Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaskar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
1 CRA-5091-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5091 of 2021
BHASKAR SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prakash C. Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Nitin Gupta- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Prakash C. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants prays for
arguing this appeal finally instead of arguing on I.A.368/2025, which is an
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
2. Accordingly, I.A.368/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
4. It is submitted that the appellants are aggrieved of the judgment
dated 30.07.2021 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar,
District - Satna in Session Trial No.10/2019 whereby appellants have been
convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with two years RI
with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of six months R.I. The
appellants have also been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC with three
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
2 CRA-5091-2021
years R.I. fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of six months RI and
have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 304-B r/w Section
34 of IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. It is submitted that appellants are innocent. Appellant No.1-
Bhaskar is handicapped. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that
there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. Father of the
prosecutrix, Shri Kalicharan has admitted that there was no demand of dowry
soon before the incident. Father of the prosecutrix, Kalicharan further
admitted that diseased Anita used to complain of demand of dowry to her
sister-in-law Bela but Bela has not been examined in the case. Thus, it is
submitted that though death of Anita is unfortunate and untimely but it were
the appellants who had taken her to hospital. Who got her treated, born all
the expenses for treatment and as admitted by father and mother of the
deceased performed all the last rites etc. including traditional rituals in
relation to death and later on relations were severed then they have been
falsely implicated on the strength of oral dying declaration.
6. It is submitted that as per the evidence of Dr. Sudeep Awadhiya
(PW-9), the deceased Anita had not said anything about demand of dowry or
she being put on fire by her husband or mother-in-law. Therefore, it is
submitted that provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will not be
attracted and thus there cannot be any conviction under Section 304-B r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
7. Shri Nitin Gupta, Government Advocate for State supports
impugned judgment of conviction and submits that marriage of Anita had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
3 CRA-5091-2021
taken place on 29.04.2018. She died on 23.09.2018. Death occurred within
five months of the marriage. Thus, there will be a presumption under Section
113-B of Evidence Act in regard to cruelty and demand of dowry, therefore
impugned judgment may not be disturbed.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit-P/4) of dead body of deceased
Anita Sahu is available on record. This is signed by brother of Anita namely
Rampal whose signatures have been identified from B to B part. In
this Naksha Panchayatnama, which was prepared on 24.09.2018, there is no
mention of Anita telling her parents in presence of Rampal and another
witness Sanjeet Sahu (PW-1) that Anita in front of them had informed her
parents about demand of dowry and Bhaskar and his mother putting her on
fire by pouring kerosene. Another important aspect is that Exhibit-P/30 is the
FIR, which was lodged on 11.10.2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 34
IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registering case Crime
No.622/2018 at Police Station- Maihar. If the deceased Anita had already
given her oral dying declaration to her parents, who according to Sanjeet
Sahu (PW-1), had visited her at about 1:00 PM on the date of receiving
intimation that is on 23.09.2018, then they would have immediately reported
this matter to the police that their daughter Anita informed them that she was
burnt by her husband and mother-in-law by pouring kerosene. However, this
fact is diluted from the date of the FIR, which was admittedly lodged on
11.10.2018.
9. Mother of the deceased Smt. Kusumiya Sahu (PW-4) has admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
4 CRA-5091-2021
that her son -in-law had performed last rites of Anita and all the rituals
relating to death like Dashgatra, Trayodashi etc. were performed by her son-
in-law Bhaskar. Thus, it appears that FIR was lodged after completion of all
the death related rituals.
10. As far as PW-1 is concerned, Sanjeet Sahu admits that he had
reached Government Hospital, Maihar along with the Rampal at 11:00 AM.
He had seen Anita at the Government Hospital, Maihar. Thereafter, in
examination-in-chief, he states that parents of Anita had reached hospital by
1:00 PM when Anita had informed her mother that her husband Bhaskar and
her mother-in-law had put kerosene oil on her and burnt her. Anita also
stated that her husband and mother-in-law alleged that she was stealing some
goods from his shop and was consuming them. Thereafter, Anita was
referred to Satna Hospital at about 3:00- 4:00 PM. This witness admitted that
he had participated in the last rites of Anita.
11. In cross examination, this witness clearly admits in Para-7 that he
had seen Anita. She was sitting quietly. She was having pain on account of
burn injuries. This witness had not asked anything from Anita and
information was received by parents of Anita when Rampal had called them.
Rampal in turn had received information from the appellant-Bhaskar. He has
further stated that when parents of Anita had reached the hospital then Anita
was speaking and Anita had given her story to her parents.
12. In Para-9 of his cross examination, PW-1 admits that when he
had reached hospital he had seen Bhaskar and Laltibai nursing Anita. Her
father-in-law was also present. He also admits that Anita had never stated to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
5 CRA-5091-2021
him that her husband Bhaskar and and mother-in-law had poured kerosene
and put her on fire. Later on, this witness on his own stated that this fact was
narrated by Anita to her mother. This witness further admits that since his
sister Anita is no more, therefore their relationship with the appellants is
severed.
13. Witness-Ganga Prasad Sahu (PW-2) stated that Anita was his
niece. Her marriage was performed with Bhaskar on 29.04.2018. She used to
inform him over telephone that her husband and mother-in-law demand
dowry and harass her. He also stated that he had called Bhaskar and Laltibai
over telephone and had requested them not to harass Anita.
14. In cross examination of this witness, he changed his statement and
stated that after 20 days of the incident, police had recorded his statements.
He admitted that Bhaskar is handicapped in left leg. Further admitted in
Para-12 that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry,
Marriage of Anita and Bhaskar was performed in a cordial manner and there
was no dispute. He further admitted that family of Bhaskar is a normal
family there are agricultural activities besides they do labour work to fulfil
the requirements of the family. This witness further stated that Anita used to
cook food for her family. This witness stated that he had no knowledge that
at about 11:00 AM Anita was preparing meals for her family and when she
bent to pick some vegetables, then pallu of her Sari caught fire as a result of
which she ran towards the courtyard where Satish and Bhaskar and other
persons from the village had doused the fire. This witness further admits that
Rampal never informed him as to in which ward Anita was admitted. He has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
6 CRA-5091-2021
further admitted that he had not lodged any FIR in regard to burning of
Anita. This witness further admitted that after death of Anita there are no
relationship with the appellants and they have severed all the relationship
with the appellants. This witness further admitted that when Anita visited her
parental house for the last time and thereafter had gone to her matrimonial
home, then from that date till the date of incident he had no talk with Anita.
15. Witness - Kalicharan (PW-3) is father of the diseased. He has
stated that Anita used to inform her sister-in-law Bela that is daughter-in-law
of this witness about dowry related torture by Bhaskar but Bela has not been
examined in this case. This witness had stated that Anita was having her food
in the courtyard. Bhaskar came and had kicked her on the chest thereafter she
was dragged by Bhaskar and Laltibai to a Kothwa where both of them
poured kerosene oil over her and burnt her. However, when this witness was
declared hostile and leading questions were put to him, then in Para-5, this
witness admits that when Anita had visited her parental house for the first
time after marriage she stated that everything is alright. In Para-14, this
witness admitted that no demand of dowry was made by the accused persons
from him. This witness admitted in Para-11 that his brother-in-law Ganga
had informed Rampal that marriage will be performed though his niece
suffers from fits. Thus, this witness admitted the fact that Anita was suffering
from Epilepsy. In Para-12, this witness admits that Bhaskar or his family had
not demanded any dowry either before marriage or after marriage and
marriage was performed in a very peaceful manner. He also admitted that
there was no dispute in regard to demand of dowry either at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
7 CRA-5091-2021
marriage or at the time of Bidai. In Para-16, this witness admitted that
complete expenses for treatment of Anita were borne by her in-laws. He
further admits that after being referred to Satna Hospital accused persons had
taken her to Satna and had admitted her at Satna where she was given
treatment. Her last rites and other rituals were performed by Bhaskar and his
family. He further admits in Para-18 that before the incident or after the
incident, he had not made any report to the police station. He further admits
in Para-18 that there was no tension between him and the accused persons
before this incident. In Para-19, it is stated that when Anita visited him for
the last time thereafter when she left for her matrimonial home, then he had
not met her till the date of the incident. He also admits that till the date of the
incident, there was no conversation with her on telephone. In Para-20, he
further admits that accused persons had not demanded any dowry from him.
In Para- 21, this witness has stated that he cannot say that Anita had a fit of
epilepsy as a result of which she died whereas in Para-11, he has admitted
that she was suffering from epilepsy.
16. Witness- Kusumiyabai (PW-4) has corroborated the statements
of PW-3. She has also admitted that there was no demand of dowry. She
categorically stated that there was no demand of dowry either by Bhaskar or
Lalti in front of her. She has admitted that she had no information that after
breakfast Lalti had gone to fields whereas Bhaskar was in his shop. She has
further admitted that she cannot say that Bhaskar was sitting with Anita when
Satish had gone running to the fields to call his parents. Thereafter, she
stated that she cannot say that Bhaskar had informed her son that Anita had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
8 CRA-5091-2021
sustained burn injuries while preparing food. She admitted that complete
expenses for treatment etc. were borne by Bhaskar and last rights of Anita
were performed by Bhaskar. She also admits that though her family members
had attended last rites of the Anita but nobody had participated in the 13th
day ritual.
17. Dr. Abhinav Chourasiya (PW-6) admitted that he had given
intimation to the police on 23.09.2018. Anita died at about 07:10 PM on
23.09.2018. He has also admitted that diseased was admitted by him in the
hospital at 6:36 PM. Intimation regarding death was sent at 7:10 PM. Doctor
has admitted in Para-3 that while deceased was preparing her meal, her saari
if catches fire as a result of which it is stated that it is possible that while
deceased was preparing her meals, her saari caught fire and therefore she got
burnt.
18. Rampal Sahu (PW-7) is brother of deceased. He has stated that
marriage of Anita was performed on 29.04.2018. In cross-examination,
though he stated that there was demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- but
admitted in Para- 11 that marriage of Anita was performed at the instance of
her maternal uncle Ganga. He admitted that Bhaskar is handicapped. He
further stated that he and his wife were against the marriage of Anita with
Bhaskar. He categorically stated that though his family had agreed for
marriage but he was against that marriage. However he admits that at the
time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry. Marriage was performed in
a peaceful and cordial atmosphere. There was no demand of dowry. At the
time of Bidai also there was no demand of dowry. In Para-14, this witness
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
9 CRA-5091-2021
admitted that Anita had visited them on 16.09.2018 and thereafter he had
never met Anita till the date of the incident. He further admits that after
marriage of Anita, he had visited Anita on several occasions but admits that
there was no demand of dowry on any of these occasions. He further admits
that there was no harassment of his sister in her matrimonial home in front of
him.
19. Thereafter, Dr. Sudeep Awadhiya (PW-9) who had admitted her
for the first time at Civil Hospital, Maihar categorically stated that she was
brought by her husband for treatment. She was conscious well oriented. She
had 63% superficial burn. He further admits in cross examination that Anita
was brought by her husband and in-laws for treatment to Civil Hospital,
Maihar. He had admitted her in the hospital. He had sent requisition to the
police station through ward boy Gorelal without there being any delay but no
person from the police station, Maihar visited the hospital or Anita. He
further stated that there were no marks of struggle or beating on the body of
Anita. He further admits that in MLC report (Exhibit-P/14), there is no
mention of smell of kerosene. He further clarifies that if there would have
been any smell of kerosene, then he would have mentioned the same in his
report (Exhibit-P/14). He further admits that there were only superficial
burns on the skin of Anita. He has admitted in Para-6 that such injuries could
have been sustained while Pallu catches fire when injured is preparing food.
20. Gorelal (PW-11) admitted that he had given Pre-MLC (Exhibit-
P/14) to Police Station, Maihar and it contains his signatures from A to A
part.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
10 CRA-5091-2021
21. Dr. Amar Singh (PW-12) conducted post-mortem and admits
that she had sustained superficial and deep burn. There were no signs of
struggle and beating on her body. No smell of kerosene was found on her
body. He has further admitted that if there would have been any smell of
kerosene, he would have definitely mentioned it in Exhibit- P/16 that is his
report. He had not seized any clothes from the body of the deceased. He
further admitted that such injuries could have been caused if pallu of a
women while preparing meals catches fire.
22. Ravi Shankar Pandey (PW-13) SDOP who had carried out
investigation, in Para-13, admits that he had received intimation from Maihar
Hospital at Police Station Maihar in regard to the accident. He further admits
that on the basis of that report, which was received in the police station, no
entry was made in the Rojnamcha Sanha nor any letter was written to the
officials. In Para-15, he admits that he had recorded the FIR and carried out
investigation. He admits that no complaint was made to him. He admits that
relatives of the deceased had not given any complaint to him but they had
approached him when he had called them by giving intimation. On record,
statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. are available but they all
were taken on 08.10.2018 or 12.10.2018.
23. After going through the record, the requirement of Section 113-
B of Evidence Act to draw an assumption of commission of an offense under
Section 304-B of IPC is that there should be cruelty soon before her death or
harassment in connection with any demand for dowry, then only
presumption can be drawn as dowry death. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
11 CRA-5091-2021
that there was no demand of dowry. They have also admitted that there was
no cruelty, which is corroborated with the evidence of Dr. Awadhiya (PW-9)
that there were no signs of struggle or marpeet on the body of the injured
Anita. This fact is also corroborated by Dr. Amar Singh (PW-12) who had
conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Anita.
24. Therefore, when prosecution has failed to prove two of the
ingredients of Section 113-B namely harassment or cruelty soon before the
incident and demand of dowry then it is evident that PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7
so also PW-2 Ganga have admitted that at the time of marriage there was no
demand of dowry. At the time of Bidai there was no demand of dowry. PW-
3 and PW-7 have gone to the extent saying that no dowry was ever
demanded from them. PW-3, stated that Anita used to complain about
harassment to her sister-in-law Bela, but prosecution has not examined Bela
in the Court of law. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration, then
in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Chabi Karmakar and others
vs State of West Bengal reported in (2025) 1 SCC 398 wherein it is held that
where evidence has not established that deceased was subjected to cruelty
soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry, then case of
dowry death under Section 304-B is not made out. It is further held that the
trial Court committed an error in raising a presumption under section 113-B
and resultantly conviction under section 304-B was set aside.
25. Similarly, in case of Shoor Singh and another vs. State of
Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 2 SCC 815 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that in absence of requisite ingredients attracting dowry death and for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
12 CRA-5091-2021
drawing its presumption, the case will be that of acquittal. In that case, facts
were that diseased wife committed suicide by burning herself within seven
years of her marriage in her matrimonial home. Issue arose, whether
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relative, soon before her death, in connection with any demand for dowry.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that there was no police complaint or FIR
in regard to the harassment of the diseased for any reason whatsoever. As in
the present case, there was no social Panchayat or caste Panchayat convened
complaining about demand of dowry or related harassment. In view of such
facts, Supreme Court held that presumption under section 113-B of Evidence
Act is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in
connection with any demand for dowry which is one of the essential
ingredients of the offense of "dowry death" then if prosecution fails to prove
the essential ingredients of offence of "dowry death" then conviction cannot
be sustained. In the present case, facts are identical. Prosecution has failed to
prove the ingredients of cruelty soon before death or demand of dowry. In
fact, there is a tacit admission of the fact made by PW-3, that deceased Anita
was suffering from epilepsy. Doctors have admitted that while preparing
food on a stove or gas if pallu comes in contact with fire, then such injuries
could have been sustained. It has come on record that Anita was wearing a
Saari when she was brought to the hospital. Investigating Officer has
admitted that article 'A' that is the shawl, which is reported to be smelling of
kerosene in the FSL report (Exhibit-P/34) was not identified by anybody.
Even otherwise, in the month of September in the central India, there does
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21098
13 CRA-5091-2021
not arise any occasion to wear a shawl and therefore this piece of evidence
being not corroborated, will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
26. It has also come on record that after death of Anita since
relationships were severed as is admitted by PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7,
it's a case of over implication inasmuch as I.O. has admitted no complaints
were made till he called the witnesses to record their statements under
section 161 of Cr.P.C.
27. Thus, it appears to be a case of false implication. Since
prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 113-B of Evidence
Act so to constitute an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, conviction of
the appellants from charges under section 304-B, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are set aside.
28. Appeal is allowed and disposed off.
29. Appellants if not required, be immediately released. Fine amount,
if any deposited by them be returned back to them within 30 days of their
release.
30. Bail bonds of appellant No.2 are discharged.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VB*
