[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramgopal Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
1 CRA-9229-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9229 of 2024
RAMGOPAL MEENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Kaushal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Arvind Kumar Singh - Public Prosecutor for State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, is filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'),
being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.01.2024, passed by the learned
Tenth Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (OAW), District Bhopal
(M.P.), in Sessions Trial No.182 of 2018, whereby learned trial Court has
acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') from
the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 in alternative 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that the marriage of deceased
Poonam took place with the respondent No.2 Rajesh Deshwadi in December,
2011. It is alleged that after about four years of marriage on 17.08.2017 she
committed suicide on account of harassment and ill-treatment given by her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
2 CRA-9229-2024
husband Rajesh, father-in-law Kunjilal and mother-in-law Sugnabai in
connection with demand of dowry. On 17.08.2017, the brother-in-law
Rajendra Deshwadi has informed at Police Station Piplani that Poonam
Deshwadi had committed suicide by hanging herself with her sari. Merg No.
46/2017 was registered. On the basis of the material collected, offences
under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code under
Crime No.505/2017 was registered against accused Rajesh, Kunjilal and
Sugnabai. During the course of inquiry, statements of the father, mother and
sister of the deceased were recorded. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhopal, which, on its turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions where
it was received by the trial Court for trial.
3. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the
charge-sheet framed charges against the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 under
Sections 498-A and 306 in alternative under 304-B of the IPC. The accused
persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 15 witnesses, namely Rakesh Deshwadi (P.W.1), Susheel Kumar
Meena (P.W.2), Ramgopal Meena (P.W.3), Deepika (P.W.4), Nemichand
(P.W.5), Constable Satyendra Singh Tomar (P.W.6), Prem Singh Meena
(P.W.7), Sheron (P.W.8), Soniya Patel (P.W.9), Smt. Gaurabai (P.W.10),
Head Constable Sher Singh (P.W.11), Dr. Gaurav Tiwari (P.W.12), Virendra
Mishra (P.W.13), Rakesh Kumar Mishra (P.W.14) and Inspector Nilesh
Awasthi (P.W.15) and placed Ex.P-1 to P-15 the documents on record;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
3 CRA-9229-2024
whereas in defence, the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 have examined as
many as 02 witnesses namely Dr. S.K. Tandon (D.W.1) and Dr. R.N. Sahu
(D.W.2) and placed Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-13 the documents on record.
5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial
Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 from the
charges under Sections 498-A and 306 in alternative Section 304-B of the
IPC.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted
that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 4
primarily on the basis of certain minor contradictions in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, without properly appreciating the material evidence
and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Susheel Kumar Meena
(P.W.2) Ramgopal Meena (P.W.3) and Deepika (P.W.4) have consistently
supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Susheel Kumar Meena
(P.W.2) has categorically deposed that his sister Poonam was subjected to
harassment by respondent Nos.2 to 4 on account of continuous demand of
motorcycle as dowry. In paragraph-68 of his deposition, he has stated that
his father had telephonically contacted respondent No.2 Rajesh to inquire
about Poonam's deteriorating health and the father of Rajesh assured him
that she would be taken care of. This circumstance clearly indicates that
Poonam was not being properly treated at her matrimonial home. Ramgopal
Meena (P.W.3) has also specifically stated that at the time of marriage, a
demand of motorcycle was raised and was somehow settled. However,
subsequent to the marriage, Poonam was continuously harassed for non-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
4 CRA-9229-2024
fulfilment of the said dowry demand. Deepika (P.W.4) has deposed that on
16.08.2017 i.e. just one day prior to the incident, Poonam had telephoned her
and disclosed the harassment being meted out to her. Despite seizure of the
mobile phone vide Ex.P-15, the Investigating Officer failed to collect and
produce the call detail records. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 were fully aware
of the mental condition of Poonam prior to her marriage, yet instead of
providing care and support, they subjected her to cruelty and harassment. The
evidence on record clearly establishes that after marriage, Poonam was
subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment, leaving her with no
alternative but to take the extreme step of committing suicide. In view of the
aforesaid, the impugned judgment acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 4 of the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 in alternative 304-B of the
IPC is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore,
deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. Accordingly, it has been
prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the respondents No.2 to
4/accused persons be convicted and sentenced appropriately in accordance
with law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Dr. Gaurav Tiwari (P.W.12) has conducted the postmortem of the
deceased and he opined that the deceased was died due to asphyxia as a
result of hanging. The statement of this witness reveals that there was no any
external injury found on the person of the deceased indicative of any cruelty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
5 CRA-9229-2024
and harassment committed with her. The statement of this witness clearly
establishes the fact that death of the deceased was suicidal in nature. In this
respect the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court does not call for
any interference.
10. As far as the culpability of the respondents No.2 to 4 are concerned, it
revealed from the testimony of important witnesses namely Susheel Kumar
Meena (P.W.2), Ramgopal (P.W.3) and Deepika (P.W.4) that the deceased
was suffering from mental illness since 2006-2007 and had been undergoing
treatment in various hospitals and under the supervision of Dr. R.N. Sahu
and Dr. S.K. Tandon. Both these doctors have been examined on behalf of
the defence as D.W.1 and D.W.2. Though, Susheel Kumar Meena (P.W.2),
Ramgopal (P.W.3) and Deepika (P.W.4) have stated that the accused persons
have demanded motorcycle in dowry, but it also revealed from the
statements of Dr. R.N. Sahu (D.W.1) and Dr. S.K. Tandon (D.W.2) that the
deceased was under continuous medical treatment for her mental ailment
with the aforesaid defence witnesses.
11. Susheel Kumar Meena (P.W.2) in his examination-in-chief has stated
that accused Rajesh had informed his father that Poonam usually gets very
angry. He in paragraph-10 of his cross-examination categorically admitted
that he had frequent conversations with the elder brother of the accused, yet
he never lodged any complaint regarding harassment or ill-treatment given to
the deceased. In paragraph-11, he stated that on one occasion he visited the
matrimonial home of the deceased along with his parents and witnessed a
quarrel there. Material contradictions and omissions are apparent in his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
6 CRA-9229-2024
deposition, particularly in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. He also
admitted in paragraph-19 that the mental illness of the deceased had
continued till 2016. In paragraph-23 he reiterated the fact that in the year
2016 when the deceased had come to her parental home, his father admitted
her to a mental health hospital for her treatment. It is pertinent to mention
here that the date of incident was 17.08.2017 and as per the statement of this
witness at the time of incident the deceased was still undergoing treatment
for her mental illness.
12. Ramgopal Meena (P.W.3) has stated in his examination-in-chief that
all the three accused persons have committed cruelty with her daughter as a
result of which, she committed suicide, but he has not categorically stated
that it was due to the demand of dowry. He in his cross-examination has
admitted that he had been providing psychiatric treatment to his daughter
from Dr. S.K. Tandon and such treatment has continued since 2006. He
further admitted that she was also treated by Dr. R.N. Sahu and in the year
2016 he had got her admitted to the hospital of Dr. R.N. Sahu. He also
admitted that Ex.D-7 to Ex.D-11 are the prescriptions of her daughter's
treatment. He also admitted in paragraph-15 that Rajesh had purchased a
mobile phone of Rs.16,000/- for the deceased. They have not lodged any
complaint to the police or elsewhere against accused persons. He in
paragraph-16 has admitted that Ex.D-12 is a settlement letter but since these
conditions of settlement have not been fulfilled by the accused Rajesh,
therefore, such settlement could not have been materialized. The admission
by this witness in paragraph-17 are pertinent to the tune that since the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
7 CRA-9229-2024
conditions of settlement have not been complied with by the accused Rajesh,
hence, he has filed the complaint otherwise, he has no complaint with the
accused persons. Such admission is clearly indicative of the fact that there
was no demand of dowry on behalf of the accused persons so also no cruelty
has been meted out by them. It reveals that due to the non compliance of the
settlement deed (Ex.P-12), the complaint in this case has been instituted.
13. It is also surfaced from the evidence on record especially the evidence
of defence witnesses Dr. S.K. Tandon (D.W.1) and Dr. R.N. Sahu (D.W.2)
that since 2007 the deceased was under the treatment of these two mental
health experts and such treatment was continued up to 2017 just before the
incident. It is also revealed from the statement of Dr. S.K. Tandon (D.W.1)
that the deceased was suffering from M.D.P. Mania in which the patient has
become excessively talkative and aggressive. The patient would frequently
undergo episodes of depression from time to time. Dr. R.N. Sahu (D.W.2)
has corroborated this fact. He in paragraph-5 has categorically stated that the
deceased was suffering from the mental disease BPAD, which involves
episodes of depression and mania. He also admitted in paragraph-6 that the
deceased was suffering from mania and in such a condition, there exists a
possibility of the patient committing suicide.
14. It is also admitted by Ramgopal Meena (PW-3) that in 2016 his
daughter has not made any specific complaint to him. Due to her illness, she
become physically weak and her complexion had become dark. The
statement of this witness also suffered from various contradictions and
omissions as it evident from paragraph-21 of his statement. He in paragraph-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
8 CRA-9229-2024
23 also admitted that her daughter soon before her death was in habit of
taking sleeping pills and therefore, she was unable to perform household
work and remained asleep most of the time. He further admitted that the
mother-in-law of the deceased used to complain that she used to sleep all the
time and did not perform any household work. Consequently, the deceased
discontinued taking sleeping pills, which led to further deterioration of her
health.
15. Deepika (P.W.4) also deposed in the same line. She did not state in her
examination-in-chief that any demand of dowry was made on behalf of the
accused persons. She has indicated that since the accused persons used to
taunt the deceased on account of her mental condition and she heard that on
16.08.2017 just one day before the incident, a dispute had taken place in the
in-laws house of the deceased and since the accused persons tortured the
deceased, therefore, she committed suicide. She in her cross-examination has
admitted that the deceased was suffering from illness. She was having
sleeping problem and she often fell ill. When she fell ill, her treatment was
continued for a month or two. She used to consume sleeping pills also. She
also admits that deceased did not communicate her what has been transpired
between her and her husband. She beyond the story of the prosecution has
stated that the husband of the deceased had illicit relationship with other
woman which had caused mental stress to the deceased. The statement of this
witness also suffered from material omissions as reflected from paragraphs-
16, 17 and 18 of her statements.
16. It is surprising that the mother of the deceased (P.W.10) did not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
9 CRA-9229-2024
support the story of the prosecution at all. She stated that her daughter has
committed suicide but the reason for the same was unknown to her. She has
been declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she categorically admitted
that her daughter was suffering from mental illness. She was under treatment
of Dr. R.N. Sahu and Dr. S.K. Tandon, both of whom are Psychiatrists.
Rakesh Deshwadi (P.W.1), who is the witness of spot map (Ex.P-1) and
arrest memo Ex.P-2 to P-4 of the accused persons have also admitted that the
deceased was mentally ill since long and she was under the treatment of Dr.
R.N. Sahu and Dr. S.K. Tandon.
17. Nemichand (P.W.5), who is the witness of Safina form and Naksha
Panchayatnama has also admitted such fact. Prem Singh (P.W.7), who stated
that her wife Radha is the elder sister of the deceased has also admitted the
same fact as narrated above.
18. Virendra Mishra (P.W.13) is the Investigating Officer, who admitted
that he did not make any enquiry from the sister-in-laws (Jethani and
Devrani) of the deceased nor he has interrogated the neighbors with regard to
the alleged incident. He has not interrogated any independent witness
Though he attempted to explain that he had tried to record the statements of
independent witnesses out of whom none were willing to depose, yet such
assertions was not supported by any notice to the witnesses or there is any
recital in the case diary. He has further admitted that documents Ex.P-6 and
Ex.P-11 indicate that the deceased was suffering from mental illness and was
under the treatment of Psychiatrists namely Dr. R.N. Sahu and Dr. S.K.
Tandon. Despite the availability of such material on record, he did not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
10 CRA-9229-2024
examine the said doctors during the course of investigation. This omission
reflects a material lapse in the investigation. He also admitted that he has not
filed any document or statement showing the demand of dowry on behalf of
the accused persons and meted out cruelty by them with the deceased. He
also admitted that the parents or family members of the deceased has not
instituted any complaint in regard to the demand of dowry and meeting out
cruelty with the deceased. He also admitted in paragraph-19 that after the
merg enquiry he has not given any report qua any offence is made out or not.
19. The foregoing analysis of the evidence on record clearly indicates that
the prosecution has failed in proving the alleged offence against accused
persons. There is no clinching evidence against the accused persons in
respect of causing dowry death of the deceased or ill-treatment with her due
to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and to instigate or abet her to commit
suicide. To bring home the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the essential
ingredients constituting the offence of abetment, as defined under Section
107 of the IPC, which reads as under:-
"107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing."
20. The said definition of 'abatement' elucidates that there has to be
instigation by a person to do a thing, secondly the person must engage
himself with one or more than one person conspiring to do something and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
11 CRA-9229-2024
thirdly, there should be an intentional aid by the said person or illegal
omission on the part of the said person for doing of that thing. If the said
ingredients are established from the evidence available on record only in that
condition accused can be convicted under Section 306 of the IPC.
21. In the case of S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and others ,
(2010) 12 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention
of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court
is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
which happen in our day to day life. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from the other. Different people behave
differently in the same situation."
22. In the case of M. Mohan vs. State , AIR 2011 SC 1238, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that:-
"45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person
under section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit
the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act, which led
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide."
23. The ingredients under Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC was interpreted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
12 CRA-9229-2024
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 and the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
"14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well established.
To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement
of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or
incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission
of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she
would have no other option but to commit suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular
thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of
abetment would require the positive act of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without
such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent
from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section
cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or
indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased
with no other option but to commit suicide."
24. In the conspectus of the foregoing discussions, the charges under
Sections 498-A, 306 in alternative 304-Bof the IPC have not been found
proved against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. The
accused persons certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
25. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14
SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice
in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
13 CRA-9229-2024
case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere
with the same.
26. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3
SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while
deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarised as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial
and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address
all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover
all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or
fact in the decision of the trial court."...
27. Ex consequenti , the observations made by the learned Trial Court in
the impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12205
14 CRA-9229-2024
on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record has
rightly acquitted the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 from the charges under
Sections 498-A, 306 in alternative 304-B of the IPC. There is no ground for
interference with the findings of the learned trial Court. Therefore, while
affirming the findings of acquittal of accused/respondents No.2 to 4 by the
learned trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
28. The order of the trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property
is affirmed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
THK
