Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bhagyashree Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
1 CRR-1749-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1749 of 2024
SMT. BHAGYASHREE SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.K. Singrore - Advocate for applicant.
Respondent no.2 Avirag Sharma is present in person
Respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 are persent in person (through vide conferencing)
ORDER
This is a revision arising out of an judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed
by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Cr.A. No.294/2023
whereby the judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur in
Criminal Case RCT no.8209210/2015 has been affirmed and respondents are
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34, 294
& 506-II of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that respondent no.2 is
husband, respondent no.3 is brother-in-law (devar), respondent no.4 is father-
in-law and respondent no.5 is mother-in-law of the applicant. It is contended
by the counsel that in the present case, the respondents were prosecuted as a
result of an FIR lodged by the present applicant under Sections 498-A, 323
r/w 34, 294 & 506-II of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. It is contended by the counsel that the marriage of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
2 CRR-1749-2024
applicant was solemnized with respondent no.2 Avirag Sharma on
28.01.2013. At the time of marriage, various gift items, jewellery and cash
were given by the father of the present applicant. However, after marriage,
the present applicant was subjected to cruelty under the garb of demand of
dowry by the respondents. The behaviour of all the respondents was cruel
towards the present applicant and the father-in-law and mother-in-law started
demanding Rs.25 Lakh. The said demand was communicated by the
applicant to her father. The father of the applicant expressed his inability to
fulfill the demand. Thereafter, there was demand of dowry in the month of
June 2014. A complaint on 18.07.2014 was moved by the present applicant
against respondents. As there was assurance by the respondents that they
would not manhandle or treat the present applicant with cruelty, on such
assurance, the applicant was made to sign a settlement/compromise deed.
Thereafter the husband of the applicant left for Kharagpur and after
completing his study, he came to Trivendram (Kerala). The father-in-law of
the present applicant, took the present applicant to Trivendram where the
applicant was subjected to demand of dowry which according to respondents
was required to purchase a flat in Trivendram. When the applicant declined
to fulfill the demand, she was manhandled by her husband and her father-in-
law supported such manhandling instead of interfering. After lodging of the
FIR, a trial was conducted. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court vide
judgement dated 22.09.2023 acquitted the respondents. The judgement of
acquittal of the trial Court was assailed by the present applicant by filing an
appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur and the appeal has also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
3 CRR-1749-2024
been dismissed vide judgement dated 21.02.2024. The State had also
preferred an appeal but the same has also been dismissed by the same
composite order.
3. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case, the
judgements of the trial Court and Appellate Court are unsustainable and
deserve to be quashed as there is compete failure on the part of both the
Courts to appreciate the contents of the FIR in which, the specific allegations
were levelled that on 15.08.2015, the present applicant went along with her
father-in-law to Trivendram (Kerala) and on very next day, she was
manhandled by her husband and father-in-law was present at the time of
incident. The aforesaid specific allegations clearly reveal that after
reaching Trivendram, the applicant was subjected to manhandling at the
behest of husband and the said incident had taken place in the presence of
father-in-law. The mother of the applicant Rashim (PW-6) also in paragraph
2 has clearly stated that on 15.08.2015, the present applicant was taken
to Trivendram by her father-in-law at Trivendram, in the presence of father-
in-law, the respondent no.2/husband manhandled the applicant and abused
her as well. The entire incident was told by the present applicant to her uncle
Arvind Pachori.
4. It is contended by the counsel that the judgments of the trial Court
as well as Appellate Court nowhere deal with the allegations of manhandling
by the husband upon reaching Trivendram. It is contended by the counsel
that there is no appreciation of testimonies of the witnesses by the trial Court
and there is complete failure on the part of the trial Court as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
4 CRR-1749-2024
Appellate Court to deal with the specific allegations which contains the date
on which, the applicant was subjected to cruelty and despite there being
specific details, there is failure on the part of both the Courts to appreciate
that the allegations were fully established by the prosecution as regards
cruelty which was committed with the applicant after 15.08.2015 when she
reached Trivendram.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurnaib Singh vs. State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No.744/2013), on the decision of the Calcutta High Court
in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. ( AIR1994 SC
1418) and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of
Shunmugasundaram vs. STate by Deputy Superintendent of Police [(1997)
CriLJ 499]. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Kuwarsingh & Ors. vs. The State of M.P. (CRR
No.911/2024).
6. Respondent no.2/husband is present in person in the Court.
Respondent no.3 to 5 are present through video conferencing. Respondent
nos.3 to 5 submit that they are going to adopt the submissions to be advanced
by the respondent no.2 who is husband.
7. Respondent no.2 submits that no interference with the impugned
judgement is required in the present case as the trial Court upon due
appreciation of the evidence has rightly, acquitted the respondents. There
was complete failure on the part of the applicant to establish the specific
detail regarding cruelty and demand of dowry. The Court rightly came to a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
5 CRR-1749-2024
conclusion that there were omnibus and general allegations and the Court in
the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan
Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC
599] and Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207] acquitted the
respondents. It is contended by the respondent no.2 that the revision is liable
to be dismissed. He further contends that he has submitted the arguments
against the grounds raised by the applicant and submitted that there is
absolutely no scope to interfere with the impugned judgments of the trial
Court as well as Appellate Court. It is thus contended by the respondent no.2
that the revision deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other points is pressed or argued by the parties.
9. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
10. Challenge in this revision is to a judgement of the trial Court
dated 22.09.2023 by which, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents of
the charges which were initially framed under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w 34,
294 & 506-II of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and the Appellate Court's judgement affirming the trial Court judgement.
The trial Court while acquitting the respondents, discussed the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses and ultimately, concluded in paragraphs 50, 51, 52
and 53 that there were no specific allegation on which, the present applicant
was subjected to demand of dowry and in absence of specific details
regarding demand of dowry as well as cruelty, it was a case where the
allegations were general and omnibus and accordingly, the trial Court has
proceeded to acquit the respondents. The trial Court further proceeded to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
6 CRR-1749-2024
disbelieve the allegation that the applicant was subjected to manhandling
while dealing with the testimony of the Dr. D.J. Mehanti (PW-7) as well as
MLC (Ex.P/4). As per the testimony of Dr. D.J. Mehanti (PW-7), he had
examined the applicant medically on 02.09.20215 and had expressed that the
injuries on the person of the applicant were inflicted within last 24 hours
whereas, as per the evidence, the present applicant came back to Jabalpur on
31.08.2015, therefore, there was no question of inflicting any injury to the
present applicant at Trivendram. The trial Court, concluded in paragraph 53
that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and
it was also observed that as per the MLC dated 02.09.2015, if the injuries
were inflicted in last 24 hours then in last 24 hours, the present applicant was
at Jabalpur and not at Trivendram. Therefore, it was held that there was lack
of particulars on which date, the applicant was subjected to cruelty and
ultimately, the trial Court proceeded to acquit the respondents while
observing that the allegations against them were general and omnibus. The
Appellate Court has also declined to interfere with the impugned judgment
of the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present
applicant and State.
11. In the present case, the record reflects that the FIR (Ex.P/2) was
lodged by the present applicant and in the said FIR there were allegations of
demand of dowry against all the respondent of Rs.50 Lakh to purchase the
flat. The FIR also contains the factum of compromise between the parties in
the year 2014. Thereafter, it is mentioned that the applicant was taken to
Trivendram by her father-in-law on 15.08.2015 and at Trivendram the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
7 CRR-1749-2024
applicant was subjected to manhandling in the presence of her father-in-law
and then the applicant called her cousin sister from Delhi and lodged a report
at Police Station Trivendram City and came back to her parent place.
12. In support of the allegations, the applicant's herself examined as
PW-1 and in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, the applicant had stated
that the incident had taken place on 23-24/08/2015 and in relation to said
incident, a report was lodged by the applicant on 27.08.2015 at Trivendram.
There is also statement of mother of the applicant Rashmi (PW-6) and in
paragraph 2 of her testimony she clearly stated that on 15.08.2015, the
father-in-law of her daughter came to Jabalpur and thereafter her daughter
went to Trivendram along with her father-in-law and at Trivendram, the
husband manhandled the applicant and abused her also. The father-in-law
was there at the time of incident and he did not make any effort to intervene
on the contrary, had supported the husband. The FIR refers to the complaint
no.864/2015, which was lodged with Police Station Trivendram City and as
per the FIR, the applicant was manhandled by her husband and father-in-law
in the presence of her cousin sister Rajshree.
13. The other prosecution witnesses namely Rakesh (PW-2), Rajshree
Sharma (PW-3), Rishabh (PW-5) and Rashmi Sharma (PW-6) have also
stated that the applicant went to Trivendram along with her father-in-law
where she was manhandled by her husband. A report regarding manhandling
was lodged with the Police Station, Trivendram City and then, the applicant
came back to her parent place.
14. While dealing with aforesaid evident so adduced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
8 CRR-1749-2024
prosecution, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had produced the
MLC report dated 02.09.2015 and in the MLC report, it was mentioned that
all the injuries were inflicted within last 24 years. It is undisputed that the
applicant came back to Itarsi on 31.08.2015 which is evident from paragraph
7 of the testimony of Rashmi Sharma (PW-6) who is mother of the applicant
and this fact was also mentioned by the applicant's herself in Ex.P/1 i.e. the
complaint made to SHO, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur. In addition to above
Exhibit there is Ex.D-8 as well, which has been discussed by the Appellate
Court in its judgement and the Appellate Court while dealing with Ex.D-8
observed that if the applicant was manhandled under the garb of demand of
dowry, the applicant could have established the said fact by producing the
agreement if was executed at Trivendram and also the statements if recorded.
The Appellate Court concluded that no such evidence was produced by the
applicant.
15. It is also important to take note of the fact that after reaching
Jabalpur on 31.08.2015, the report was lodged on 02.09.2015 and this fact
was also appreciated by the Appellate Court in paragraph 44 of the
judgement. The trial Court also considered the aspect that the allegations
were general and omnibus and the trial Court placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar (supra) and Kans Raj
(supra) and ultimately acquitted the respondents.
16. The scope of interference in the judgement of acquittal was dealt
with by the Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration
[(1975) 4 SCC 649], State vs. R Soundirarasu (AIR 2022 SC 4218), State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
9 CRR-1749-2024
Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand [(2004) 7 SCC 659]
and Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. vs. State of Gujrat [2024] 4
S.C.R 322.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand (supra) held in
paragraph 5 as under:-
"The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory
jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would
have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the
evidence for the purposes of determining whether the
concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge
was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the
evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself
that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact
reached by the two subordinate courts and that the
finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. ....."
18. The Apex Court in the case of R. Soundirarasu (supra) held in
paragraphs 75 and 76 as under:-
"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
(2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225
(SC)), this Court held as under:- "3.....The revision
power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
exercised in a routine and casual manner. While
exercising such powers the High Court has no authority
to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and
the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown that
there is a legal bar against the continuance of the
criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the
facts as stated in the first information report even if they
are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence for which the accused has
been charged."
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a
casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised
to correct manifest error of law or procedure which
would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The
revisional power cannot be equated with appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
10 CRR-1749-2024
power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous
examination of the material on record as it is undertaken
by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can
only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the
continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated
in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence for which the accused has been charged. It is
conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."
19. Thereafter the Apex Court in the case of Jagmohan Singh Kuldip
Singh Anand (supra) held in paragraphs 21 and 22 as under:-
21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of
the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned
Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the
self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a
revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the
accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court
to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e.
Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004
[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in
which the High Court interfered in revision because
material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.
22. The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all
the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue
of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C.
Section 401 is a provision enabling the High Court to
exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in
aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part
of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the
Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on
the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be,
for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the
regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."
It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court
or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers.
Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate
Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited
purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to
Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that
the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
11 CRR-1749-2024
as a second appellate power."
20. Then the Apex Court in the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda
(surpa) held in paragraph 6 as under:-
"It is true that while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the
evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the first
question that needs to be answered by the Appellate
Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was
a plausible view that could have been taken based on
evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment
of the High Court shows that this question has not been
adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order
of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the
evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the
guilt of the accused had been established beyond a
reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn
order of acquittal only on the ground that another view
is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal
must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate
Court records such a finding, no interference can be
made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has
ignored the well-settled principle that an order of
acquittal further strengthens the presumption of
innocence of the accused. After having perused the
judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed
itself on the main question."
21. In view of the aforesaid, as the trial Court after due sifting and
analysis of the evidence has come to conclusion that the prosecution failed to
prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the said finding so arrived at
by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court being in congruity
with the evidence so adduced by the parties, interference with the same is not
required, until and unless (1) where the trial court had wrongly shut out
evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution, (2) where the appeal
court had wrongly held evidence admitted by the trial court to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7563
12 CRR-1749-2024
inadmissible, (3) where material evidence has been overlooked either by the
trial court or the court of appeal or, (4) where the acquittal was based
on a compounding of the offence not permitted by law and cases similar
to the above. In the present case, no such eventuality exists.
22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that neither the trial
Court nor the Appellate Court committed any error while delivering the
impugned judgements.
23. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
