Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashutosh Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
1 CRA-14926-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14926 of 2023
ASHUTOSH RAIKWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Dheerendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
Shri Neetiraj Sharma - Advocate for the objector.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15843 of 2023
BINDIYA RAIKWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitiraj Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
These appeals are filed by the convicted appellants and the
complainant party respectively under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. and 372 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of judgement dated 25.10.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge under Electricity Act 2003,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
2 CRA-14926-2023
Jabalpur in S.T. No. 307 of 2016 whereby out of three accused persons, two
accused, namely Shri Ashotosh Raikwar, S/o Dayaram Raikwar and Smt.
Sudha Raikwar, W/o Late Shri Dayaram Raikwar have been convicted and
sentenced as follows:-
Name of the Imprisonment
Conviction Imprisonment Fine
Accused/appellant in lieu of fine
Section 498-A RI for 1
Ashutosh Raikwar RI for 2 years Rs.1,000/-
of the IPC month
Section 304 B RI for 10 RI for
Ashutosh Raikwar Rs.2,000/-
of the IPC years 2 month
Section 498-A RI for 1
Sudha Raikwar RI for 1 year Rs.1,000/-
of the IPC month
Section 304 B RI for
Sudha Raikwar RI for 7 years Rs.2,000/-
of the IPC 2 month
2. It is pointed out that third accused Swati Navik was acquitted by the
trial court from the charge under Sections 304-B of IPC and Section 498-A
of IPC.
3. It is submitted that during trial appellant No.1 was in custody for
about 794 days, whereas appellant no. 2 was in custody for 554 days.
4. It is submitted that Merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was recorded by Smt.
Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) on 15.10.2015 itself at 13:30 hours, but in that
Merg intimation so also on the Naksha Panchyatnama contained in Ex.P-4
prepared in front of relatives of the deceased – Kalyani, there is no mention
of any demand of dowry or harassment.
5. Shri Dhirendra Singh Thakur learned counsel for the appellants
further submits that in fact there was no demand of dowry. No statements
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
3 CRA-14926-2023
were recorded or at least brought on record in support of merg investigation
and after fifteen days of lodging of merg for the first time, statements were
recorded on 31.10.2015, when Dehati Nalishi was also recorded in which
general and omnibus allegation in regard to demand of dowry is made.
6. It is submitted that in fact marriage of Kalyani took place with the
appellant no.1- Ashutosh Raikwar on 30.4.2015 and there is plethora of
evidence to support that expenses for wedding were met by both the sides in
almost equal proportion.
7. It is further submitted that in fact there was no demand of dowry
because there is an admission of prosecution witnesses that appellants’ party
was more sound than that of the complaint party.
8. It is pointed out that as far as appellants are concerned, appellant
No.1 is an employee of Vehicle Factory, Khamariya whereas his mother was
drawing family pension after death of his father who too was an employee of
Ordnance Factory. As far as third co-accused – Swati Navik is concerned, it
has come on record that she was working as a School Teacher and therefore,
they being in a better financial position and marriage being settled after
proper investigation, there was no scope for demand of dowry.
9. Shri Dhirendra Singh Thakur learned counsel for the appellants
further submits that there is a history of unnatural death in the family of the
complainant party. There is tacit admission that their elder sister – Jyoti and
their brother too died under unnatural circumstances. Therefore, it is pointed
out that present is the case where either because of family traits or for some
other reasons Kalyani committed suicide. It is further submitted that her call
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
4 CRA-14926-2023
detail records and transcript of call details showing conversation between her
and her mother are brought on record as Ex.D-2 and D-3 and nowhere it
reveals that either she was unhappy or that there was any demand of dowry.
10. Thus, it is submitted that ingredients of Section 113-B of
Evidence Act are not attracted and merely because death of Kalyani
occurred within six months of the marriage, which was performed on
30.4.2010 is not a sufficient circumstance to hold appellants guilty.
11. Shri Nitiraj Sharma, Advocate, who has filed appeal under
Section 372 of Cr.P.C. contests acquittal of third accused namely Swati
Navik and reading evidence of Smt. Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) and Smt.
Hemlata Raikwar (PW-3), it is pointed out that even Swati Navik was
divorced and was residing in her parental home alongwith the appellant
Ashutosh Raikwar and his mother namely Smt. Sudha Raikwar and was
responsible for harassment of deceased-Kalyani, therefore, acquittal of Swati
Navik is made without appreciating the evidence on record in correct and
proper perspective.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, we are conscious that purpose of Merg intimation and Naksha
Panchyatnama is not to record complete history of the transaction but at the
same time, Suraj Upadhayay (PW-7) Investigation officer of the case has
admitted in his cross examination that Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) had never
given him any written application or complaint against the accused persons.
He further admits that he had recorded merg intimation and at that point of
time Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) had not informed him about demand of dowry
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
5 CRA-14926-2023
or harassment of Kalyani for want of dowry.
13. Suraj Upadhayay (PW-7) further admits that while drawing
Naksha Mauka, (Ex.P-2) he had neither called the persons residing in the
neighborhood of appellant Ashutosh nor recorded their statements.
14. It is evident that Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) admitted that at the time
of preparation of “Lash Panchyatnama” (Ex.P-4), she had informed Police in
regard to demand of dowry and associated harassment but on going through
the “Lash Panchyatnama” Ex.P-4, we find that there is no such mention on
(Ex.P-4).
15. Similarly, Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) states that while recording of
Merg intimation she had made a mention of demand of dowry and cruelty
associated with it but on going through Merg intimation (Ex.P-1), we come
across the fact that there is no such mention of demand of dowry or
harassment.
16. Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) admitted in para 10 that jewelry articles
which were taken from the body of the deceased – Kalyani were given to her
in Supurdigi and are with her. She also admitted that Ashutosh Raikwar was
already having a motorcycle prior to marriage. She further admits that before
death of Kalyani, Ashutosh had purchased a scooty for his sister after
obtaining a loan. She has admitted that Swati is working as Government
School Teacher. She further admitted that her elder sister-Jyoti and her
brother died under mysterious circumstances.
17. Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) in Para -16 of her cross-examination,
admits that Ashutosh draws a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
6 CRA-14926-2023
as an employee of Vehicle Factory. His father is not alive and mother is
getting family pension. She also admitted that even Swati is working in a
Government School. Though she denied certain photographs which were
shown to her but admits that in her case diary statement Ex.D-1 she has
categorically used words “Sambhavata” i.e. in all probability which shows
that she was not sure as to the cause of death of Kalyani. In further cross –
examination, she admitted that Swati never demanded any money from her.
She further admits that because of better financial position, they had
performed marriage of their sister in the family of appellants. She further
admits that Kalyani was visiting their home alongwith her husband. She has
also admitted in Para-36 that they had not made any complaint till
performance of Thirteen Day Ceremony.
18. Kishorelal Raikwar (PW/2) retired Teacher is father of Kalyani.
After having said that there was demand of Rs.1 lac and a scooty, in cross –
examination this witness admits that his son had committed suicide. He also
admitted that Kalyani was well settled and happy in the marriage. He further
admits that in Para-8 that on the date of incident he had not given any
statement to the Police or informed them about demand of dowry.
19. In para-10 of his cross-examination, Kishorilal Raikwar (PW-2),
admits that his daughter was not talking to him on his phone and he was
talking to the extent of negligible conversation with Kalyani. He further
states that Kalyani used to talk to Bindiya (PW-1). It is also admitted that
Bindiya was a via-media for conversation of this witness with his daughters
and vice- versa.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
7 CRA-14926-2023
20. In para-11 Kishorilal Raikwar (PW-2) father of the victim admits
that in article 27 and 28 his son-in-law and daughter are shown in an intimate
position and in a happy mood. He further admits that in his case diary
statement (Ex.D-4), Kishorilal Raikwar (PW-2) has used words ‘Sambhavata’
which means in all probability. He further admits in Para -16 that there were
proposals from other families but her marriage could not be fixed elsewhere.
In para -20 he admits that before giving his case diary statements to the
Police on 31.10.2015, he had never made any complaint to the Police. He
further admits that Kalyani had never said anything in regard to torture or
demanding money during her life time concerning Swati.
21. Hemlata Raikwar (PW-3) too made general and omnibus
allegations in regard to demand of dowry but admits that Ashutosh was
having a motorcycle prior to marriage. She also admitted that talks were
initiated for marriage of Kalyani at other places, but it could not be
materialized. She further admits that she had visited house of Ashutosh
alongwith an acquittance and found their financial position to be sound,
therefore, she had initiated the proposal for marriage. In para -19, Hemlata
Raikwar (PW-3) admits that till Kalyani was alive, they had not made any
complaint to any authority in regard to demand of dowry or associated
harassment. Hemlata Raikwar (PW-3) admitted that marriage of Ashutosh
and Kalyani was performed in a cordial manner. There was no demand of
dowry. She admitted that Ashutosh had taken Kalyani to her matrimonial
home in a very happy and cordial atmosphere. She further admits that
marriage expenses were borne in equal proportion by both the parties. She
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
8 CRA-14926-2023
also admitted that when Kalyani was alive both the families were visiting
each other and there was no occasion for any complaint being made against
the each other.
22. Pushpa Raikwar (PW-4) who is aunt of the deceased – Kalyani
admitted in her cross- examination that when marriage was performed then
both the parties were very happy. There was no dispute and expenses of
marriage were borne jointly. She admits that she never visited house of
Kalyani after her marriage. Therefore, there was no occasion for Kalyani to
complain to her in regard to demand of dowry.
23. Harishankar (PW- 5), admits that Kalyani was his youngest sister-
in-law. He admitted in Para-4 that there was no dispute in regard to demand
of dowry between the two parties.
24. Haduraj Barman (PW-6), is husband of Bindiya. He admitted that
at the time of preparation of Panchnama (Ex.P/4) neither himself nor his wife
or any relatives informed the Police in regard to demand of dowry.
25. Suraj Upadhyay (PW-7), admits that no written complaint was
given by the Bindiya Raikwar or any other person from complainant side
against the accused persons.
26. PW-8 (Dr. Vivek Shriwastava), conducted postmortem on the
body of Kalyani has accepted that there was no injury mark on the body of
the victim except the strangulation marks found around her neck.
27. When these facts are taken into consideration, then as per the
requirement of law to sustain conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, read
with Section 498-A of IPC, we are obliged to examine the legal principles
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
9 CRA-14926-2023
laid down in Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported (2025 SCC OnLine
214) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-
“5. Sections 498-A and 304-B read thus:
“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.–Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
“304-B. Dowry death. –(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by
any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband
or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
10 CRA-14926-2023
the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.”
6. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 304-B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or
bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her
marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry.
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be
called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband’s relative, as the case
may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by
one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of
either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the
marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be
given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
11 CRA-14926-2023
marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of
IPC.
8. In this case, there is no dispute that the death of the appellant’s wife
occurred within seven years of the marriage. Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act reads thus:
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether
a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that
soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the
Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall
have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860.”
The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established
that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish
that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for
or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless
these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act cannot be invoked.”
28. Thus to prove the charges under Section 498-A of IPC and Section
304-B IPC, it is necessary that there should be any willful conduct which is
of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
12 CRA-14926-2023
grave injury or danger to life limb or health. Even for making out an offence
under Section 304-B of IPC there should be immediate demand of dowry
and associated cruelty, but in the present case when provisions contained in
Section 113-B of Evidence Act are taken into consideration, then from the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that neither prosecution
witnesses have been able to make out a case of immediate demand of dowry
associated with cruelty driving Kalyani to commit suicide. The allegations in
regard to demand of dowry are general and omnibus in nature. There is not
only delay in recording of statements but also in discloser of the fact of
demand of dowry. Complainant party admittedly kept silent for fifteen days
when they for the first time recorded their statement that there was demand
of dowry namely a Scooty and Rs 1 lac. It has also come on record and
admitted by Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) and Kishorelal Raikwar (PW-2) that
while giving their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. they had used
words “in all probability” rather than asserting demand of dowry in
unequivocal terms.
29. It has also come on record and admitted by Bindiya Raikwar (PW-
1), Kishorelal Raikwar (PW-2), Smt. Hemlata Raikwar (PW-3), Pushpa
Raikwar (PW-4), Harishankar (PW-5) and Yaduraj Barman (PW-6) that
marriage was performed in most cordial manner. There was no demand of
dowry. Both the parties borne expenditure of marriage in equal proportion.
Thus, when these aspects are taken into consideration then in the light of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477, wherein it is held that expression ‘soon
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
13 CRA-14926-2023
before’ her death is not synonymous with ‘immediately before’. Days or
months are not what is to be seen. Time-lags may differ from case to case.
Dowry demand should not be stale but should be a continuing cause of
death. Section 304-B must be construed fairly, pragmatically and with
common sense so as to fulfill object of remedy the great social evil it seeks
to achieve.
30. It is further held that in case of a penal statute when interpretation
is made then strict construction is not an invariable rule but mischief
rule/purposes construction are permissible and where the statute seeks to
remedy to a social evil, it should be given fair, pragmatic and common sense
interpretation so as to fulfill its object.
31. Supreme Court in case of Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 214 held that when there are omissions in
regard to demand of dowry and associated cruelty then benefit of doubt will
go in favour of the accused persons.
32. In the present case, it is evident as discussed above that police did
not record the statements of complainant party and never made any
complaint in regard to demand of dowry soon after the incident. They admit
that it was Ashutosh Raikwar who had called them and informed them about
suicidal hanging of Kalyani. Similarly, it has also come on record that the
family of Kalyani suffers from a tendency of unnatural death, in as much as,
her brother and sister too died under unnatural circumstances.
33. When these facts are taken into consideration, then judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Chabi Karmakar and others Vs. State of Bengal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
14 CRA-14926-2023
reported in (2025) 1 SCC 398 lays down law that where dowry death or
abatement of suicide is not proved, and there is absence of cruelty in
connection with demand of dowry then that will be the factor to be
considered while recording acquittal. Same is the ratio of law laid down by
Supreme Court in Paranagouda and another Vs. State of Karnataka and
another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, wherein it is held that when
evidence on record not on account of demand of dowry but it is taunting or
mental torture which could not withstand then accused persons are liable to
be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC though
charge was not framed.
34. In the present case, however, there are no circumstances or
evidence brought on record to suggest that there was even any element of
mental cruelty meted out to the deceased Kalyani or there was any demand
of dowry and in view of such facts which are substantiated from the
telephonic conversation between Kalyani and her mother as are available on
record as Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 and also looking to the fact that there is an
admission that Kalyani used to visit her parental house alongwith Athutosh
and they were happily married, we are of the opinion that in absence of the
element of cruelty and demand of dowry being substantiated, conviction of
appellant No. 1- Ashutosh Raikwar and appellant No. – 2 Sudha Raikwar too
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set aside.
35. As far as Swati Navik is concerned, all the prosecution witnesses
have admitted that there was no demand of dowry in the hands of Swati
Navik. Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1), star witness of the prosecution has admitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 25-06-2025
18:33:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055
15 CRA-14926-2023
Swati never demanded any dowry from her. Kishorilal Raikwar (PW-2),
father of Kalyani also admitted that Swati never demanded any dowry. There
is no examination of any of the persons residing in the immediate
neighborhood of Kalyani to substantiate either demand of dowry or
harassment. Bindiya Raikwar (PW-1) and Smt. Hemlata Raikwar (PW-3)
have admitted that Kalyani was residing within a distance of 1 km from their
house. They further admit that they had never lodged any complaint or
convened any Panchyat in regard to allegation of demand of dowry in the
hands of the accused party. When these facts are taken into consideration,
then merely on the basis of zeal of the complainant party to implicate more
and more persons to seek revenge or for any other motive, acquittal of Swati
Navik cannot be faulted with.
36. Therefore, Cr.A. No.14926 of 2023 is allowed . Appellant No. 1-
Ashutosh Raikwar and appellant No.2-Sudha Raikwar are acquitted of the
charges. Appellant No.1-Ashutosh Raikwar and appellant No.2- Sudha
Raikwar be released forthwith if they are not required in any other offence.
Case property be disposed of in terms of the judgement of the trial court.
Record be sent back.
37. As far as Cr.A. No.15843 of 2023 is concerned, we do not find
even iota of evidence to substantiate submissions made by Shri Nitiraj
Sharma, Adv. and therefore, Cr.A. No. 15843 of 2023 deserves to be and is
hereby dismissed.
38. In the above terms both the criminal appeals are disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 25-06-2025 18:33:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27055 16 CRA-14926-2023 (VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE NRJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: NIRAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing time: 25-06-2025 18:33:22