Sulochana Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Judgment

1. The State of Bihar

2. Dr. Priya Ranjan Kumar @ Dr. Priya Ranjan Bhashkar S/o Amol Rai Resident of Ward No.1, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate Ms. Saloni Saran, Advocate Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP : For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at length and perused the trial court’s records.

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed on 06.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2011 CIS No. 2567 of 2013 arising out of Jalalgarh P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010 dated 25.05.2010 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 has been pleased to acquit Respondent No. 2 of the charges under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’ and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition (in short ‘D.P.’) Act. Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution story is based on the written statement of the informant (PW-7) in which it has been stated that she was married to Dr. Priya Ranjan Bhaskar (respondent no.2), resident of District Madhepura on 06.05.2009 as per Hindu rituals. She and her husband both are doctor by profession. At the time of marriage, her father had given Rs. 10 lakh and one Alto car as gift. It is alleged that when she went to her matrimonial home, her husband Priya Ranjan Bhaskar, mother-in-law Rita Devi, father-in- law Dr. Amol Roy, brother-in-law Hans Raj Gautam, mamera sasur Krishna Kumar @ Murari Babu, fufera devar Gautam Yadav, fufera sasur Ravindra Yadav and fuferi saas Anita Devi started harassing and torturing her on petty issues. They started making demand of Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry as her husband was also a doctor. Her husband tried to kill her several times for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Her father came to her matrimonial home and arranged panchayati several times and had expressed his inability to pay dowry. She herself requested several times that her father is a poor man and he is not in a condition to pay Rs. 20 lakhs in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 dowry but just after two months, she was ousted from matrimonial home and was threatened that she would be killed, if demand of dowry is not met. She went to her uncle Sadanand Yadav, who is working in police department at Madhepura and saved her life. Thereafter, her uncle had taken her to Jalalgarh. It is further alleged that at the request of informant’s father, the accused Dr. Priya Ranjan Bhaskar, Dr Amol Roy and Gautam Yadav came there and took the informant along with them for the matrimonial home. She was accompanied by her uncle Lila Kant Yadav but when they came out of Jalalgarh, the accused persons started misbehaving and abusing informant. On protest by her uncle, they said to keep quiet. It is alleged that when they reached her matrimonial home at Madhepura, then Rita Devi, Krishna Kumar @ Murari Babu, Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi caught her and poured kerosene oil upon her and tried to burn her. On alarm, neighbours had assembled and she was saved. She returned her home with her uncle saving her life.

4. On the basis of this written statement, Jalalgarh P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010 dated 25.05.2010 was registered under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet bearing No. 73 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010 against this appellant under Sections

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 498A, 323, 307 and 34 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. On the basis of the charge-sheet, learned trial court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 05.10.2010 and the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 30.11.2010. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated

23.04.2011, charges were framed under Sections 498A/34, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.

5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove its’ case. The list of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced on behalf of the prosecution are being shown hereunder in tabular form:- List of Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 PW-2 PW-3 PW-4 PW-5 PW-6 PW-7 PW-8 PW-9 PW-10 PW-11 PW-12 PW-13 Sunil Kumar Yadav Sushil Kumar Vedanand Singh Laxmi Prasad Yadav Ashok Yadav Gopal Sah Sulochana Kumari (informant) Leela Kant Yadav Shekhar Kumar Sadanand Yadav Ram Vilash Singh Vidya Nand Mandal Dipankar Sri Gyan Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 PW-14 Dr. K.K. Yadav List of Exhibits on behalf of prosecution Ext-1 Ext-2, Ext- 2/1 Ext- 03 Ext- 04 Ext- 05 Ext- 06 Ext- 07 Ext- 7/1 Ext- 8 Ext- 7/1 Ext- 9 Ext- 10 fyf[kr vkosnu dks igpkurs gS tks viuh fy[kkoV esa gSA ml ij firkth] pkpk th dk Hkh gLrk{kj gSA vuqla/kku ds Øe esa vuqla/kku dÙkkZ dks “kknh dk nks QksVks xzkQ dks iznZFk &02 ,oa 2@0 vafdr fd;k x;kA fn0 11&1&10 dk Mk0 D K. Yadav dk nok dk iqtkZ fn;k gSA vuqla/kku dÙkkZ dk “kknh dk dkMZ fn;k Fkk fn0 11&1&10 dk nkfgus gkFk gFksyh dk X Ray Report gS ]]]] fuea=.k i{k gekjs firkth ds }kjk fn;k FkkA fn0 12&7&10 dks izLrqrh lg tCrh lqph rS;kj fn;k Fkk mlij Mk0 lqykspuk nsoh dk gLrk{kj fyf[kr vkosnu ij vuqla/kku vkns”k ij S.H.O dk gLrk{kj vkSIkpkjhd izkFkfedh ij jke foykl flag dk gLrk{kj fo/kkuan eaMy dk tCrh lqph ij gLrk{kj izLrqrh lg tCrh lqph Certified copy of order dated 8.10.12 passed in Matrimonial suit no. 11 of 2012/ 48 of 2012 List of Exhibits on behalf of the defence Ext- A C.C. of receiving Ext- B C.C. of Notice foPNsn okn la0& 11-10 Ext- C C.C. of Attendance Certificate Ext- D C.C. of order sheet matrimonial case no. Ext- E & 11/10 Leave certificate letter no. 1648 dt. 25/4/11 Ext-E/1 Leave certificate letter no. 389 dt. 28/1/11 Findings of the learned Trial Court

6. The learned trial court examined the evidences available on the record. It has been found that the accused- respondent no. 2 had filed a case for divorce on 22.03.2010. In this connection, Exhibit ‘D’, which is a copy of the summons issued by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 the learned Principal Family Judge, Madhepura in Divorce Case No. 11 of 2010 on 20.05.2010 and the certified copy of the service report of the process server have been brought on record. The learned trial court has recorded that the FIR was lodged on

25.05.2010. There was no previous complaint to any authority prior to the institution of the matrimonial suit. This has been taken as a very important circumstance to suggest that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast, particularly in the facts where cruelty and demand of dowry started within 2-3 months of the marriage. The trial court found from Exhibit ‘A’, which is the certified copy of the postal envelope in the matrimonial suit, that there was an endorsement on the service report “not found” dated 24.05.2010 and “addressee refused to accept” dated 26.05.2010. The FIR was sent to the court of learned CJM on 27.05.2010.

7. The learned trial court further disbelieved the prosecution case that the accused and his family members had gone to bring back the informant on 24.05.2010, despite the fact that the suit for divorce had already been filed on 22.03.2010.

8. It has been further held that the informant, who is the victim of this case, is herself an independent, highly qualified professional woman and she comes from a politically influential educated family. She was working in government hospital and her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 father, an erstwhile engineer, was Block Pramukh at the time of her marriage, therefore, she was not a helpless, poor and rustic lady. In these circumstances, it has been held that it is very difficult to believe that if demand for dowry was being made and cruelties were being done to her, she would have waited for one year to make a complaint.

9. The learned trial court found that the father of the victim, who has deposed as PW-2, has stated that there was no demand for dowry prior to the marriage. He had given cash and kinds to his daughter and son-in-law as gift. He has further stated that the informant was kept well for five months after her marriage, though there had been some complaints in between. The trial court held that here the cruelty had been alleged solely for not meeting the demand of Rs.20 lakhs for the purpose of construction of house. The court held that if there was no previous demand, the demand immediately after marriage is just unbelievable. It weakens the case of the prosecution.

10. The trial court further found that the accused- husband moved to the workplace of the wife, Kasba leaving the attractive metropolitan life of Delhi. The victim (PW-7) herself stated in her evidence that she was posted at Kasba and her husband had also got the posting there itself. She has further stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 that she used to attend her duties coming from her maike and her husband was also accompanying her. These facts, in the opinion of the trial court, goes in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. The learned trial court, while examining the evidences with regard to the charge under section 307 IPC, found that the two eyewitnesses of the occurrence – the victim (PW-7) and her uncle Leela Kant Yadav (PW-8), have made contradictory statements on material points. As per PW-7 and chief of PW-8, the victim was only poured/sprinkled kerosene and there was no lighting of the fire but in the cross-examination, PW-8 says that fire was lit and the victim had started burning. Her clothes had also burnt. Further while the allegation in the evidence of PW-7 is on the accused-husband, PW-8 specifically attributed the act to the mother-in-law. The FIR says that this act was done by Rita Devi, Krishna Kumar, Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi and in that act, the present accused had also helped. The mother-in-law was not facing trial. On the point of place of occurrence too, the trial court found contradictions in the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8. In this regard, a good deal of discussions have been made by the learned trial court in paragraph ‘33’ to ‘37’ of the impugned judgment. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

12. The learned trial court further believed the leave certificate of the accused (Exhibit ‘C’), which showed that he was present on his duties on 24.05.2010. This certificate was challenged and the concerned registers were called for at the request of the informant but no evidence was led to controvert it. The certificate (Exhibit ‘C’) could not be falsified. The accused- respondent no.2 being a government official, the trial court held that there would be a presumption with respect to the official documents when there was nothing in the rebuttal. The accused- respondent no. 2 was not on leave on 24.05.2010, he was on duty and if he was on duty, the alleged occurrence could not have taken place. Thus, the charge under section 307 IPC would not be established.

13. As regards the charges for the offences under section 498A/323 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, the learned trial court held that there are a series of allegations of cruelty and torture against the accused, assault, electrocution and attempt to kill but there is no medical evidence in support of Exhibit ‘3’ and Exhibit ‘5’. The doctor (PW-14), who has authored the prescription (Exhibit ‘3’), has said that the informant had told him that she has sustained injury while she was coming out of the gate, she has not complained of any assault by someone. This statement has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 found admissible under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as “res gestae”. It has been found that this doctor is not from the side of the accused but was teacher of the informant at the medical college where she studied. There was complete absence of medical evidence for corroboration and it creates serious doubt over the prosecution story.

14. The trial court considered the evidences as regards the allegation of assault on way to Madhepura on 24.05.2010, fracturing hand and electric shock/electrocution. It has been found that there is no mention of such occurrence in the FIR. The FIR was lodged after lapse of considerable time, therefore, in the opinion of the trial court, considerable time of lapse to cool the mind and material particulars were required to be mentioned there. The victim (PW-7) had not disclosed the same in her statement under section 161 CrPC either, which has been recorded in paragraph ‘2’ of the case diary. The victim (PW-7) was confronted with her previous statement in FIR under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

15. While examining the evidence of Sadanand Yadav (PW-10), who is the uncle of the victim and was posted in Bihar Military Police-7, Katihar, the learned trial court has found that this witness was apparently lying in his statement where he alleged Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 that when he visited the informant and met her, she had shown several injuries on her person and had told him that the accused- husband had badly assaulted her and tried to burn her alive by poring kerosene. He had not informed the police nor got the informant treated medically after seeing her injuries which cannot be said to be a natural conduct, therefore, this witness cannot be believed. The trial court found that all the prosecution witnesses had given general statements without specifying any specific date, time and manner of the occurrence. Referring to section 212 of the CrPC, the learned trial court noted that Section 212 CrPC provides that (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Section 213 CrPC provides that – when manner of committing offence must be stated. When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner is which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose no conviction can be made on such vague evidence. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

16. The learned trial court found that though there is an allegation of demand of Rs. 20 lakhs as the father of the accused required to pay back the housing loan but there was no proof of existence of any such loan. The evidence on this point was found completely vague and contradictory. PW-2, who is the father of the victim and a principal witness of this case, has stated that he was told about the demand of dowry by his daughter. The trial court, therefore, held that there was no direct demand from PW-2.

17. The trial court also examined the defence witnesses and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. In ultimate analysis, it has been found that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused definitely deserves a clean acquittal. Accordingly, the accused-respondent no. 2 has been acquitted for all the offences under section 498A, 323, 307 IPC and 3/4 DP Act. Submissions on behalf of the Informant

18. Learned counsel for the informant-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal has been passed without Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 application of judicial mind and without considering the statements (evidences available on the record).

19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the material witnesses have completely supported on the point of torture, harassment and demand of dowry as well, but the learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidences adduced by the witnesses available on the record and wrongly acquitted the respondent no. 2. Submissions on behalf of the State

20. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it would appear that the learned trial court has gone into every piece of evidence available on the record, meticulously examined them, discussed the same in the impugned judgment and ultimately found that those evidences were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the husband-respondent no. 2 beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead reliable evidences to prove the charges. In his submissions, this Court hearing an appeal against acquittal would be guided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and the case of Babu Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149. Consideration

21. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the trial court records. In order to take an appropriate view of the matter, we will first examine the evidences adduced by the parties which are discussed in the impugned judgment.

22. Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-1) is the husband of the younger sister of the informant. He has stated that the marriage of the younger sister of the informant took place in the year 2003. At the time of her marriage, the informant was studying in MBBS course and one year after his marriage, she became a doctor. She was married on 06.05.2009, went to her matrimonial home and thereafter for about a month, the relationship between the husband and wife remained cordial. He has stated that thereafter, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and other members of the family started demanding a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on the pretext of construction of house. When the informant refused to provide the money, her sasural people started torturing her mentally and physically and they were threatening her to kill. She was ousted from her sasural and thereafter she started living in her father’s Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 house but even thereafter, her husband and father-in-law used to come to Jalalgarh and were demanding money. There was also a panchayati held. This witness has stated that on 24.05.2010, the husband, his father and cousin Gautam Kumar came to Jalalgarh and on promise to keep the informant well, they took her to her sasural but thereafter, she was being beaten and attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her.

23. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of marriage, the informant was posted at Kasba. He has further stated that after marriage, her husband, Dr. Priyaranjan Bhaskar got himself transferred to Kasba. In paragraph ‘21’, he has stated that after marriage, the informant was living with her husband for one year and she used to come to attend her duties by Alto car together with her husband. During this period, she often used to go to her maika with her husband and stayed there. She used to return with her husband. He has stated that he did not remember the date, day and month in which the panchayati was held. In the said panchayati, the present or former Mukhiya of Jalalgarh and Sarpanch were not present. Sadanand Yadav, who is the brother of the father-in-law of this witness, was also not present. This witness has stated that the fact that there was a demand of dowry was told to him by the informant. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

24. From the evidence of PW-1 it is found that the relationship between the wife and husband was cordial, they used to attend their duties together and were also visiting the maika of the informant from time to time.

25. Sushil Kumar (PW-2) is the father of the informant. He has stated in his deposition that no demand of dowry was made prior to the marriage. According to this witness, he had provided some cash and kinds to his daughter and son-in-law by way of gift. This witness also said that the informant was kept well for five months after the marriage, though there had been some complaints in between. It is important to note that this witness (PW-2) states that as regards the demand of Rs. 20 lakhs, he was told by the informant over telephone. He claims that there had been injuries on the person of his daughter and for the same she was treated and medical prescription is on the record but this witness has stated that his daughter had not complained to the court or police in Madhepura. PW-2 admits that his maternal cousin is a reader in the S.P. Office, Madhepura and after being assaulted, his daughter went to his maternal cousin but he did not know whether the maternal cousin who was a reader in the S.P. Office had informed the local people or not. This witness further stated that his daughter was posted at Kasba, Primary Health Centre and his son- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 in-law joined the service after marriage, he too got the posting at Kasba. He was attending his duty at Kasba coming from Madhepura or Purnia. His daughter was attending her duties sometimes from Madhepura, sometimes from Purnia and sometimes from his place. This witness has admitted that they came to know about the divorce case after the notice but his daughter does not want divorce.

26. The learned trial court has examined the evidence of PW-2 and has rightly concluded that the fact that there was no demand of dowry prior to the marriage and the informant was kept well for five months after marriage, though there had been some complaints in between is a very important fact because the reason for all the offences has been alleged to be non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The learned trial court has rightly held that it is very unnatural and highly improbable that if no demand of dowry was made prior to marriage, it would have been made just after the marriage. The reasoning and rationale provided by the learned trial court in this regard are based on the evidences available on the record. We find no reason to disturb this finding of the learned trial court.

27. Vedanand Singh (PW-3) has stated that during the marriage, the father of the informant had given dowry in the nature Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 of gift. The relationship became sour after two/four months and thereafter the informant came to her naihar and told that her husband and his family members are asking for dowry. After one year of marriage, the informant again said that she is being tortured and beaten for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. This witness has stated that he is known to Sushil Yadav (PW-2) on account of social contacts. The marriage had been solemnized happily and there was no dispute. This witness has stated that after two months of marriage he had met the informant in her naihar and thereafter he met after one year. He has stated that Panchayati had taken place in the house of Sushil Yadav. He has stated that Dr. Bhaskar was not present in the Panchayati and no reading and writing had taken place in the said Panchayati. The second Panchayati had taken place after about a month in a hotel in Line Bazar. In the said Panchayati, Ward Commissioner or Mukhiya were not present. He did not know that who had booked the hotel, he did not remember the room number. In this Panchayati also no reading and writing had taken place.

28. Lakshmi Prasad Yadav (PW-4) is another witness who has stated about the Panchayati having taken place but he has also stated that no decision had taken place in the Panchayati. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know when the relationship between the informant and her husband became sour.

29. Ashok Yadav (PW-5) is another witness who has also deposed generally on the point of Panchayati. Contrary to the statement of PW-3, this witness has stated in paragraph ‘5’ of his deposition that in the Panchayati which took place after two/four months, the informant was not present but her husband was present. This witness is mausera uncle of the informant and he was suggested by defence that because of his relationship with the informant he was falsely deposing.

30. Gopal Sah (PW-6) has claimed that he heard that the accused was beating the informant and was demanding a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for which a Panchayati had also taken place. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is fighting a title suit in which father of the informant is a witness. He has further stated that the case under section 376(g) IPC is going on against him.

31. Sulochana Kumari (PW-7) is the victim and informant of this case. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that she was getting harassed, tortured and assaulted by her husband and her in-laws for demand of dowry and on trivial issues. Her husband tried to kill her several times and has fractured her right palm by kitchen stone. She has stated that she is a doctor Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 and was posted at Kasba, her husband also got his posting there, she was attending her duty from her paternal home, her husband was also accompanying her and had tried to kill her by making her fall from running motorcycle and by electrocuting her. On

24.05.2010, her husband came to her paternal home to request her father to send her to matrimonial home and took her back, where she was accompanied by her uncle Leela Kant Yadav, during the travel just ½ km ahead she was pushed down from the car, her uncle saved her somehow, she was misbehaved in the car, on protest of her uncle he was rebuked. She has further deposed that after reaching her matrimonial home, her husband along with the help of other accused persons poured kerosene and tried to set her on fire, on alarm raised by her uncle and herself, neighbours came and she was escaped. In her cross-examination, she has stated that first she lodged this case and then her husband has instituted a Divorce case, she has denied that she was on duty on 24.05.2010 and 25.05.2010. She had not complained on way that she was tried to be murdered for dowry. Her uncle Sadanand Yadav was posted in police department at Madhepura itself, but he was not informed. She directly reached to her parental home.

32. Leela Kant Yadav (PW-8) is the uncle of the informant. He has deposed that on 24.05.2010, he had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 accompanied the informant to her matrimonial home and on way, the husband of the informant and his brother started abusing. Upon resistance, this witness was also threatened. He stated that when they reached Madhepura, the mother-in-law of the informant was ready with kerosene oil in her hand. The oil was sprinkled on the informant and they were talking of lighting the fire. This witness raised alarm to which the neighbours came to the rescue. Thereafter he and the informant came to the bus stand and came back by bus. However, in the cross-examination he has mentioned that he raised the alarm towards the neighbours when abuses were hurled. PW-8 has further deposed that they went through Gulab Bagh, Line Bazar and Madhubani and the road was quite busy between Gulab Bagh to Madhubani but despite having twelve police stations between Purnea and Murliganj, he could not do anything as the glasses were closed. He had raised the alarm when he reached house of accused. Mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil on the informant inside the house. The informant came running out asking for help. Her body was soaked in the oil and she was burning. Her salwar and sameez were burnt. This witness put off the fire with his own hand and sustained some burn injuries in his hands. He had shown the burnt hand to the police and handed over the burnt clothes of the informant to the police. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

33. Shekhar Kumar (PW-9) is uncle of the victim who has stated in his examination-in-chief that after marriage, the informant went to her matrimonial home, she remained well there for a year, after a year approximately her husband along with in- laws started harassing her for dowry, they were demanding 15-20 lakhs. His niece used to tell her everything. The informant was injured by the accused husband by the kitchen stone roller, thereafter, this case was lodged. In his cross-examination, the witness states that he had no personal conversation with respect to the occurrence; he talked to the informant on the phone.

34. Sadanand Yadav (PW-10) is another uncle of the victim and has supported the prosecution case and has mentioned that the father of the victim had called him regarding this occurrence, later he had made call to the victim regarding pouring of kerosene and attempt to burn her. Her father-in-law had demanded Rs. 20 lakhs as dowry. After two days of this incident, victim was again taken to her matrimonial home. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he went 3-4 times to the matrimonial home of the victim after the reception, but had no conversation with the informant. He had not informed the police, nor had he got the informant medically treated, the parents of the informant had taken her along to Jalalgarh on the same day. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

35. Ram Bilash Singh (PW-11) is the first I.O. of this case, in cross-examination, he has stated that he had never visited the matrimonial home of the informant, he had neither seized nor the informant had produced anything during the investigation.

36. Bidya Nand Mandal (PW-12) is a formal witness to the seziure-cum-production list, he identified his signature, in his cross-examination he says that he has not read the documents seized.

37. Dipankar Sri Gyan (PW-13) is the second I.O. of the case. He has supported his investigation in chief. In cross- examination, he said that he had not recorded the statements of neighbours. The informant was posted as Medical Officer. He had not investigated to ascertain as to where she was on the alleged date of occurrence. He had no knowledge whether the accused was on duty on that day or not.

38. Dr. D. K. Yadav (PW-14) said in his examination-in- chief that the prescription dated 11.01.2010 marked as Exhibit ‘3’ is in his handwriting. The informant had been examined in his clinic. She had said that she had sustained an injury while she was coming out of the gate. He had advised X-ray. No external injury was seen. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was earlier Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 Assistant Professor in Kishanganj and the informant was his student there. She had not complained of any assault by someone.

39. In course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the prosecution has not informed the respondent no.2 of all the incriminating materials brought by the prosecution against him.

40. The defence filed some documentary evidences with a petition to mark them exhibits. The application of the defence was allowed vide order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned trial court.

41. The accused-respondent no.2 came in the dock in his defence and deposed. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the informant-wife had always done inhuman behaviour towards him since the very beginning of the conjugal life and it continued despite the fact that he shifted from Delhi and joined the hospital at Kasba, where his wife was posted. Then he resigned in October, 2009 and came back to Madhepura. The informant had also come to Madhepura in December 2009, where the inhuman behaviour of the informant had become excessive, not only for him, but for the entire family. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he and his family members used to torture the informant for fulfilling the demand of dowry. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

42. On going through the evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW- 5 and PW-6 this Court finds that they have generally deposed on the basis of what they heard. None of them has claimed that they were present at the time of demand of dowry and they are not even witnesses to the assault allegedly given to the informant. The learned trial court has concluded that there is no evidence of any of the witnesses from the neighbourhood of the matrimonial home. The I.O. had not examined or recorded the statements of any such witnesses. We find that the learned trial court has taken a correct view of the matter.

43. The most important witness in this case is the informant herself. She has stated that when she went to her matrimonial home, the accused persons were torturing her, they used to abuse and assault her on trivial issues. She has alleged that her husband fractured her right palm by a kitchen stone roller. She has stated that she was posted at Kasba, her husband had also got the posting there itself. She has stated that she used to attend her duties coming from her maika and her husband was also accompanying her. She has stated about the misbehaviour of her husband and her evidence in this regard have been discussed by the learned trial court. In this regard, evidence of the doctor has been discussed by the learned trial court and it has been held that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. In fact, evidence of the doctor (PW-14) falsifies the claim of the prosecution. The finding of the learned trial court while examining the charge under section 307 IPC is that the two eyewitnesses who are PW-7 and PW-8 have made contradictory statements on material points. In this regard, the findings in paragraph nos. ‘34’, ‘35’ and ‘36’ of the impugned judgment are as under:- “34. The evidence of two eye witness is contradictory on material point. As per PW-7 and chief of PW-8, the victim was only poured/sprinkled kerosene and there was no litting of the fire. However, the cross of PW-8 shows that fire was lit and the victim had started burning. Her clothes had also burnt. Secondly, the allegation in the evidence of PW-7 is on the accused husband, whereas PW-8 specifically attributes the act to mother-in-law. FIR says that this act was done by Rita Devi, Krishna Kumar, Ravindra Yadav and Anita Devi and in that act the present accused also helped. This assume very much importance because the said mother-in-law is not facing trial now. If others had done the act, the present accused cannot be held liable in absence of any specific overt act. On the point of place of occurrence too, there is contradiction between the evidence of two eye witnesses. PW-7 said that it had occurred at the Verandah of the house, whereas PW-8 says that the kerosene was sprinkled on the person of the informant in the courtyard of the house. 35. Other evidence on record also falsifies the allegations. PW-2 said that his daughter / victim was wearing Saree, Petticoat and blouse, but the eye witness PW-8 said that she was wearing Salwar Kameez, which had burnt. PW-7 herself had produced the saree, petticoat and blouse vide Seizure-cum-production list marked as Ext. 7 and not the Salwar-kameez. PW-2, the father of the informant said that clothes, his daughter was wearing was new, whereas Ext. 7 shows that those were old. Said clothes had not been produced in trial as Material Exhibits for the physical inspection of the court. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025

36. PW-7 herself said that she had not complained to any police station on way that she was tried to be murdered for dowry. She further said that her uncle Sadanand Yadav was posted in police department at Madhepura itself, but he was not informed and she came directly to her parental home. In such a serious offence, this is quite unnatural conduct and highly improbable. She should have informed the local police, or the first police station, she crossed in her way back. It was not that local police was in connivance of the accused as the uncle of the informant was himself the Reader in the office of SP, Madhepura. It will not out of place to mention that post of Reader is very important clerical position in the police department of the district. She herself was a government officer.”

44. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of the learned trial court, we have once again gone into the evidences of PW-7 and PW-8. We are of the view that the learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 and from the entire evidences on the record, the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the charge under section 307 IPC could not be established at all. In fact, the doctor (PW-14) who is the author of the medical evidence was the teacher of the informant at the medical college. PW-14 has stated that the informant had told him that she had sustained injury while she was coming out of gate. The learned trial court has rightly admitted this statement of PW-14 under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as “res gestae”.

45. As regards the alleged occurrence of 24.05.2010, the learned trial court has accepted the defence evidence Exhibit ‘C’ which is the leave certificate of the accused showing that he was on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 his duty in the government hospital. It has been recorded that the certificate was challenged and the concerned registers were called for at the request of the informant but no evidence has been led to controvert it.

46. This Court has perused Exhibit ‘A’ and Exhibit ‘B’ which have been brought by defence. It is evident that prior to lodging of FIR, the accused-respondent no.2 had filed a divorce case giving rise to Divorce Case No. 11 of 2010 in the court of learned Family Judge, Madhepura. In the said case, summon was issued to the informant on 20.05.2010. She had refused to receive the summons. An endorsement to this effect has been made by the Postal Peon and the fact that the informant had refused to receive the notice has also come in the report of the process server (Exhibit ‘B’).

47. On perusal of the entire evidence on the record and after once again going through the entire impugned judgment, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court.

48. An appeal against acquittal is governed by the principles which have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on several occasions. In the case of H.D. Sundara (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.289 of 2021 dt.03-07-2025 “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

49. In ultimate analysis, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

50. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Rishi/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date

10.07.2025 10.07.2025