Non-Examination Of First Investigating Officer Not Fatal If Place Of Occurrence Is Otherwise Proved: Patna High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was considering a criminal appeal by the husband of the deceased challenging his conviction for dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence, and declined to interfere with the punishment. In doing so, it observed that failure to examine the first Investigating Officer in a criminal trial does not by itself defeat the prosecution if the place of occurrence is proved through other reliable evidence. The case related to the death of a married woman at her matrimonial home following alleged demands for a motorcycle and cash as dowry.
The appeal arose from the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the District and Additional Sessions Judge–XIII, Muzaffarpur for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The prosecution case, as recorded in the fardbeyan of PW-5, stated that the deceased was married to the appellant on 28.03.2014 and a daughter was born from the marriage. According to the prosecution, after six months of marriage, the appellant and others demanded a motorcycle and ₹2,50,000 and subjected the deceased to assault and harassment.
The informant stated that he purchased a motorcycle and gifted it to the appellant. It was further alleged that the demands continued, including cash for casting the roof and for foreign travel. The informant claimed to have taken a loan of ₹1,00,000 to give to the appellant. On 13.07.2018, the informant was informed that his daughter had died, and upon reaching the matrimonial home, he found her dead body on a cot while her in-laws were absent.
The police initially registered the case under Sections 302 and 120B/34 IPC, later altering it to Section 304B IPC. The trial included examination of twelve prosecution witnesses, including family members, villagers, the investigating officer, and the doctor who conducted postmortem. The defence neither examined any witness nor produced documents, asserting total denial of allegations. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. In appeal, the appellant contended false implication, inconsistency between medical and testimonial evidence, non-examination of the first investigating officer, and failure of the prosecution to establish guilt. The State refuted these claims, maintaining that the statutory ingredients of dowry death were fulfilled.
The Court examined the evidence to determine whether the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were met. It recorded that PW-5 had stated that “after marriage his son-in-law used to assault his daughter and used to demand Rs. 2,50,000/- and a motorcycle in dowry.” The Court noted that PW-5 also stated that “bone of chest of his daughter was broken and injury was found over head and lacerated wound over leg.” It observed that this evidence indicated that “the informant’s daughter has died within five years of marriage and prior to death… demand of dowry finds place in the FIR as well as deposition.”
The Court stated that PW-4 “has reiterated the version of dowry demand as well as the reason behind the death.” It recorded that PW-3 “has also supported the version of PW-5 on the point of demand of dowry.” Regarding PW-12, the medical expert, it noted the finding that “the deceased died due to hemorrhage, coma and shock due to above noted injuries caused by hard and blunt object.”
The Court referred to the legal position, observing that in Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, it was held that presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act arises when foundational facts are proved, and that “prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death.” It stated that the ingredients of Section 304B IPC require proof that death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and was preceded by cruelty or harassment related to dowry.
The Court recorded that “postmortem report clearly indicates that the death in question was caused by hard and blunt substance and the death was not in normal circumstance.” It further stated that “there is clear cut fact in the FIR itself that she was being exposed to demand of dowry in form of motorcycle and other things in cash.”
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Jagdish v. State of Uttarakhand held that in dowry cases, offences occur within the home and evidence of relatives must be given due weight, and observed that “PW-5, PW-4 and PW-3 have supported and corroborated the evidence of demand of dowry.” It also referred to Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar, where it was held that once cruelty for dowry soon before death is proved, the Court “shall presume that such a person has caused the dowry death.”
The Court addressed the defence contention regarding non-examination of the first investigating officer, stating that “second Investigating Officer has been examined and place of occurrence is otherwise proved by all the witnesses and there is no reason to doubt the place of occurrence.” It recorded that the trial court’s reliance on the appellant’s failure to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 313 CrPC was proper, stating that “keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation… is additional link in chain of circumstance.”
It concluded that evidence satisfied all requirements of Section 304B IPC and that the prosecution had discharged its burden.
The Court directed that “the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed.” It recorded that the appellant had prayed for reduction of sentence and stated that “the appellant does not deserve any leniency.”
The Court further stated that “there is no reason differ and to reduce the sentence awarded by the learned trial court in respect of appellant as it is duty of the court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided.” Consequently, the Court ordered that “the present appeal stands dismissed.” It also directed that “Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.
Case Title: Md. Hasib v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2307 of 2025
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
