Brick wall fell on her, husband said: Patna HC upholds 10-year dowry death term, noting his family had fled
Justice Shailendra Singh dismissed the appeal of a Samastipur man convicted of his wife's dowry death ten months into their marriage, holding that his claim of an accidental wall collapse was unproven and that the demand for Rs 80,000 and a motorcycle had continued until she died with four broken ribs.
A Samastipur man who said a brick wall collapsed on his sleeping wife will serve his ten-year sentence for her dowry death. The Patna High Court held on 30 October 2026 that the accident story had no support on the record, and that his own defence witnesses found the family gone when they reached the house.
Justice Shailendra Singh dismissed the criminal appeal of Raja Rai against his conviction of 2 September 2024 and sentence of 5 September 2024. The Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur, had convicted him under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for dowry death, three years and a fine of Rs 5,000 for cruelty, and six months and a fine of Rs 500 under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences run concurrently.
Ten months of marriage, then a death
The marriage took place on 12 June 2020. According to the fardbeyan of her father, Rampreet Rai, the husband and his family assaulted his daughter and kept demanding a motorcycle and Rs 80,000.
On 10 April 2021 at about 2.30 pm, he was told she had been killed at her matrimonial home in Jan Mohammadpur. He found her dead and the in-laws gone. Sarairanjan police registered the case the same day.
The father testified that he gave an old motorcycle, which the in-laws returned because they wanted a new one. Her brother said a panchayat was held over the demand, and that the husband assaulted their father there.
The post-mortem found a fracture of the left skull, bleeding in the brain, fractures of ribs 4, 5, 6 and 7, and a lacerated left lung. The doctor attributed death to haemorrhage and shock from injuries caused by a hard and blunt substance.
The defence: bricks at night
Counsel for the appellant, Rambabu Yadav, argued that the wife died when a brick wall of the house fell on her as she slept at night. Every injury was on the left side of her body, which he said fitted an accident better than an assault.
He pointed to gaps in the prosecution case. Nawal Rai, who first told the family of the death, was never examined; nor was any panch from the alleged panchayat. The inquest report was not proved, and no complaint of cruelty had been made before the FIR.
He relied on three Supreme Court rulings, Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, Charan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Chabi Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, to argue that cruelty soon before death was not shown, so the Section 113-B presumption never arose.
He also attacked the eyewitness, PW-9, who admitted a case was pending between him and the appellant's family.
Three prosecution witnesses turned hostile and backed the brick story, and three co-villagers testified for the defence that bricks fell on her, that people pulled them away and carried her to the courtyard, where she died. The doctor conceded in cross-examination that such injuries were possible if a large quantity of bricks fell on her.
For the State, Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Ashfaque Ahmad argued that the demand witnesses were consistent, that the rib fractures corroborated assault, and that the appellant said nothing of the accident in his Section 313 statement.
Why the accident story failed
The court began from what was not disputed. She died within a year of marriage, at the appellant's house, of bodily injuries. The demand for Rs 80,000 and a motorcycle, as told by the father, brother, uncle and PW-9, never stopped.
On the defence, the judge noted that witnesses had seen some bricks near the body, but none said a large quantity lay there or that a wall had come down. The investigating officer, who inspected the spot soon after, said nothing about a fallen wall.
No question on that point was put to the officer in cross-examination. And the appellant stayed silent about the accident when examined under Section 313. The court held that this defence does “not inspire confidence and the trial court rightly rejected the same” (para 27).
Defence witnesses who hurt the defence
The three defence witnesses were co-villagers who, by their own account, did not live next door. The court asked why no immediate neighbour came, and found their claim of reaching the spot at once unconvincing.
Their evidence also showed that the appellant and his family were not there when they arrived. If she had been hurt in an accident, the judge reasoned, there was no satisfactory explanation for the family leaving the house with her lying injured.
Taken with the continuing demand and the fractures, that absence pointed to assault soon before death. The court said the defence testimony on material points went against the appellant.
The failure to examine Nawal Rai, or Pradeep Rai, who wrote out the FIR, was not fatal in the facts of the case. The prosecution had to be judged on the evidence it did bring, and that evidence established the circumstances the trial court relied on.
The presumption stood unrebutted
With all ingredients of dowry death proved, the court held that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act was attracted and the burden moved to the appellant. He produced no reliable evidence and drew nothing helpful from cross-examination.
The judge found no ground to differ from the trial court's conclusion.
Order
The conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and the order of sentence were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. The trial court records, with a copy of the judgment, are to go back to Samastipur at once.
The judgment was reserved on 5 October 2026 and marked as fit for reporting.