Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rambali Namdeo on 14 October, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51243
1 CRA-1389-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 14 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1389 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMBALI NAMDEO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Pandey - Advocate for the appellant-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla :
Heard on I.A. No.1810/2023 an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
1973, seeking grant of leave to appeal.
2. Under this application, leave to appeal has been prayed for against the
judgment of acquittal passed on 11.11.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna
in ST No.44/2023 whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of
Section 304(3) alternatively 302/34 and 498-A/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1. Rambali was
the husband and respondent No.2 Ramlakhan was the father-in-law of the
deceased Rashmi who died on 27.01.2021 by drowning in a water tank. Her death
was reported to the police by her husband respondent No.1. Enquiry was held in
the marg case and after its conclusion, FIR was registered against both the
respondents. The matter was investigated and later the charge-sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution examined total 14 witnesses in the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51243
2 CRA-1389-2023
documentary evidence was also there from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. After evaluating the
evidence, the trial Court under the impugned judgment acquitted both the
respondents.
4. Assailing the impugned judgment, this application for grant of leave to
appeal has been filed and grounds taken here are that the trial Court failed to
appreciate the evidence in correct perspective; the victim in this case was a
married lady who died in a suspicious circumstances within 7 years of her
marriage; allegation of demand of dowry were made, but the trial Court failed to
give weightage to this evidence and without appreciating the vital aspects of the
matter, the finding of acquittal was given.
5. The judgments of Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Gopal Krishna
(2005) 9 SCC 291, Girija Prasad vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625, State vs.
Gurmit Singh (1996)2 SCC 384, Dildar Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) 10 SCC
531 have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the State to emphasize the
legal proposition that unreasonable or perverse finding require interference of
appellate Court, which has every power to -appreciate, review and reconsider the
evidence as a whole.
6. We have heard and considered the arguments submitted on behalf of
appellant/State and have also gone through the impugned judgment and the entire
record of the trial Court
7. The respondents were charged in this case for the offence of Section
304-B and 498 A IPC as well as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but the
statements of close relatives of deceased namely brother Anil Namdeo, mother
Savitri Namdeo (PW/2) and father Raju Namdeo (PW/4) reveal that no demand of
dowry was ever made to them by any of the respondents. It is also admitted by
them that since the marriage of deceased, they never met her. Though it is claimed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51243
3 CRA-1389-2023
that they were in touch with the victim on phone but no such call record was
placed before the trial Court. Admittedly, the victim had married respondent No.1
against the wish of her family members and for this reason they were not on good
terms. The statements of mother reveal that the victim had a daughter, but the
mother's statements suggest that at the time of birth of this child, neither the victim
visited her parental house nor her parental relatives visited her. These relatives
came on the canvass only after the death of victim.
7. Though it was claimed that the deceased was sharing her grievance
with her sister Saroj, but prosecution failed to examine Saroj as a witness. The
spot map (Ex.P.3) reveals that the water tank in which the deceased drowned was
inside the courtyard of the house of respondent No.1 and had the measurement of
10x10x12 cu.ft. having water filled therein.
8. The aforesaid discussion brings to the conclusion that the incident
occurred inside the four walls of the house and there was no eye witness to the
incident. Use of physicals force on the victim has not been brought into light by
the postmortem report. Thus, merely on the basis of statements of parental
relatives of the deceased, who were not having any sort of relationship with the
victim for the reason of marrying against their wish, suddenly came up a narrative
that victim was being harassed by the respondents for demand of dowry and they
ultimately caused her dowry death.
9. On the basis of afore-discussed factual matrix, the finding of acquittal
cannot be cast aside as absurd or against the evidence available on record. No case
has been made out here about misreading or ignoring the relevant evidence.
Indeed the appellate Court can re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence, but
there are defined limitations while interfering in an order against acquittal. It has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51243
4 CRA-1389-2023
been aptly held in State of Karnataka vs. Suvarnamma and another (2015) 1 SCC
323 that "in an appeal against acquittal, if a possible view has been taken, no
interference is required, but if the view taken is not legally sustainable, the Court
has ample power to interfere with the order of acquittal."
10. In the light of evidence discussed above, the reasons assigned in the
impugned judgment and considering the case in its entirety, we are of the opinion
that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment. Hence, in view of
facts and legal matrix discussed above, we dismiss the application for grant of
leave to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.
11. Consequently, the I.A. No.1810/2023 stands dismissed and also this
appeal.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
