Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Raffiqul Islam son of Younus Ali @ Gudha Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 762 of 2002
Decided On : 15-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
The appeal court reversed the conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC, concluding that prosecution failed to establish necessary elements, particularly the connection between alleged cruelty and demand for dowry.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B and Section 34 - Dowry death - Appellant convicted for the offence of dowry death and sentenced to life imprisonment by trial court - Evidence produced by prosecution deemed unreliable due to contradictions and lack of concrete proof of demand for dowry - Ingredients to establish dowry death not satisfied - Conviction set aside. (Paras 14, 35, 38)
(B) Essential elements for conviction under Section 304B IPC include: death caused by burns or bodily injury, occurrence within seven years of marriage, evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demand. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
Death of Ramisha Bibi within seven years of marriage to Raffiqul Islam - Allegations of domestic violence and torture for dowry following her death - Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimony and medical report contradicting cause of death.
Findings of Court:
Evidence from prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and did not satisfy the conditions set forth under Section 304B IPC.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in applying the provisions of Section 304B IPC to the facts presented?
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal court found that the prosecution did not establish the necessary elements of the offence under Section 304B IPC, particularly regarding alleged demands for dowry and evidence of cruelty.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments of the appellant regarding evidence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. state's response to appellant's arguments. (Para 12) |
| 4. explanation of dowry death provisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's observations on evidence inconsistency. (Para 34 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. court's conclusion and order. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2002 and order of sentence dated 01.11.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 293 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, this appellant along with two other appellants, whose appeal is abated, have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
3. The original appellant no. 1 namely, Younus Ali @ Gudha Ali, son of Rahman Sk. and appellant no. 2 namely, Sona Bibi, wife of Younus Ali @ Gudha Ali have died during pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 19.12.2024.
4. The appeal is heard in respect of sole alive appellant, Raffiqul Islam, who happens to be husband of the deceased.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s sister Ramisha Bibi was married with present appellant Raffiqul Islam 03 years ago from the occurrence. It is alleged that on 23.08.1990 at about 5:00 PM, the informant came to know that his sister is being assaulted by her husband at her matrimonial home, then he rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw that present appellant was assaulting his sister by pressing her chest and his mother and father were abetting to kill her. It is further alleged that in the seriously injured condition, informant brought his sister to his home and was making arrangement for money for her treatment in the meanwhile, she died in the same night. It is further alleged that the accused persons were frequently demanding cow, cycle, shoes etc. from the deceased, which could not be fulfilled. Hence, she was regularly subjected to physical and mental torture.
6. On the basis of above information, Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 211/1990 was registered for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of the I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of offence, committed the case to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 293/1993 was registered and trial proceeded against the accused persons, due to denial from charges and claim for trial.
7. In course of trial, altogether 09 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:
P.W.-1 : Nazrull Haque.
P.W.-2 : Md. Kudus Ali.
P.W.-3 : Dr. Raman Kumar
P.W.-4 : Mati-Ur-Rahman.
P.W.-5 : Abul Wahab.
P.W.-6 : Hamid Sheikh (Informant).
P.W.-7 : Jelesha Bewa (Informant’s mother).
P.W.-8 : Sainur Bewa.
P.W.-9 : Md. Abdul Wahid (formal witness). Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Post-mortem Report of deceased Ramisha Bibi.
Exhibit-2 : Fardbeyan of Hamid Sk.
8. On the other hand, defence has also examined three witnesses namely, D.W.-1 Samsun Bibi, D.W.-2 Tarun Bibi and D.W.-3 Rajjak Ali, but no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence.
9. The trial court after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution and defence arrived at conclusion of guilt of the accused persons and sentenced them as stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the informant and his other relatives have deposed like eye-witnesses of the occurrence and specifically alleged that the present appellant was assaulting his wife by pauwa of cot and pressurizing her chest, resulti
