No witness described a wall coming down on the deceased, and the Patna High Court has accordingly upheld a dowry death conviction, holding that the husband’s plea that a brick wall fell on his wife while she slept found no support in the evidence.
Patna: The Patna High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Raja Rai of Jan Mohammadpur village in Samastipur district and affirmed his conviction under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his wife within a year of their marriage, finding that she was subjected to cruelty over a persistent demand for Rs 80,000 and a motorcycle [Raja Rai v. The State of Bihar].
Justice Shailendra Singh delivered the judgment on October 30, 2026, after reserving it on October 5. The appeal challenged the trial court’s judgment of conviction dated September 2, 2024 and the order of sentence dated September 5, 2024, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 2021.
The wall that the evidence did not show
The Court noted that while some witnesses spoke of bricks lying near the body, none said a large quantity of bricks or a wall had fallen on her. The Investigating Officer, who inspected the spot, said nothing about a collapsed wall, and the defence never put that question to him. The Court held:
“If the deceased had sustained injuries accidentally on account of the falling of a brick wall, there appears to be no satisfactory explanation as to why the appellant and his family members would leave the house, leaving the deceased in an injured condition.”
The Section 113-B presumption
On the evidence of the family members and an independent villager, the Court found that the demand “continued throughout the matrimonial life of the deceased and persisted till the occurrence resulting in her death.” It held that the non-examination of Nawal Rai and of Pradeep Rai, who wrote the complaint, was not fatal in the facts of the case.
“Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is attracted, and the burden shifted upon the appellant to rebut the said presumption by establishing a probable defence.”
Finding that the appellant had failed to discharge that burden, the Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and the sentence, and dismissed the appeal. The trial court records are to be sent back for compliance.
The prosecution case as recorded
According to the fardbeyan of the informant, Rampreet Rai, he married his daughter, Sangeeta Devi, to the appellant on June 12, 2020. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his family assaulted and abused her and repeatedly demanded a motorcycle and Rs 80,000. The informant said an old motorcycle was given, but it was returned because the family wanted a new one.
On April 10, 2021, the informant was told that his daughter had been killed at her matrimonial home. When he reached the house, he found her dead and the members of her matrimonial family absent. Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 60 of 2021 was registered the same day. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC, three years under Section 498A IPC and six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with fines, all sentences running concurrently.
The defence: a falling wall
Counsel for the appellant, Rambabu Yadav, argued that the brick wall of the house collapsed on the deceased while she was asleep at night. He pointed out that all her injuries were on the left side of the body, that Nawal Rai, who first informed the family, was never examined, that the inquest report was not proved and that no panch from the alleged panchayat meeting was produced.
He relied on Supreme Court rulings including Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Chabi Karmakar v. State of West Bengal to argue that no cruelty “soon before death” was proved and that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act could not arise.
Three defence witnesses, all co-villagers, said bricks had fallen on the deceased and that she was carried to the courtyard, where she died.
What the State urged
Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Ashfaque Ahmad submitted that the death occurred within one year of marriage in the appellant’s house, that the family witnesses were consistent about the demand, and that the post-mortem found fractures of four ribs, a skull fracture and a lacerated lung. He added that the appellant said nothing about the wall in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
What the ruling signals
Once the prosecution shows an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty linked to a dowry demand soon before death, Section 113-B shifts the burden to the accused. The ruling shows that an accidental-death defence must be backed by evidence, put to the Investigating Officer and raised in the accused’s own Section 313 statement; a plea that surfaces only through defence witnesses will carry little weight.
The Court also treated the family’s absence from the house after the death as a circumstance against the appellant, and held that gaps such as an unexamined informer do not by themselves sink a prosecution where the witnesses who did depose remain consistent.
Case Title: Raja Rai v. The State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4728 of 2024
Bench: Justice Shailendra Singh, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Rambabu Yadav, Manish Kumar and Pramod Kumar Ojha, Advocates, for the appellant; Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP, for the State