The Jharkhand HC has held that while a husband or his parents may ordinarily be the beneficiaries of dowry demands, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down regarding the involvement of other relatives. The Court acquitted two relatives of a husband in a dowry death case, observing that their alleged presence at the scene without active participation, coupled with the absence of specific allegations of dowry demand against them, entitled them to the benefit of doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside the conviction of Gautam Bauri and Chinta Devi under Section 304-B IPC, noting that the allegations against them were confined to witnessing the occurrence and failing to intervene or rescue the deceased.

The case arose from the death of Rinku Devi, who had married Ratan Bauri in 2010 and died from burn injuries in May 2012, within two years of her marriage. According to the prosecution, Rinku Devi had been subjected to assault and harassment by her matrimonial family over demands for ₹50,000 and a motorcycle. Her mother, Alta Devi, alleged that on May 22, 2012, the deceased's mother-in-law and husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased was subsequently taken to Bokaro General Hospital, where she died during treatment.

The informant also alleged that her daughter had named other family members, including Gautam Bauri and Chinta Devi, in connection with the incident. Following investigation, the accused were prosecuted under Section 304-B IPC. On September 13, 2017, the Trial Court convicted the appellants of dowry death and, by its sentencing order dated September 15, 2017, sentenced them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The husband, Ratan Bauri, was separately convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. His criminal appeal was subsequently dismissed as not pressed on September 14, 2026, after he had completed his sentence.

Gautam Bauri and Chinta Devi challenged their convictions before the High Court. Examining the requirements of Section 304-B IPC, the Bench noted that the prosecution must establish that the woman's death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before her death. The Court found that although Rinku Devi had died from burn injuries within two years of marriage, the evidence against the two appellants did not disclose any specific overt act or individual allegation of dowry demand.

The Bench observed that the role attributed to the appellants was limited to their presence at the scene and failure to intervene, without evidence of active participation in the commission of the offence. It also noted that the Trial Court had neither invoked Section 34 IPC while framing charges nor applied the provision while delivering the judgment, instead determining the individual culpability of each accused.

Considering the possibility of exaggeration in implicating the husband's relatives, the Court observed:

“Normally, it is the husband or parents of the husband who may be benefited by the dowry and may be in a position to harass and not all other relatives, though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in that regard. It is also true that till such an unfortunate event takes place, the family members may not disclose the demand of dowry being a private matter and under the hope that the relationship of the couple may improve. However, having regard to the nature of their relationships, there being possibility of the appellants' having been named by way of exaggeration, we are of the view that the appellants deserve to be given benefit of doubt in that regard in the facts of the present case.”

The Bench thus distinguished the allegations against the husband and other family members from the evidence concerning the two appellants. It held that, in the absence of specific allegations establishing their involvement in dowry-related cruelty or harassment, Gautam Bauri and Chinta Devi were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed their appeal and acquitted both appellants of criminal liability under Section 304-B IPC. Since they were already on bail, they were also discharged from their bail bond obligations.

Appearance:

For the Appellants: Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, APP