# Paras Nath Sahu & Anr v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 65
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2012
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/paras-nath-sahu-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52962
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 60,031. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
65
conviction and sentence passed by 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in
Sessions Trial No. 308/86 is liable to be set
aside. Therefore, the instant criminal appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order dated 21.03.1990 passed by the Trial
Court is set aside and the surviving
appellant, Bakuni acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

29. The appellant No.3, Bakuni is in
jail. He is directed to be released forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.

30. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the trial Court concerned alongwith the
Trial Court record for information and
necessary compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 65
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR
CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2012

Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Discretion of Court to award punishment u/s
304-B I.P.C.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec 304-B-deceased
burned to death by her husband and her fatherin-law-not mandatory for the Courts to award
life imprisonment in every case-Courts could
award sentence in exercise of it discretion
between seven years to life imprisonment-must
not be less than 7 years and the extreme
punishment of life terms should be awarded in
'rare cases'-ends of justice if the maximum
sentence of life is reduced to the period already
undergone.
Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Hem Chand Vs State of Haryana, reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 727
2. State of Karnataka Vs M.V Manjunathe gowda
& Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 183
3. G.V. Siddaramesh vs State of Karnataka,
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 152
4. Hari Om v. State of Haryana, reported in
(2014) 10 SCC 577

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Dowry death, culpability of the convict, amount
of punishment

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Chauhan,
Abhishek Tiwari, Ashok Kumar Singh, Chandresh
Mani Shukla, Hemant Tripathi, Pranav Trivedi,
Raj Baksh Singh, Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Ravi
Shankar Mishra, Shantanu Mishra, Smt.Suman
Lata Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.
&
Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal under
Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as to
'Cr.P.C.')
has
been
filed
by
the
appellants/accused Paras Nath Sahu and
Umesh against the judgment and order
dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Sessions
Judge, District Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial
No. 273 of 2009 (State Vs. Paras Nath
Sahu and another) arising out of Crime No.
143 of 2008, wherein they have been
convicted and sentenced for punishment for
the substantive offence under Section 304-
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B I.P.C. for imprisonment of life, under
Section 498-A I.P.C. for three years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs. 3000/- to each and in default of fine,
one-year additional imprisonment and oneyear of rigorous imprisonment along with
fine of Rs. 2000/- to each, under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default
of
fine
six
months'
additional
imprisonment. The benefit of Section 428
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
relating to concurrent running of all the
said sentences of conviction has also been
granted to the appellant by the Ld. Trial
Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of the prosecution as
elaborated by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment is briefly enumerated
as herein under:

2.1 The complainant, Banshilal
Gupta (P.W.-1), son of Mohanlal Gupta,
resident of Shivani Ka Purwa, Vihar, Police
Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, filed a
written report (Exhibit-Ka-1) at Police
Station- Baghrai on August 19, 2008, at
9:00 AM, leading to registration of a F.I.R.
(Exhibit-Ka-3), stating inter-alia that he
had arranged the marriage of his daughter,
Sangeeta Devi, aged 21 years, with Umesh
(Appellant No.2), son of Paras Nath Sahu,
(Appellant No.1), resident of village
Dandwa,
Namdevpur,
Police
Station
Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.

2.2 It was stated therein that ever
since the wedding, which had been about
three years ago, the daughter's husband,
Umesh, and his father, Paras Nath,
constantly harassed and physically abused
Sangeeta, demanding dowry and asked her
to go and bring a gold chain and money,
which her daughter repeatedly told to her
mother, brother and relatives. It was also
stated by the defacto- complainant that his
son-in-law(Umesh/Appellant No.2) is a
habitual alcoholic.

2.3 It was also stated in the said
F.I.R. that on August 19, 2008, at around
6:30 AM, his another son-in-law, Banwari
Lal, son of Chedilal, a resident of
Mangalpur, Police Station- Baghrai DisrictPratapgarh came to his house and informed
that his daughter Sangeeta (since deceased)
had been burned to death by her husband
Umesh and her father-in-law Paras Nath,
due to demands of dowry and the dead
body is lying in her matrimonial home.

2.4 The complainant along with
his son-in-law (Banwari lal) accompanied
by other relatives arrived at the place of
incident, wherein they came to learn that
the incident had taken place last night.

3. Based on the aforesaid written
report (Exhibit-Ka-1) filed by Banshilal
Gupta (P.W.-1), Head Constable Sanjay
Shukla at Police Station- Baghrai registered
a chik preliminary information report
(Exhibit-Ka-3) regarding this incident,
which he referred in General Diary, Entry
No. 4 and filed a permanent case dated
19.08.2008 at 9:15 AM (Exhibit-Ka-4).

4. The inquest report of the deceasedSangeeta Devi was prepared by Ram
Kewal
Tripathi,
Nayab
Tehsildar,
Manikpur. On his instructions, the SubInspector of the concerned police station
seized the deceased's belongings from the
crime scene, including an empty 5-liter
kerosene cane, a matchbox and loose
matchsticks soaked in kerosene, which
were lying near the body. He also seized a
green and purple colored shirt, an iron
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
67
tongs, and strands of hair scattered near the
body, and prepared a seizure memo
(Exhibit-Ka-13). He prepared the sample
seal (Exhibit-Ka-6), letter of Reserve
Inspector
(Exhibit-Ka-7),
letter
of
Constable (Exhibit-Ka-8), Photographs
(Exhibit-Ka-9) and CMO report (ExhibitKa-10), and after duly sealing the dead
body, sent the same to the District Hospital,
Pratapgarh for post-mortem examination.

5. Postmortem of the dead body was
conducted by Dr. Padmakar Singh (P.W.-
3), who also prepared and signed the
postmortem report (Exhibit-Ka-2).

6.
During
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer/Circle Officer Sadar,
Ms. Rashmi Mishra recorded the statement
of the witnesses and on the pointing out of
the
complainant
(P.W.-1),
and
after
investigating the place of occurrence, site
plan (Exhibit-Ka-12) was prepared. After
completing the formalities of investigation,
the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet on 10.09.2008, against the appellants
(i) Paras Nath Sahu and (ii) Umesh, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act (Ex. Ka- 11).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT

7. The case came to be committed to
the Sessions Court vide an order dated
24.08.2009 and to the charges framed
against both the appellants on 02.11.2009,
both of them pleaded not guilty and
claimed Trial.

8. The prosecution, in order to prove
its case, have examined seven witnesses.
The details of the witnesses being: -

P.W.-
Banshi Lal
Complainant/father
1
of the deceased
P.W.-
2
Kalawati
Complainant's
wife/mother of the
deceased
P.W.-
3
Dr.
Padmakar
Singh
Doctor
who
conducted
postmortem
examination of the
dead body of the
deceased.
P.W.-
4
Constable
Sanjay
Kumar
Shukla
Scriber of the First
Information
Report
and entry in the G.D.
P.W.-
5
Sri
Ram
Kewal
Tripathi
Nayab
Tehsildar
Manikpur,
who
prepared the inquest
report and on whose
instruction recovery
memo was prepared
by
the
concerned
police station.
P.W.-
6
Smt. Rashi
Mishra
Investigating
Officer/Circle
Officer Sadar The
Investigating Officer
who prepared site
plan
and
charge
sheet
against
the
accused/appellants.
P.W.-
7
Sri
Ram
Kewal
Tripathi
Nayab
Tehsildar
Manikpur, who has
already
been
examined as P.W.-5

9. Apart from the oral evidence led by
the prosecution, various documents have
also been exhibited and proved running
from Exhibit. Ka-1 to Exhibit. Ka-12.

10. Thereafter, the statement of the
accused/appellants were recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2011
and
additional
statements
of
the
accused/appellant
were
recorded
on
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.05.2012, wherein they denied the fact of
being involved in the present incident and
setting ablaze of the deceased- Sangeeta. In
their statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and in additional statements, both
the accused persons have admitted that
marriage of the deceased-Sangeeta and
appellant no. 2 -Umesh was solemnized
three years ago, however, they denied
allegations made by the complainant/father
of the deceased in the F.I.R. and allegations
made by the P.W.-2 mother of the
deceased. In their additional statements,
they have also denied the opinion of the
Doctor-Padmakar
Singh,
P.W.-3
and
claimed that this is the false case against
them with the ulterior motive to harass
them. They also chose to lead defence
evidence.

11.
However,
none
of
the
accused/appellants produced any defence
witnesses in their favour.

12. After hearing the arguments of
both the sides and on basis of the evidence
available on record, the Learned Trial
Court returned a finding that the oral and
documentary evidence placed before the
Court by the prosecution were found
adequate for successfully proving the entire
chain of whole evidence from beginning to
end in a coherent manner. The Trial Court
rejected the defence version made during
trial that the wife committed suicide
because of her husband being alcoholic.
The Trial Court also rejected the version of
the defence that the dowry accusation was
presumably to be customary in their culture
for the son-in-law to get upset and demand
something. The version of the defence that
the present incident was a suicide case, as
no one came from the parental home of the
deceased to invite her for Raksha Bandhan
was also repelled by the Ld. Trial Court.
The doctor's opinion was believed to be
correct to the effect that the deceased
received ante-mortem injuries and she was
burnt after her death. The Ld. Trial Court
meticulously after shifting through the
evidence brought on record, went on to
conclude that since the surrounding objects
were not burned, and the body was
superficially burnt from head to toe, the
same indicated that the burning occurred
after
death
and
concluded
that
the
statement of the appellant recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. to be totally false and
without any supporting evidence.

13. Along-with analyzing the evidence
available on record, the Learned Trial
Court has also decided the case on the basis
of three ingredients needed to attract the
penal provisions of Section 304- B I.P.C.
Those points being (i) that the death must
have occurred within seven years of the
marriage; (ii) that the death of the deceased
may have occurred in unusual and
unnatural circumstances and (iii) demand
of dowry has been made just before the
death. According to the learned Trial Court,
the chain of all these three point formed an
unbreakable chain pointing towards the
culpability of the appellant, since the death
occurred within 3 years of the marriage,
and the death of the deceased being found
in unnatural circumstances as the body was
found
burnt
in
a
location
where
surrounding objects were not burnt and no
plausible explanation or evidence was led
by
the
appellants
to
discharge
the
presumption under Section 113 B read with
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, the Ld. Trial Court recorded its full
satisfaction for holding the guilt of both the
appellants and as such awarded the
maximum punishment of imprisonment for
life under Section 304-B I.P.C., three years
under Section 498-A I.P.C. and one year
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
69
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS
COURT

14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
conclusion of the learned Trial Court, the
present appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
967 of 2012 came to be filed by the
appellants- Paras Nath Sahu (Appellant No.
1) and Umesh (Appellant No. 2).

14.1 In the first bail application
filed by the appellants along with the
present appeal, the appellant no. 1- Paras
Nath Sahu being father-in-law and old
aged, was granted bail but the Court
rejected the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant no. 2-Umesh vide common order
dated
21.03.2013.
The
second
bail
application of the appellant no. 2 was
rejected for want of prosecution vide order
dated 26.03.2015 and the third bail
application came to be rejected vide order
dated 13.04.2022, by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court on the ground that before
death of the deceased-wife of the appellant
no. 2, she was administered poison and
thereafter, she was burnt to death, which
was clear from the viscera report. The
Coordinate bench concluded that, since as
per the postmortem report burn injury was
found on the body of the deceased and the
burden of proof was on the appellant no. 2
according to the provision of Section 113-B
of the Evidence Act, which could not be
discharged. The fourth bail application of
the appellant no. 2 was rejected vide order
dated 05.04.2024 on the ground of absence
of any new ground.

14.2 However, the fifth bail
application of the appellant no. 2- Umesh
(husband) was filed but while arguing the
bail application, Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant has also pressed
that since the paper book has been prepared
and the actual period of incarceration of the
appellant no. 2 was more than 15 years and
2 months (or 18 years 7 months including
remission) as per the Custody Certificate
issued by the Jail Authorities, therefore, the
appeal may be heard and decided on its
merits and prayed that the 5th bail
application may be dismissed as being not
pressed. Consequently, the bail application
was dismissed being not pressed and the
appeal has been heard on its merits.

14.3 It was also informed by the
Ld. Counsel for the appellant that during
the pendency of the present appeal, the
appellant no.1 (Paras Nath Sahu) has left
for his heavenly abode and as such
although the present common appeal has
been filed by both the appellants, however,
for all technical purposes the appeal qua
the deceased appellant no.1 may be
construed as abated.

14.4 Thus, according to him the
present appeal may be considered qua the
appellant no.2 (Umesh) only.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF
THE PARTIES

15. Sri R.P. Mishra, learned Advocate
assisted by Sri Aditya Mishra, Advocate for
the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment dated 29.06.2012 is
illegal, perverse and have been passed only
on surmises and conjectures. He has
submitted that there is no evidence on
record regarding cruelty of the deceased for
demand of dowry, as there is no injury on
the body of the injured. It is next contended
that there is also no evidence regarding
demand of dowry immediately before the
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incident nor there is any injury on the body
of the deceased, so as to attract the
provisions of Section 304B I.P.C. It is next
contended
that
there
are
several
contradictions
and
infirmities
in
the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and there is
no definite opinion regarding the death of
the deceased. According to the learned
counsel, the appellant has been made liable
merely on the basis of suspicion and as
such is entitled to be acquitted from all the
charges levelled against him. It is lastly
contended that there is no definite opinion
regarding administering of poison, as there
is no medical report nor any visible sign
which
suggest
that
the
poison
was
administered to the deceased by the
contesting appellant.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently argued above sentence being
highly excessive and not in commensurate
with degree of offence. He has also sought
to draw the attention of this Court to the
evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Padmakar Singh,
who has conducted postmortem of the dead
body of the deceased and according to the
learned Counsel, the postmortem report
clearly mentions that the cause of death
could not be ascertained and as such
viscera was preserved, however, it was
mentioned in the postmortem examination
report that the deceased has received burn
injury after her death, which according to
him is contradictory to each other. Thus, he
submits that since the appellant is being
connected to the offence of murder, due to
invocation of the provisions of presumption
under Section 113-B read with Section 106
of the Evidence Act, therefore, it is his
submission
that
a
reading
of
the
prosecution witnesses and the material
brought on record, reveals that there are
various missing links and as such the
appellant cannot be convicted in the
absence of the completion of chain, which
is a sine quo non for any case to be proved
by circumstantial evidence. Thus, he prays
for setting aside of the judgment dated
29.06.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 273 of
2009 and prays for the acquittal of the
appellant in the present case and in the
alternative prays for leniency, as the
appellant- Umesh has already spent more
than 18 years and 7 months in Jail, though
Section 304B I.P.C. prescribes a minimum
punishment of 7 years only and he has an
old mother and a young girl child of
marriageable age, born out of the wedlock
with deceased to support. Further, there is
no criminal history and he has a sense of
repent for not saving his wife.

17. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the
deceased
committed
suicide
at
her
matrimonial home as she was administered
poisonous
substance
(Aluminum
Phosphide) and the deceased died under
unnatural circumstances. He has submitted
that it is also the statement of the
doctor/PW-3 that the body was burned after
the death. It is further submitted that the
prosecution has fully established that the
death of the deceased was done under
unnatural circumstances, within three years
of the marriage and soon before her death,
she was subjected to harassment and
cruelty due to demand of dowry and as
such the appellant has been rightly
convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and on
perusal of the judgment, it reveals that the
prosecution has clearly established the
charges levelled against the appellant and
the prosecution has been successful in
proving the guilt beyond any reasonable
doubt, against the appellant and as such, he
has been rightly convicted and sentenced to
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
71
the maximum punishment under Section
304-B of the I.P.C. Thus, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

18. Heard the learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.

19. The present appeal has been filed
against conviction of the appellants under
the following provisions:

Section
304B
I.P.C.
Punishment
for life
Fine
of
Rs.
3000/-,
in
default 1 year
additional
Imprisonment
Section
498A
I.P.C.
3 years R.I.
Fine
of
Rs.
3000/-,
in
default 1 year
additional
Imprisonment
Section 4
D.P. Act
1 years R.I.
Fine
of
Rs.
3000/-,
in
default
6
months
additional
Imprisonment

20. Section 304B I.P.C. is relating to
Dowry Death, which is a social and cultural
menace, which ensues from the ill practice
of dowry in our society. The cultural
practice of dowry has assigned a secondary
status to women leading to various social
ills, which often forces her to continue in
abusive marriages either due to family or
peer pressure or at times due to her own
accord. No doubt, various laws have been
enacted providing equal level playing
ground for women in all sphere of life,
whether it is education, employment or
property rights, however, the urge to curb
and rein in this dowry practice was needed,
which led to the enacting of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Even this Dowry
Prohibition Act, which made the offering or
accepting of dowry illegal, remained
ineffective as the practice of dowry thrived
unabated, irrespective of the caste or class.
It was in this supervening background that
Section 498A I.P.C. came to be inserted in
the year 1983, which made the ill-treatment
of women by her husband or in-laws, a
punishable offence. Apparently, the said
insertion also did not make much wonders,
leaving the legislature to enact more
stringent and heavier provision for curbing
the said menace of dowry, leading to the
insertion of Section 304B in the Indian
Penal Code, which made dowry death
punishable for a minimum sentence of 7
years and also a maximum punishment for
life and raised a presumption against the
person for all kinds of unnatural deaths, if
the same has been occasioned within seven
years of marriage, under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act. Both these
Sections were inserted in the year 1986 and
ever since then, contrary to the ordinary
fundamental
cannon
of
criminal
jurisprudence
of
'presumption
of
innocence' that prosecution ought to proof
the case beyond reasonable doubt stands
transformed to 'presumption of guilt,' if
certain conditions are fulfilled as per
Section 304-B of the I.P.C. for culpability
of the accused person. The law states that a
foundational fact has to be merely proved
against the accused person and by virtue of
the legal presumption, the burden of proof
stands shifted to the accused to prove his
innocence by explanation and evidentiary
proof, in view of Section 113 B of the
Indian Evidence Act.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kashmir Kaur & Ar. V/s State of
Punjab, reported in 2012(13) SCC 627;
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after tracing the law and various judgments
on dowry death, culled out the following
principles at paragraph 16 of the said
judgment as follows:

"16. From the above decisions
the following principles can be culled out:

(a) To attract the provisions of
Section 304B IPC the main ingredient of
the offence to be established is that soon
before the death of the deceased she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment in
connection with the demand of dowry.

(b) The death of the deceased
woman was caused by any burn or bodily
injury or some other circumstance which
was not normal.

(c) Such death occurs within
seven years from the date of her marriage.

(d) That the victim was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband.

(e) Such cruelty or harassment
should be for or in connection with demand
of dowry.

(f) It should be established that
such cruelty and harassment was made
soon before her death.

(g) The expression (soon before)
is a relative term and it would depend upon
circumstances of each case and no
straightjacket formula can be laid down as
to what would constitute a period of soon
before the occurrence.

(h) It would be hazardous to
indicate any fixed period and that brings in
the importance of a proximity test both for
the proof of an offence of dowry death as
well as for raising a presumption under
Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

(i) Therefore, the expression
"soon before" would normally imply that
the interval should not be much between
the concerned cruelty or harassment and
the death in question. There must be
existence of a proximate or life link
between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the concerned death. In
other words, it should not be remote in
point of time and thereby make it a stale
one.

(j)
However,
the
expression
"soon before" should not be given a
narrow meaning which would otherwise
defeat the very purpose of the provisions of
the Act and should not lead to absurd
results.

(k) Section 304B is an exception
to the cardinal principles of criminal
jurisprudence that a suspect in the Indian
Law is entitled to the protection of Article
20 of the Constitution, as well as, a
presumption of innocence in his favour.
The concept of deeming fiction is hardly
applicable to criminal jurisprudence but in
contradistinction to this aspect of criminal
law, the legislature applied the concept of
deeming fiction to the provisions of Section
304B.

(l) Such deeming fiction resulting
in a presumption is, however, a rebuttable
presumption and the husband and his
relatives, can, by leading their defence
prove that the ingredients of Section 304B
were not satisfied.

(m) The specific significance to
be attached is to the time of the alleged
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
73
cruelty and harassment to which the victim
was subjected to, the time of her death and
whether the alleged demand of dowry was
in connection with the marriage. Once the
said ingredients were satisfied it will be
called dowry death and by deemed fiction
of law the husband or the relatives will be
deemed to have committed that offence."

22. Keeping the above principles in
mind, this Court proceeds to marshall the
evidence and material brought on record by
the prosecution, so as to examine the
culpability of the appellant under Section
304B I.P.C. , 498A I.P.C. read with Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

23. PW-1 (Bansi Lal) is the father of
the deceased and PW-2(Kalawati) is the
mother of the deceased. PW-1 is the defacto complainant of the FIR and has stated
that he got his daughter (deceasedSanageeta
Devi)
married
to
Umesh
(Appellant No.2) about three years prior to
the incident. He stated that there was no
dowry
demand
during
the
marriage,
however, on the next day of marriage, on
the occasion of Khichdi (ritual performed
on the next day of marriage), the ConvictUmesh (Appellant No.2) demanded Rs.
10,000/- and a Gold chain, wherein PW-1
expressed his inability to meet the said
demand with folded hands. It has also been
stated that when PW-1 approached the
father of the Convict- Umesh, even his
father/ co-convict (now deceased during
pending appeal), he came for a rude shock
as he supported his son and told PW-1 to
meet the demand of convict-Umesh,
wherein again he expressed his inability
with folded hands. According to PW-1, it
was with great pampering and effort that
convict- Umesh performed the Khichdi
ritual and then took the bride/deceased to
her matrimonial home. The said witness
has also stated that when his daughter came
back from her matrimonial home after 15
days,
she
told
her
father/PW-1,
mother/PW-2
and
her
brother
about
taunting for not bringing the dowry of Rs.
10,000/- and Gold Chain. According to
PW-1, his daughter was harassed and
beaten at her matrimonial home for not
brining the said dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and
Gold Chain, which was disclosed to him,
whenever she visited her parental home and
even when PW-1 personally visited the
matrimonial home of the deceased. The
said witness has also stated that his
deceased-daughter had gone merely seven
days before from her parental home to her
matrimonial before the said incident,
wherein after she was burnt to death in the
intervening night of 18/19.08.2008. He has
exhibited the Tehrir (Exhibit- Ka-1) and
confirmed the date of incident. The version
of this witness remained intact, although,
he has been put to extensive crossexamination. There appears to be no
inconsistency in the statement made by the
said witness.

24. Similarly, PW-2(Kalawati) is the
mother of the deceased. She has stated that
her daughter was married to convict-Umesh
three years before the incident. She also
supported the version of demand of dowry
of Rs. 10,000/- and a Gold Chain and
deposed that the deceased have been
continously harrassed by her in-laws for
that said reason. She stated that her
deceased daughter had told her that she was
being beaten for not brining the said dowry.
In her examination in-chief, this witness
states:

"मरने से एक हफ्ता पूर्व मेरी लड़की मैके से ससुराल
गयी थी। उस समय भी जंजीर र् रूपये की मांग करते तथा न जाने के
कारण मारने पीटने की बात बतायी थी और बताया कक उमेश शराब
पीकर के मारते थे र् कबना शराब कपये भी मारते थे।"
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The statement of both the witness
appears to be natural and their statement
remained
intact,
although
they
were
subjected to extensive cross-examination.
Both the witness stood the test of veracity
and this Court does not find any reason to
disbelieve the version of the parents, who
had lost their beloved 21 years old married
daughter, in the hands of menance of
dowry.

26. Further, PW-4 (Constable Sanjai
Kumar Shukla) is the witness, who proved
the FIR (Exhibit Ka-3) having been
recorded on the basis of Tehrir given by
PW-1 and recorded in his own handwriting
in the G.D. (Exhibit- Ka-4). PW-5 (Ram
kewal Tripathi) is the Naib Thesildar, who
has proved the Inquest report (Exhibit-
Ka-5) to have been written in his own
hand-writing. The said witness along with
other witnesses, visited the crime spot and
on his instruction recovery memo was
prepared by the concerned Police station
and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The said report mentions the
date, time and place of dead body. It also
mentions that one kerosene oil plastic
empty jerking, match box and strewn
match sticks, unburnt hair, one shirt
green colour, etc. were recovered from
the crime spot (Exhibit Ka-13). As far as
the status of the body is concerned, the
said report mentioned that the body was
found lying on its stomach on the floor,
with one bed-sheet covering the body.
Altogether six panchs have signed the
panchayatnama. One of the panch was of
the opinion that the deceased had been
killed and then burnt, whereas other
panchs
opined
that
the
deceased
committed suicide by setting herself on
fire and mentioned that the body was
recovered after breaking open the door,
which was locked from inside.

27. The next, witness examined by the
prosecution was PW-6 (Rashmi Mishra),
who is the Investigating Officer of the
present case and she has entered the
witness box and gave statement related to
recoveries (Exhibit Ka-13) made, site plan
drawn (Exhibit Ka-12) and statement of
witnesses recorded during investigation.
She has collected various documents,
including
police
photos,
post-mortem
report, Inquest report etc. She has also
given statement related to sending of
viscera to the forensic lab, Lucknow and
obtaining
the
same
on
12.01.2009.
According to the said witness, the site plan
was drawn on the marking of the Convict,
wherein it was shown that the dead body
was lying in a passage, which had two
doors, which were both closed and it was
the south door, which was broken open by
people and body was recovered from the
passage through the said door.

28.
Therefore,
the
following
uncontroverted facts evolve from the
aforesaid version of PW-1 and PW-2:

I. The marriage of deceased with
the convict-Umesh was three years old and
as such the incident of death was within
seven years of marriage. Besides, the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the said
statement has not been controverted in the
cross-examination, nor this Court finds any
dispute relating to the years of Marriage.
Further, both the convicts i.e. appellant
no.1 and 2 have admitted to the said fact of
having the marriage between the deceased
and
appellant
no.2
(Umesh)
being
solemnized three years ago. Thus, since the
death of the deceased is within 3 years of
marriage, thereby the main condition
prescribed under Section 304B i.e. death,
within seven years of marriage stands
fulfilled.
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
75

II. The dead body of the deceased
was found in a passage of the house at her
matrimonial home, as proved by the
Inquest report (Exhibit Ka-5) and site plan
(Exhibit- Ka-12)

III. There was demand of dowry
immediately (seven days) before the
incident of death as proved by PW-1 and
PW-2. Although, the learned Counsel for
the appellant has tried to create a doubt by
pointing out the discrepancy in the said
statement, in as much as PW-1 stated that
the factum of coming of the daughter to her
parental home, seven days prior to the said
incident and telling about the demand of
dowry, was not told to the police during
investigation, but has been stated in the
evidence recorded in the Court. This Court
does not find the said inconsistency to be
material, as the same has to be understood
in the context the depositions were made.
The said inconsistency cannot be termed as
improvement of the version of PW-1 as it
was reiteration of the fact that the dowry
demand had been existing since the
beginning of the marriage and remained
unfulfilled for this three years of marriage
until the death of the deceased.

IV. This Court is conscious that
the usage of the word "soon" in Section
304-B I.P.C. ought not to be interpreted in
terms of days or months or years, but as
necessarily should indicate that the demand of
dowry should not be stale or an aberration of
the past, but rather should be a continuing
cause for the death under Section 304B of the
I.P.C. Once the presence of this concomitants
are established or shown or proved by the
prosecution even to their foundational effect
by preponderance of possibility, the initial
presumption of innocence is faded and
replaced by an assumption of guilt by the
deeming provision of law, thereby shifting the
burden of proof upon the guilty to dislodge his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt as per Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which interalia states as herein under:

113B. Presumption as to dowry
death. -- When the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her
death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the
court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death

Explanation. For the purposes of
this section, dowry death shall have the same
meaning as in section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).

29. As far as the explanation and
evidence led by the convict to dispel the
presumption raised against them under Section
113B of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned,
this Court finds that statement recorded of the
convicts under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both of
them have admitted the factum of the marriage
having been three years old. Although, a
ground has been raised that some money was
sought as a loan from the father of the
deceased from convict no.1 and the deceased
was adamant to get the demand of her father
fulfilled and since the said demand could not
be met, she committed suicide, however this
Court finds that besides the stray allegations
nothing has been brought on record to prove
the said allegations. No defence witnesses has
entered the witness box to prove the version of
the convict persons. The demand of dowry of
Rs. 10,000/- and gold chain existed even
before seven days of death of the deceased i.e.
soon before her death.

30. The next question which falls for
our consideration is the cause of death
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because Section 304B of the I.P.C. interalia states:

304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where
the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
death", and such husband or relative shall
be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation. For the purposes of
this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the
same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry
death shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.

31. As far as the cause of death of the
deceased is concerned, there appears to be
two versions in the Inquest report. The first
being, wherein one of the panchs has stated
that the deceased was killed and thereafter
set on fire, whereas on the other hand most
of the panchs have stated that it was a
suicide case, wherein the deceased after
closing the door from inside, set herself on
fire. To understand both the proposition,
this Court has examined two documents i.e.
(i) Inquest Report (Exhibit-Ka-5) and (ii)
Site Plan (Exhibit- Ka-12) and the relevant
deposition of the witnesses. The inquest
report mentions the status of the dead body,
which says that the body had only a
petticoat on her, while she was lying dead
by the side of her stomach on the ground.
The kerosene Jar of 5 Litres along with
strewn matches and matchbox was also
found from the spot near the dead body.
Presumably, the second version of suicide
is to be believed, the manner in which the
dead body was found i.e. in a semi-nude
condition (for no one would become nude
and put herself on fire) and the location of
the dead body from where it was recovered
i.e. in the passage locked by two doors, one
in the north and the other in the south,
creates a serious doubt on the suicidal
story. Although, the panchs have indicated
in their panchayatnama, that they have
seen the dead body after breaking open the
south door, but nothing has been told about
the north door as to whether it was locked
from inside or outside. Further, it can be
seen from the Site-plan that the passage is
located near the kitchen and two rooms and
a verandah. Generally, kerosene oil is
stored in the kitchen, then why if anyone
wants to commit suicide would carry the
kerosene oil to a passage (not even a room)
and then lock the two doors of the passage
(in kitchen or in room, there is only one
door and it would had been easy to lock
one door, than two as is found in passage)
and become semi-nude and commit suicide
by burning hereself to death. Further, the
recovery of the kerosene oil jar and the
strewn matches on the floor and the
kerosene oil spread over the said passage
speaks that in case it was a suicide there
would had not been unburnt match stick or
jar or any clothes left in the said passage as
they would had also been burnt altogether,
as fire does not discriminate any thing or
any one and it spreads equally to all
corners. The selective burning of the body
and the fire not spreading anywhere in the
room, shows that it cannot be a suicide
case. Moreover, it was quite strange that
even the noise of the deceased while
burning alive or committing suicide was
12 All. Paras Nath Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
77
not heard by any of its neighbour, although
it has come in the site-plan that there are
many houses adjoining to the crime spot.
There appears to be something amiss and
flawed in the story of suicide built around
the dead body and most importantly, if the
story of suicide had any legs, it would had
been any of the convicts, who would had
informed the father of the deceased (PW-1)
in the first place and/or had rushed the
victim/deceased to doctor, in whatever
condition, which is not the present case and
would had been relevant evidence under
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

32. Thus, this Court is led to rule out
the suicidal theory and is prompted to look
further for the real cause of death.