Non-Examination Of First IO Not Fatal To Criminal Prosecution If Place Of Occurrence Otherwise Proved: Patna High Court

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing an appeal against conviction under Section 304B of the IPC and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.

Per facts, the marriage of the informant's daughter was solemnised with the appellant on 28.03.2014. The deceased and the appellant later had a daughter. It was alleged that, about six months after the marriage, the appellant and others demanded dowry in the form of a motorcycle and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000, and subjected the informant's daughter to various forms of cruelty. A further demand of Rs. 2,50,000 in cash was allegedly made for casting the roof of the house and for the appellant's proposed travel abroad, which the informant's daughter resisted.

On 13.07.2018 at about 2.00 PM, the informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and found her dead body lying on a cot. All members of her in-laws' family were allegedly absconding from the house. The appellant claimed that the incident was a case of suicide. It was specifically argued that the non-examination of the first Investigating Officer prevented the prosecution from proving the place of occurrence, which, according to the appellant, was fatal to the prosecution case.

The High Court held that the requirements of Section 304B of the IPC revolve around four basic ingredients:

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns, bodily injury, or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) the death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; and

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must have been in connection with a demand for dowry.

The Court noted that the marriage took place in 2014 and that the death occurred within five years of the marriage, which was not in dispute. The inquest report and the post-mortem report clearly indicated that the death did not occur under normal circumstances. The FIR also recorded that the deceased had been subjected to persistent demands for dowry in the form of a motorcycle and cash. The Court held:

“In cases where it is proved that it was neither a natural death nor an accidental death, then the obvious conclusion has to be that it was an unnatural death either homicidal or suicidal. But, even assuming that it is a case of suicide, even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304 (B) of the I.P.C. is attracted”

The High Court rejected the appellant's argument that the failure to examine the first Investigating Officer caused serious prejudice to the defence because the initial place of occurrence could not be proved. The Court distinguished the decisions in Kaila Yadav @ Balram Yadav v. State of Bihar and Baijnath and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and noted:

"The above two cited decisions by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same cannot be taken into account as if 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 where it is clear cut that the death has occurred at the house of appellant and in several cases, wherein even Investigating Officer has not been examined, prosecution case cannot be thrown out."

Eventually, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the criminal appeal.

Cause Title: Md. Hasib v. State of Bihar

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) 2307 of 2025

Appearance: Mr. Nafisu Zzoha appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal appeared for the Respondent.