came to know form the villagers that her daughter had fled away in the preceding night and thereaftrer, the informant went to his own sasural to search for her, where his father-in-law informed that her daughter had not come there and thereafter, the informant along with his father-in-law started searching for her and in that course, he found the dead body of her daughter engraved in bank of Golphara river. Her head was visible, so the informant and his father-in-law started digging but, in the meantime, police came there and recorded the statement of the informant.
6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, the police lodged a case as Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 4 of 2002. After c
Dowry death conviction under IPC Section 304B requires proof of cruelty/harassment for dowry demand soon before death to attract Evidence Act Section 113B presumption; mere presence at scene insuffic....
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
In dowry death cases, prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage with cruelty/harassment soon before by husband/relatives linked to dowry demand to raise rebuttable presump....
To convict under Section 304-B IPC, it must be proven that the victim faced cruelty for dowry-related demands occurring soon before death, which was not established in this case.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements fo....
Dowry death – Mere death of deceased being unnatural in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death within seven years of marriage, demonstrating that....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.