Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhaki Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
1 CRA-13371-2024
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 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13371 of 2024
CHHAKI LAL AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Baboo Ji Chourasia - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Learned counsel for the appellants does not wish to press I.A.No.3979
of 2025, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
appellant No.2 Ranjeet Balmik. Accordingly, I.A.No.3979 of 2025, is
dismissed as not pressed.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is
heard finally.
3. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed by the
appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 08/11/2024 passed by
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Nowgaon District Chhatarpur
(M.P.), in ST No.13/2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
2 CRA-13371-2024
sentenced as under :-
Fine
Appellants Conviction u/s Imprisonment In lieu of
amount
Life RI for 1
302 of IPC Rs.1000/-
imprisonment month
RI for 2
Ranjeet 498-A of IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/-
months
4 of Dowry RI for 1
RI for 2 years Rs.1000/-
Prohibition Act month
Chhakki RI for 2
498-A of IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/-
Lal months
4. The facts of the case in short are that on 23/12/2019 the deceased
Rubi Balmik and accused Ranjeet Balmik was admitted in the primary health
centre, Harpalpur in burnt condition. Thereafter deceased Rubi was
transferred to Community Health Center, Nowgaon. The information in this
regard was given to Police Station Harpalpur. As the condition of Rubi was
critical, therefore, she was referred to Jhansi Hospital where her treatment
was continued. During the treatment, Tehsildar, Nowgaon had recorded the
Dying Declaration (Ex.P/4) on 09/01/2020. Thereafter on 10/01/2020
deceased Rubi was referred to Medical College, Gwalior where she was died
on 02/02/2020 during treatment. Therefore, Merg No.66/2020 was registered
at Police Station Kampu District Gwalior. During the course of merg
inquiry, Police prepared the Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/2) after
summoning the witnesses and the postmortem (Ex.P/5) was conducted.
5. On receiving the diary of Merg No.66/2020 from Police Station
Kampu District Gwalior on 10/03/2020, Police Station Harpalpur registered
Merg No.06/2020. Since the deceased was newly married, the investigation
was carried out by Sub-Divisional Officer (Police Nowgaon). During
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
3 CRA-13371-2024
investigation, the statements of mother Rajkumari (PW-2), brother- Pawan
(PW-1) and Aakash (PW-3) were recorded. The marriage card (Ex.P/20) of
the deceased was seized. Thereafter, Police Station Harpalpur registered
FIR (Ex.P/21) Crime No.143/2020 under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 34 of
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons.
Spot map was prepared. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A & 34 of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed.
6. During trial, the appellants denied the charges levelled against him
and after prosecution evidence the appellants when examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and stated that deceased Rubi was burnt
while she was preparing the food and they tried to save her. It is also pleaded
that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, they have
produced Dr. Sanjana (DW-1) and Dr. Manjunath (DW-2) as defence
witnesses.
7 . Learned trial Court convicted the appellants as mentioned above
against which the appeal has been filed on the ground that the trial Court has
not properly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case. FIR has been
lodged after four months of the incident. During the treatment of the
deceased, family members of deceased were present in the hospital but no
complaint was made. Report was made as the appellants failed to fulfill the
demands of family members of the deceased. The trial Court has not
considered the contradictions and omissions. There is no demand of dowry or
ill-treatment. The mother and brother of the deceased were working in a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
4 CRA-13371-2024
private hospital and they were present at the time of dying declaration,
therefore, dying declaration is suspicious. Dr. Manjunath (DW-2), who is the
Doctor of Jhansi Hospital has stated that it was informed that the incident
took place due to accident while preparing food on account of which
deceased was burnt as clothes caught fire. As per statement of Dr. Omkar
(PW-17), appellant No.2 Ranjeet sustained burnt injury during to save his
wife i.e. deceased. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that appeal be
allowed and the appellants are acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. On perusal of the record, it is evident that prosecution has
recorded the statements of 17 witnesses whereas defence has produced two
witnesses. Prosecution has exhibited 25 documents whereas defence has
exhibited 10 documents.
11. The conviction of the appellants is based on dying declaration
i.e. Ex.P/4. As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 23 /12/2019
whereas the dying declaration has been recorded on 09/01/2020 i.e. after the
delay of 16 days. There is no evidence either oral or documentary as
conceded by learned Government Advocate at the time of arguments that
during the period of 16 days, the deceased was unconscious or in a highly
painful state so as to unable her to give dying declaration. This fact is
important so as to rule out the possibility of tutoring. In fact, the deceased
was treated at various hospital at Nowgaon, Chhatarpur, Jhansi and Gwalior.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
5 CRA-13371-2024
Pawan (PW-1) brother of the deceased and other brother Amardeep and
mother (PW-2) were with her and from 3-4 hospitals they got the deceased
discharged on their own risk which besides other facts may be a cause of
aggravating the medical condition from bad to worse and may be a additional
factor in the cause of death of the deceased and this also shows that being in
custody of her family accused were not in a position to pressurize deceased
in any way.
12. Postmortem has been conducted by Dr. Sarthak (PW-5) and on
perusal of postmortem report (Ex.P/5) as well as his statement in the Court, it
appears that the death was due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of burn
injuries and its complications. Duration of death is within 12 hours since
postmortem examination. Report does not specifically state whether the
death was accidental, homicidal or suicidal.
13. As per prosecution, the marriage took place on 07/05/2019,
therefore, the death of the deceased took place within 09 months from her
marriage. The defence of the accused as per the statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. is that the deceased died due to the burn injuries which were
caused while she was cooking food.
14. Dr. Sanjana (DW-1), District Hospital Chhatarpur has stated that
she has seen the deceased who was burnt about 60% to 70% and brother of
the deceased Amardeep had got her discharged from the hospital.
15. Dr. Manjunath (DW-2), Maharani Laxmibai Medical College,
Jhansi, has stated that on 24/12/2019 deceased Rubi W/o Ranjeet was
admitted in the hospital. Her brother Pawan told him that deceased was burnt
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
6 CRA-13371-2024
while she was cooking food as a result of burning of her clothes. In cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that information was given by brother
of deceased i.e. Pawan (PW-1). This witness denied that he has
wrongly/falsely mentioned this information that deceased was burnt while
cooking food.
16. Although Pawan (PW-1) has stated that her sister was subjected
to cruelty for demand of dowry including motorcycle, washing machine and
Rs.3 Lakh cash and they had told them that they will consider their demand.
Meanwhile, her sister was burnt. He has stated that her sister told that all four
appellants poured kerosene and set her on fire, therefore she was burnt and,
ultimately died in hospital. In cross-examination, in Para-7 this witness
admitted that regarding demand of dowry, before this incident, they did not
make any report to police. In para-10 it is also admitted that in Jhansi, doctor
advised them to take her sister to Gwalior but inspite of that, her sister was
taken to Nowgaon to lodge the report.
17. Mother of the deceased (PW-2) has given statement as stated by
her son Pawan (PW-1). In addition, she has stated that accused Ranjeet was
also saying that your daughter (deceased) is of black complexion therefore he
does not want to keep her daughter with him. In Para-2 she stated that in
hospital the condition of her daughter was serious. Accused were begging her
for letting them get her daughter treated therefore she took the deceased to
Jhansi Medical Hospital with them. She also stated in Para-3 that her
daughter told her that accused persons have burnt her. In Para-8 of her cross-
examination, she also admitted that hands of the Ranjeet was also burnt. She
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
7 CRA-13371-2024
also admitted that her daughter was admitted in Chhatarpur Hospital by
accused persons. She also admitted that she took her daughter along with
accused persons to Jhansi Medical College for treatment. In para-10 she
admitted that from Jhansi, in spite of doctor's advise to take her daughter to
Gwalior, she took her daughter to Harpalpur for report. She also admitted
that since accused persons went away from Jhansi without getting the
daughter treated, therefore, she (PW-2) was angry with them. In Para-11 of
her cross-examination, she further admitted that she took her daughter from
Nowgaon to Gwalior for treatment, after she had brought her daughter to
Harpalpur, she was talking normally and was eating & drinking also. In Para-
12 she further admitted that her daughter told her that her husband (Ranjeet)
is having illicit relation with his sister-in-law (bhabhi). She further admitted
that her daughter told her that she has seen the incident many times. She
further admitted that due to this reason, her daughter was angry. In Para-14
she admitted that she never reported to the police about the demand of dowry
before this incident.
18. Aakash Balmik (PW-3) has declared hostile by the prosecution.
19. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW-4) was deposed about the dying
declaration (Ex.P/4). In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that in
Ex.P/4 there is no clear cut noting of the doctor that deceased was in a
condition to give statement but he stated on his own that patient was in his
senses. This witness denied for recording the dying declaration with wrong
facts.
20. Dr. Sourabh Mishra (PW-13) has stated that deceased Rubi was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
8 CRA-13371-2024
brought to CHC, Nowgaon in a burnt condition. Information in this regard
was sent to the police which is Ex.P/13 dated 23/12/2019. This witness
further stated that on 09/01/2020 deceased was brought in serious condition
to CHC Hospital Nowgaon. The information was sent to Tahsildar for
recording her statement and he had certified that deceased Rubi was in a fit
condition to give statement. Family members of Rubi had brough her. In
Para-5 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that on
23/12/2019 when Rubi was brought to hospital for the first time, at that time
no dying declaration was recorded. In para-6 this witness further stated that
on 09/01/2020 injured Rubi was brought by Tahsildar Nowgaon along with
him. Ruby was giving statement with some pauses.
21. As per judgment dated 08/11/2024 besides the appellants
Ranjeet, Chhakkilal, Smt. Lalita and Chandra Prakash @ Rinku were put to
trial. The learned trial Court has acquitted Smt. Lalita and Chandra Prakash
@ Rinku from the charges under Sections 304-B or 304-B/34 and 302 or
302/34, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
22. Regarding the remaining appellants/accused, we find that doctor
(PW-5) has not opined whether the death of deceased was suicidal,
homicidal or accidental. Doctor of Government Medical College, Jhansi
who was examined as DW-2 has recorded this fact that brother of the
deceased told him that deceased got burnt while preparing the food. There is
no reason in the facts and circumstances of the case to disbelieve or discard
this fact, as it is expected and presumed that like prosecution witnesses i.e.
Doctor, Investigation Officer or the Naib Tahsildar (PW-4) who recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
9 CRA-13371-2024
the dying declaration (Ex.P/4), they also do their work honestly and
discharge their duties faithfully. There is no law that when a government
doctor or witness appears on behalf of prosecution then it has to be believed
that he is telling the truth and when the same witness or witness of the same
standing appears on behalf of the defence then he is to be disbelieved
outrightly without any valid reason.
23. Besides this, looking to the long gap between the incident and
dying declaration and also looking to the fact that in entire period, the
deceased was virtually in the care and custody of her family members,
therefore, possibility of tutoring her cannot be ruled out.
2 4 . In fact, Dr. Sourabh Mishra (PW-13) in Para-6 of his cross-
examination has admitted that Tahsildar brought her to Hospital and
condition of deceased was serious. Now this is a strange situation because in
normal circumstances, when dying declaration of the deceased was for any
reason not recorded on 23/12/2019 and when brother of the deceased on
voluntary discharge from Jhansi Hospital, did not take her to Gwalior
Hospital as advised by the doctor at Jhansi Hospital but brought her to
Primary Health Centre, Nowgaon. Then it should have been the doctor who
should or must have sent a requisition for recording the dying
declaration/statement on 09/01/2020 but in this case, it is the other way, as
the Naib Tahsildar who recorded the statement himself brought the deceased
to the hospital as per the statement of Dr. Mishra (PW-13) in cross-
examination in Para-6.
25. Mother of the deceased (PW-2) has stated that accused persons
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
10 CRA-13371-2024
were begging her to take her daughter to Jhansi Hospital for treatment,
therefore she took her to Jhansi Hospital, but after some time, when accused
went away then she got angry with them. PW-2 in para-12 also states that her
daughter suspected that accused Ranjeet (husband) was having illicit relation
with his bhabhi (sister-in-law). All these facts and above statements and the
situations as emerging from the evidence on record would show that it is
highly probable that the deceased who was not in a position to resist pressure
from family members who were taking her care and getting her treated, may
have stated something but in the dying declaration (Ex.P/4), the question
remains whether that was a voluntary and true account of the
incident/situation on that fateful day. As per Dr. Sourabh Mishra (PW-13),
the deceased was in a serious condition and was speaking taking pauses but
her dying declaration runs into four pages and mentions that her maternal
home is in Jhansi (therefore, the deceased was taken to Jhansi where her
mother lives and, therefore, no malafide can be attributed to the appellants in
begging mother of deceased for taking the deceased for treatment to Jhansi
Hospital). It is also mentioned in the dying declaration that marriage took
place with the consent of both the parties. Mother-in-law has expired. In
Para-10 it is mentioned that Jeth and Jethani took away her ornaments but
husband did not object to the same. Husband set her on fire but he also
extinguished the fire. Husband took her to Harpalpur for treatment and then
to Nowgaon but she was threatened that if she report the matter then they will
break hands and legs of her brother. Earlier when demand was made then her
mother talked to accused persons and they said that in future it will not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54661
11 CRA-13371-2024
happen. In Jhansi she was taken to many hospitals. The dying declaration
(Ex.P/4) is very long but whether the deceased gave all these statements on
her own volition in a conscious mind, under the facts and circumstances of
the case is doubtful.
26. All in all on the basis of evaluation of the oral and documentary
evidence, we find that this Court is unable to hold that dying declaration
(Ex.P/4) was the truthful version of the incident, given by the deceased with
free consent and under free state of mind, there is no earlier police report
before this incident regarding demand of dowry or ill-treatment of the
deceased. Hence, after appreciation of over all evidence available on record,
we find that the learned trial Court has failed to evaluate the oral or
documentary evidence correctly.
27. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, appeal is liable to
be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08/11/2024
is set aside.
28. The appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case. Case property be disposed off in terms of the orders of the learned trial
Court. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
