SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 5696

PATNA HIGH COURT
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA, JJ
Gautam Kumar @ Ashish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 478 of 2025 | Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellant/s:Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate, Ms. Muskan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

Conviction under IPC Sec. 302 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case.

Headnote:The appeal arises from a judgment of conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court analyzed the evidence from the trial, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the circumstances of the deceased's death. Key legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. The court's reasoning emphasized the lack of proof to support the charges. The appellant's conviction was found unsustainable, warranting bail pending appeal.

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) The present appeal has been preferred against the

4 18-12-2025 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2024 (arising out of Hisua P.S. Case No. 517 of 2023) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been directed to further undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. The short facts of the case as per the written information filed by the informant, namely Vimla Devi (PW-2) is that the marriage of her deceased daughter, namely Kriti Kumari was solemnized in the year 2021 with the appellant as per Hindu rites and ritual and at the time of marriage, cash to the tune of rupees five lakhs, gifts, gold jewelry, fridge etc. were given to the appellant and his family members, however after some time the appellant as also his father and mother started inflicting cruelty upon the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. Subsequently, the deceased gave birth to a girl child and then the appellant started making demand for a sum of Rs. three lakhs for his cement shop, whereafter the informant had given the said sum of money to the appellant on 13.9.2023. Thereafter, the informant had again demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, however the informant had shown her inability to pay the same. On 16.09.2023, the informant came to know over telephone from her second daughter residing at Ramnagar that her daughter Kriti Kumari has been killed by her husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law by pressing her neck (strangulation) and thereafter, her dead body has been taken to the police station. The informant has further alleged that her daughter was three months pregnant and upon having received the news of her death she reached Sadar Hospital, Nawada where she found her daughter lying dead having black ligature mark on her neck. On the basis of the said written report of the informant, a formal F.I.R. bearing Hisua P.S. Case No. 517 of 2023 dated 17.9.2023 was registered under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC against the appellant, his father and mother.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that altogether nine witnesses have been examined out of which PW-1 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased while PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are the police officials/Investigating Officers of the connected case. As far as PW-4, PW-8 and PW-9 are concerned, they have been declared hostile. Thus, it is submitted that what remains is the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. In this connection, reference has been made to the evidence of PW-2 i.e. the informant and mother of the deceased to submit that a bare perusal of the examination-in-chief of PW-2 would show that she has stated that nothing took place at the matrimonial home and her daughter has committed suicide. It is stated that no contradiction has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW- 2. It is also submitted that similarly PW-3 has stated that he had gone to the house of Ashish Kumar (appellant) at Majhwe and seen the body of the deceased, however he has no idea about the incident much less about any fight having taken place or about the reason for death of the deceased. Thus, it is submitted that the present case is a case of no evidence, hence the learned Trial Court has erred by convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC inasmuch as in paragraph no. 11 of the impugned judgment of conviction, though the learned Trial Judge has come to a conclusion that there is no proof of harassment and cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased or regarding money being demanded by the husband and in-laws of the deceased, thus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top