IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

<>

ON THE 14

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11979 of 2022

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Versus

NEELESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Ms. Shweta Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for petitioner/State.

Shri Shailendra Kumar Gangrade- Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice B. P. Sharma

<>

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

respondent No.5 Smt. Merabai had died on 13-02-2023 during the pendency of

this appeal. Her death certificate is taken on record. Therefore, appeal abates with

regard to respondent No. 5-Smt. Merabai.

2. This petition has preferred by the State being aggrieved by the

judgment/order of acquittal dated 29.08.2022 passed in Session Trial No.38/2019

by Session Judge Harda, District Harda (M.P.), whereby the Learned Trial Court

has acquitted the accused/ respondents from the offence punishable under section

498-A, 304-B/34, 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Monika was married to

the accused Nilesh on 29.04.2017. Soon after the marriage, the accused began

taunting Monika for bringing insufficient dowry, repeatedly stating that she had

1 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

brought nothing and that the articles given were of poor quality. On account of

these demands, Monika was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty

by the accused persons, which she used to disclose to her father and her family

members. Within two years of marriage, Monika visited her parental home at

village Mohada on about four occasions, during which she informed about the

harassment meted out to her by the accused. On 27.01.2019, Monika came to her

father’s house along with her husband, where he demanded a motorcycle and

money. When father of the deceased (PW-1) expressed his inability to meet the

demand, the accused stopped speaking with him and thereafter avoided his phone

calls. On 18.02.2019 at about 3:00 a.m., Nilesh informed PW-1 that Monika had

consumed sulphas tablets and that he was taking her to Harda Hospital. Upon

receiving this information, PW-1, along with his son-in-law and nephew Kapil

Arya, rushed to Harda Hospital, where they found Monika dead.

4. Dr. Omprakash Khore of District Hospital, Harda, sent a memorandum

regarding the death of Monika through PW-12 Ward Boy Saurabh Sitoke (PW-9)

to Police Station Harda. On the basis of the said memorandum, Merg intimation

Ex.P/13 was recorded, and a case was registered vide Crime No. 135/2019 for the

offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After

completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the learned

Trial Court.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/State that

parents of the deceased had given dowry according to their financial capacity, yet

after the marriage the accused started taunting the deceased for bringing

inadequate dowry and further demanded a motorcycle and an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from her father; that in relation to the said demand of dowry,

2 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

Swaroop Chand Arya(PW-1), Anita Arya(PW-2), Manish Arya(PW-3), Satyendra

Arya(PW-4) and Kapil Arya(PW-5) all have made consistent statements before the

Learned Trial Court, however, the trial Court has erred in disbelieving their

testimonies; that although there was a detailed cross-examination on behalf of the

defence, minor omissions or contradictions do not render the entire prosecution

case false; that the impugned judgment, based merely on conjectures and without

proper appreciation of evidence, is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that

the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution fully

supports the prosecution version and clearly establishes the ingredients of the

offences against the accused, which the Trial Court failed to appreciate; that the

judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and

contrary to law; and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not based on

the evidence on record and, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, deserves to

be reversed and the respondents be convicted for the offences charged.

6. It is undisputed that deceased Monika was married to accused Nilesh on

29-04-2017 and died by consuming sulphas tablets on 19-02-2019. It is also

undisputed that Swaroopchand Arya (PW-1) is the father of the deceased, Anita

Arya(P.W-2), is the mother of the deceased. Manish Arya(P.W-3), and Kapil

Arya(P.W-5) are the brothers and Satyendra Arya (P.W-4), is the uncle of the

deceased. Respondent-Narayan Prasad and Smt. Merabai are the in-laws of the

deceased and respondent- Ritesh @ Chhotu is brother-in-law and respondent-

Meenakshi and Sima Rai @ Rani are the sister-in-laws and respondent-Umesh is

brother-in-law of the deceased.

7. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased died under

unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage. However, this alone

3 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

cannot constitute a presumption against the accused unless it is proven that

immediately prior to her death that accused had demanded dowry from the

deceased or her parents or had otherwise harassed her. Swaroopchand Arya (PW-

1) father of the deceased discloses in his statement that accused Nilesh had

become adamant during the marriage ceremony and demanded motor-cycle and

marriage ceremony was completed after he received Rs. 5,000/-. Similar

disclosures have been made by Anita Arya (PW-2), Satyendra Arya (PW-4) and

Kapil Arya(PW-5). However, disclosures made by the aforementioned witnesses

are completely contradictory to the statement recorded by the police during

inquest and investigation. Similarly, father of the deceased had stated that accused

demanded a motor-cycle and Rs. 5 lakhs and assaulted the deceased, which is

contradictory to the statement recorded in Ex.-D/1 and Ex.-D/2 during inquest and

investigation. All the witnesses examined have stated that dowry items given to the

accused were of poor quality and they tortured the deceased. The statement of

examined witnesses are general in nature and none of the witnesses have

specifically disclosed cruelty or dowry demand by specific accused. Therefore,

interference regarding dowry demands or torture to the deceased cannot be drawn

based on such general statements.

8. In the case of Manoharlal vs. State of Haryana 2015(1)MPLJ (Cri.) 699

<>

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where a witness statement does not describe

a specific incident of cruelty or torture by the specific accused, such witness

statement is not reliable.

9. According to the father of the deceased Swaroopchand (PW-1),

deceased and accused Nilesh last visited his house on 17-01-2019 where Nilesh

demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and motor-cycle from him. Ex.-D/1 and Ex.-D/2 of his

4 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

previous statement did not mention that accused Nilesh visited his house on 17-

01-2019 and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs. Thus, statement of Swaroopchand (PW-1)

regarding accused Nilesh visiting his house on 17-01-2019 and demanding Rs. 5

lakhs is contrary and not acceptable. Similarly, Satyendra Arya (PW-4) uncle of

the deceased has also made disclosure regarding the deceased Monika coming to

village Mohada with accused Nilesh on 27-01-2019 and accused Nilesh and

Narayan Prasad demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and sister-in-law Meenakshi Rani and

brother-in-law tortured the deceased Monika and asking her to get Nilesh married

for second time, if dowry is not given. The said disclosures are completely

contradictory to the statement recorded in Ex.D/7 during investigation. Similarly,

statement of other witnesses are also contradictory on material points with

statement recorded during inquest and investigation and that statement is wholly

suspicious.

10. There is no evidence on record that the respondent/accused persons

demanded dowry from the deceased and her parents or harassing her after 27-01-

2019 and before the incident on 18-02-2019. The statement of material witnesses

do not reveal any communication with the deceased after 27-01-2019. Therefore,

it cannot be concluded that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty for dowry

before the incident. Thus, the evidence on record does not reveal any dowry

demand, harassment immediately before the deceased's death. In the case Major

<>

Singh vs. State AIR 2015 SC 2081

<>

, in this case deceased died within 2 years of

marriage otherwise under normal circumstances and no evidence as to demand of

dowry or cruelty and that deceased was subjected to dowry harassment 'soon

before the death', and therefore, accused is acquitted of such offences and held that

where dowry demands are not evident before the death or soon before her death, a

5 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

presumption of dowry death cannot be drawn.

11. The evidence on record is contrary and witnesses have made

unexpected additions and improvements to their statements during inquest and

investigation casting doubt on their credibility. The evidence on record also reveal

that on 18-02-2019, it was accused Nilesh's birthday and on that day, there was

dispute between the deceased and Nilesh regarding the timing of the birthday

celebration. The evidence on record also reveals that on 19-02-2019, there was

marriage in the accused Umesh's family, in which the accused Nilesh has to attend

along with parents and family members. Accused Nilesh stated that deceased did

not want to attend the wedding ceremony, which lead to a domestic dispute and

that the deceased consumed sulphas tablets during that dispute. Nilesh (DW-3)

examined himself in defence and his statement clearly reveals that the deceased

had closed the door of the room and consumed sulphas tablets. According to him,

he attempted to break the door but, it did not break. He went inside the room from

the top, brought the accused out and took her to the hospital. No injuries of any

kind was found on the body of the deceased as confirmed by the statement of Dr.

Selja Mahajan (PW-6). Thus, in the medical evidence, does not indicate or

disclose that the deceased was assaulted or tortured on the date of incident.

12. The evidence on record does not reveal that accused Nilesh ever

prevented the deceased from going to her parent's house or created any

circumstances that left no option but, to commit suicide. The evidence on record

also does not reveal that the accused persons directly or indirectly instigated or

abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is lack of specific evidence to

support the deceased's abetment to suicide. Therefore, the accused cannot be held

liable for abetment to suicide.

6 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

13. The evidence on record reveals that on the date of incident, due to

dispute arising out of birthday celebration of accused Nilesh and her participation

in the wedding of accused Umesh's family, the deceased in a fit of rage, consumed

sulphas tablets inside the room. Thus, it can be said that the deceased committed

suicide in a fit of rage, for which accused persons cannot be held responsible for

the said act.

14. The evidence on record regarding the accused persons harassing the

deceased or they demanded dowry is completely contradictory and doubtful. A

well founded suspicion does not constitute proof nor can a conviction be recorded

on the basis of doubtful evidence. A mere fact that the deceased consumed poison

under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage is not sufficient

for conviction unless there is relevant and sufficient evidence on record

establishing the accused persons guilty. The evidence on record does not reveal

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons demanded dowry, harassed the

deceased or instigated her to commit suicide. In such circumstances, no

presumption can be drawn against the accused persons merely on the basis of her

death under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage.

15. In the case of Rajinder vs. State of Haryana 2000 Cr.L.J. 2492

<>

it is

held that where demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment is not established soon

before her death, no presumption can be drawn under Section 113-B of Indian

Evidence Act nor any conclusion can be drawn regarding dowry death in every

unnatural death. In such a situation, merely on the ground that deceased died

within seven years from the date of her marriage, the accused persons cannot be

punished for demand of dowry or harassing the deceased for demand of dowry.

7 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(B. P. SHARMA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

16. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the finding as recorded by the

learned trial court, therefore, this petition seeking leave to appeal is hereby

dismissed and in the result, appeal is also dismissed.

<>

PG

8 CRA-11979-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3844