Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Swatantra @ Nittu on 23 April, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
1 MCRC-10991-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10991 of 2018
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SWATANTRA @ NITTU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition, under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has been filed for seeking grant of leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment passed on 10.1.2018 by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh,
in Sessions Trial No.2100180/2016, whereunder all the three respondents
were acquitted of the charges of Section 304-B, alternatively Sections 302,
498-A and 306 IPC, and also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Admittedly, respondent no.1 Swatantra alias Nittu was the husband of
deceased Gangabai and respondents no.2 and 3 were her father-in-law and
mother-in-law respectively. It is undisputed that Gangabai was married to
respondent no.1 about 8-9 years prior to her death who died on 22.3.2016 on
account of asphyxia caused due to hanging and the nature of this death was
opined to be suicidal by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.
3. Brief facts of the case may be summarized as: at the time of marriage of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
2 MCRC-10991-2018
Gangabai her parental relatives gave dowry in terms with their capacity; she
went to her matrimonial house and resided there, but during this period she
used to visit her parental house and tell her parental relatives that respondents
used to harass her for insufficient dowry; she delivered three children out of
this wedlock, but cruelty to her for this demand was never diluted; since a
year prior to her death, a demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made; at the time
of Makar Sankranti in the year 2016, Gangabai came to her parental house
along with her brother and stayed there for almost a month; she came back as
the tonsure (Mundan) ceremony of her younger son was to be performed in
the matrimonial house; about ten days later, her brother visited her and
witnessed the incident where she was slapped by her father-in-law i.e.
respondent no.2.
4. On 22.3.2016, the parental relatives of Gangabai were informed about
her serious illness, but they got information from other sources that she had
passed away; her parental relatives reached there and found the dead body of
Gangabai lying in a room; they also saw broken bangles lying there; her
brother informed the police and on their arrival a Marg case was registered;
finally, an FIR against all the respondents was registered in Police Station,
Hindoriya, district Damoh, at Crime No.22/2016; the investigation was
completed and the charge-sheet was filed. After the conclusion of trial, the
respondents were acquitted of all the charges as discussed above.
5. State is aggrieved by the order of acquittal on the grounds that the trial
court committed error in acquitting all the respondents; the judgment passed
by it is erroneous both on facts and in law; it is claimed that the court erred
in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in correct perspective
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
3 MCRC-10991-2018
and even failed to give weightage to the FIR lodged in the case. It has,
therefore, been requested to grant leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard on this petition and the
record has been perused.
7. The settled legal position for grant of leave to appeal against an order of
acquittal has been very well defined in the judgment of State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 and the relevant para 7 of this judgment on the
point runs as under:
There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The
golden thread which runs through the web of administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount
consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In
a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon
the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the
accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to
whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (See
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. [(2002) 4 SCC 85 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 736 : JT (2002) 3 SC 387]. The principle to be followed by
the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and
substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is
clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference.
These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC
(Cri) 1033], Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat [(1996) 9
SCC 225 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 972] and Jaswant Singh v. State of
Haryana [(2000) 4 SCC 484 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 991 : JT (2000) 4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
4 MCRC-10991-2018
SC 114].
8 . In the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition, the facts of the case are
scrutinized. The mother of victim is Radharani (P.W.1) and father is Nannu
Ahirwar (P.W.2); the statements of these material witnesses reveal that they
have not been consistent and reliable on the allegation of cruelty committed
to deceased either on account of demand of dowry or even otherwise; mother
Radharani (P.W.1) has although made allegations in her examination-in-
chief but her cross-examination reveals that there was no demand or dispute
regarding dowry at the time of marriage and deceased along with her
husband and children was regularly visiting her parental house; it is also
admitted by this witness that Gangabai had attended the marriage of her
siblings and had given gifts to them; she has further admitted that during the
lifetime of Gangabai, the relations between the two families were very
cordial and father of Gangabai used to stay in her matrimonial house,
whenever he was on a visit to her village; it is further admitted that the other
daughter of this witness was also married in the same village but relationship
with her matrimonial family was not that pleasant as with the family of
respondents; the fact of love and affection between the two families was
admitted even by Nannu Ahirwar (P.W.2), who was the father of Gangabai;
furthermore, he has admitted in para 15 of his cross-examination that
Gangabai never lodged any report against the respondents as she was happy
in her matrimonial family.
9 . There is another factual aspect of the case and it is revealed from the
testimony of mother Radharani (P.W.1) when she admits that Gangabai and
Nannibai, the two daughters of witness, were married in the same village and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
5 MCRC-10991-2018
Nannibai attempted suicide by consuming poison. According to this witness,
when asked about the reason for taking this step, Nannibai informed her that
she had suspicion about the illicit relationship between her husband Balakdas
and her sister Gangabai. This witness further claims that she gave advise to
both Nannibai and Gangabai and then everything became settled. However,
in para 18, this witness was questioned whether Nannibai and her husband
visited the matrimonial house of Gangabai after her death and answering it,
the witness not only expressed her ignorance but also disclosed that Nannibai
had later told her that she had strictly asked Gangabai to stay away from her
husband. These facts reveal that the character of Gangabai was being
suspected by her own sister, and this could have been a sufficient cause to
create ripples in her matrimonial life and also a cause of serious stress to her.
10. Nannu Ahirwar (P.W.2) has admitted that for many years after the
marriage of Gangabai, there was no demand of dowry and only for last one
year a demand of Rs.50,000/- was being made by respondent no.2 Sunder
Ahirwar. Contradicting these allegations, the mother of deceased i.e.
Radharani (P.W.1) has stated in para 14 that a property was sold by her
husband i.e. Nannu Ahirwar, the father of deceased, and he proposed to
respondent no.1 Swatantra alias Nittu and another son-in-law Balakdas to
give some money to his daughters but respondent no.2 Sunder Ahirwar
advised him not to part with this money as it would help him in his old age
and had also advised him to purchase some other land. The witness has
further admitted that acting on this advise, her husband Nannu Ahirwar
purchased three and a half acres of land and also a tractor. She has further
admitted that Balakdas, the other son-in-law, did not accept it pleasantly and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18596
6 MCRC-10991-2018
their relationship with Balakdas became sour and he did not even attend the
marriage ceremonies organized in his in-laws family. These facts reflect that
neither any demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by respondent no.2 Sunder
Ahirwar nor the relationship between the two families went strained at any
point of time on account of non-fulfilment of alleged demand.
11. In the light of aforesaid facts and the evidence led by prosecution, we
find that the decision of trial court regarding acquittal of respondents requires
no indulgence on the part of this Court. The petitioner-State has not been
able to highlight any manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusion
arrived at by the trial court. Thus, even after undertaking the exercise to re-
appreciate the evidence, we find that there is no material available on record
which would connect the respondents with the alleged crime.
12. Accordingly, this petition for seeking leave to appeal is dismissed in
limine and disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
