Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mahima Bhairam vs Praveen on 26 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
1 CRA-2488-2025
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 26th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2488 of 2025
SMT. MAHIMA BHAIRAM
Versus
PRAVEEN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.5/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14398 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PRAVEEN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava - Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
I.A. No.7025/2025 is filed for condonation of delay in Criminal
Appeal No.2488/2025 which is barred by 543 days whereas I.A.
No.27291/2023 is filed in Criminal Appeal No.14398/2023 which is barred
by 62 days.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
2 CRA-2488-2025
For the reasons stated therein, the same are hereby allowed, delay in
filing the respective appeals is condoned.
2. These appeals are filed by the complainant - Smt. Mahima Bhairam
and the State, respectively being aggrieved of the judgment of the trial Court
dated 07.06.2023 passed by learned second Additional Sessions Judge,
Waraseoni, district - Balaghat in ST No.77/2022 whereby the trial Court
recorded finding of acquittal in the matter of Criminal case originating out of
Case Crime No.43/2022 under Sections 307, 498-A, 323 and 506 II read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. It is admitted fact that appellant Smt. Mahima Bhairam was married
with respondent - Praveen S/o Nand Kishore Bhairam on 25.06.2020 as per
their customs and traditions. Allegations were levelled against husband -
Praveen S/o Nand Kishore Bhairam, Smt. Nandini - mother of Praveen and
his two sisters, namely Preeti W/o Harish Thakre and Priya D/o Nand
Kishore Bhairam. On lodging of FIR at police station - Lalbarra case crime
No.43/2022 was registered, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Waraseoni
where criminal case No.137/2022 was registered as State of MP v. Praveen
and three others. Thereafter the case was committed to sessions trial where
learned second Additional Sessions Judge tried the case under Sections 498-
A, 307 and 323 in alternate Sections 307 & 323 read with Section 34, 506-II
of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and recorded a
finding of acquittal from the charges as aforesaid.
4. Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.2488/2025 submits that the complainant was subjected to different types
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
3 CRA-2488-2025
of cruelty. It is pointed out there was not only demand of dowry but she was
also subjected to harassment as kerosene oil was poured on her and she was
subjected to medical examination as per Exhibit P-24. Thus, it is submitted
that incident taking place within two years of marriage, and cruelty being
met out to the complainant on account of demand of dowry, the same will
constitute offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. There was an associated
cruelty inasmuch as vide Exhibit P-24, doctor opined that there was pain and
tenderness on the body of the victim besides pain and tenderness in head and
occipital region. Since there was smell of kerosene from her clothes thus, it is
pointed out that acts will constitute offence under Section 323 of the IPC
besides attempt to burn under Section 307 of the IPC therefore, conviction of
the appellant should have been recorded by the trial Court but it has
arbitrarily recorded a finding of acquittal.
5. Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned public prosecutor for the State
supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant
and submits that in a case of dowry harassment that too taking place within
two years of marriage finding of conviction should have been recorded but
trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence which has come on record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that complaint Smt. Mahima Bhairam (PW-1) has
admitted in paragraph 17 of her cross examination that after residing for two
months at her matrimonial home at Lalbarra she had returned to her parental
house at village - Bahakal. She had not said anything to her parents in regard
to demand of dowry in the hands of the accused party. She also admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
4 CRA-2488-2025
that she had neither reported matter at Katangi police station nor had
convened any panchayat or given any notice to the accused party. She admits
that Praveen had visited her house in August, 2020 and stayed with them for
a day. At that time, no dispute took place between them and they had given
all respect due to their son-in-law and he too had resided in a cordial
atmosphere at their house. Then she admits that in August, 2020, she
returned to her matrimonial home with Praveen and stayed there till
December 2020. In paragraph 19, she admitted that during these four months
no report was lodged by her nor any panchayat was convened. She further
admitted in paragraph 20 that she remained at her parental house from
December, 2020 to March, 2021 and during this period also no report was
lodged against the accused party. In paragraph 25 she further admits that she
stayed in her matrimonial home for about one to one and a half month and
then returned back to parental house. She did not make any complaint in
regard to harassment to any of the neighbours or police station. She had
returned back to her parental home i,.e. Bahkhal and stayed there for 15
days. During this period of fifteen days also she neither made any complaint
to police authorities or to neighbours or to convened any panchayat. She
also admitted that she has studied up to M.SC. She admits some recording
was made by her but the certificate Exhibit P-9 does not contain any date nor
it contains the Sim number of the mobile by which the recording was made.
She further admitted that police had not seized any mobile from her. She
further admits that when, where and how she had obtained computer
recording is not known to her. She, thereafter, admits that she had not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
5 CRA-2488-2025
prepared CD from the computer placed in the police station but made it from
an external computer but did not obtain certificate under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act from a competent person.
7. PW-2 (mother of the victim) has also not proved any ingredients of
offences.
8. PW-12 (Dr. Mayank Meshram) has stated that when the victim was
brought to him for examination, he had noted complaint of pain and
tenderness in left hand wrist, pain and tenderness in head, occipital region,
neck and anterior region and there was kerosene oil smell coming from the
clothes and body. He gave an opinion that the injuries were simple and
caused by hard and blunt object. Thus, it is evident that no burn marks were
found on the body of the victim - Mahima Bhairam.
9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC
450 wherein it is held by the Supreme Court that "presumption of innocence
is reinforced by the acquittal by the trial Court. An acquittal by the trial
Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable. The trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour
of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate court
should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial Court. The
appellate court undoubtedly has wide powers of reappreciating and re-
evaluating the entire evidence but it would be justified in interfering with the
judgment of acquittal only when the judgment of the trial Court is palpably
wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived, based on erroneous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27798
6 CRA-2488-2025
analysis of evidence and non-existent material, demonstrably unsustainable
or perverse.
10. Admittedly, prosecution failed to prove its case. When all these facts
of the present case are taken into consideration, then it is evident that none of
the ingredients under Sections 307, 498-A, 506 part II or Section 323 of the
IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is made out. When the
evidence of the witnesses are taken into consideration, and the totality of
facts and circumstances of the case is considered, then impugned judgment
of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be faulted with. We do not find
any ground to show indulgence in the matter of admission of the appeal.
Therefore, both the criminal appeals fail and are hereby dismissed .
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ks
