IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1130 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-1992 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas ======================================================

Ajay Choudhary, S/o Kailash Choudhary, R/o Vill.- Muswat, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas Sasaram.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr.Alexander Ashok, Advocate Mr.Jawaed Akhtar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra , APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 25-02-2026 The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1994 arising out of Natwar P.S. Case No. 35 of 1992.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The appellant, who is the husband of the deceased woman, has assailed the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence before this Court.

4. The prosecution case originates from the fardbeyan of Bikrama Pandey, a village chaukidar of village Muswat within Natwar Police Station in the district of Rohtas.

5. According to the prosecution, on 29.04.1992 the informant, after returning from night patrolling duty, came to know from one Ramayan Choudhary that the daughter-in-law of Kailash Choudhary, namely the wife of the present appellant Ajay Choudhary, had died during the preceding night. Upon enquiry regarding the cause of death, it was stated that she had allegedly died after consuming poison.

6. On receiving such information, the informant proceeded to the house of Kailash Choudhary to verify the said information. However, according to him, no satisfactory explanation was furnished regarding the circumstances of death. The informant suspected that the death was not natural. He is stated to have instructed the family members of the deceased not to cremate the dead body until the police authorities arrived.

7. The informant thereafter proceeded to inform the police. On his way, he met the police party and returned to the village along with them. Upon reaching the village, it was allegedly found that the dead body of the deceased had already been cremated by the family members of the appellant along with their co-villagers.

8. The informant alleged that the deceased had not died a natural death but had been done to death by her matrimonial family members and that the cremation of the body had been hurriedly conducted in order to screen the evidence of the offence.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Natwar P.S.

Case No. 35 of 1992 came to be instituted initially under Sections 302, 328 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the present appellant.

10. After registration of the case, investigation was taken up by the police. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons including the present appellant under Sections

304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas on 21.02.1994.

12. During the pendency of the trial, two of the accused persons, na