[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Subhash Bhosle & Ors. on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
1 CRA-38-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 38 of 1998
THE STATE OF M.P.
Versus
SUBHASH BHOSLE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Pandey - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Amit Verma - Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on :- 21/01/2026
Pronounced on :- 24/02/2026
.......................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari
The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P.
against the judgment dated 8/07/1997 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) in S.T. No.305/1996 whereby the respondents have
been acquitted from the charge of Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of I.P.C.
2. Complainant Saheb Rao (PW-11) made a written complaint Ex. P-28 to
the authority of Police Station Nishantpura, District Bhopal (M.P.) with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
2 CRA-38-1998
allegation that my daughter Ranjana's marriage was solemnized with
respondent no.1 Subhash Bhosele on 26/11/1995 with Hindu rituals and
customs. Near about 11/2 month, my daughter remained in a matrimonial
house peacefully. Thereafter, the respondents started harassing and ill-
treating her with cruelty for demand of 5 tolas gold. He further alleged that
his daughter regularly visited her parental house and told to her mother that
the respondents are harassing her for little disputes. She further informed her
mother that the respondents are regularly demanding five tolas of gold from
her. Due to said harassment, my daughter was burnt.
3. On the said application, the F.I.R. under Crime No.324/1996 under
Section 498-A of I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Nishantpura. The
police authority started the investigation and arrested the accused persons.
During investigation, deceased Ranjana died on 31/05/1996. The police
authority prepared the lash panchnama and sent the dead body for
postmortem. During investigation, the articles have been seized and the
statement of family members were recorded. Prior to that, the police
authority had also recorded the statement of the deceased Ex. P-37. The
police authority after concluding the investigation, filed a chargesheet before
the competent Magistrate.
4. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the chargesheet, committed
the case and sent the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The learned
Sessions Court registered the case as S.T. No.38/1998 and framed the
charges against the respondents under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.
and in alternate 306 of I.P.C. The respondents refused to accept the charges
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
3 CRA-38-1998
and wished to face the trial.
5. The prosecution substantiated its case, examined as many as 20
prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-20 and also exhibited the documents.
The respondents in their deposition under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. submits
that they have not committed any offence. They are innocent persons and
they have been falsely implicated. They have never made any demand for
dowry at any point of time. The deceased herself by pouring kerosene oil set
fire, resultantly, she has died. They have also examined DW-1 Sandhya
Bhosele in support of their defence.
6. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 8/07/1997
acquitted the respondents from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and
306 of I.P.C. by holding that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond any reasonable doubt.
7. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the
State Government on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly
appreciated the relevant material on record and acquitted the respondents by
recording the perverse findings.
8. Learned Government Advocate has advanced the arguments that father
of the deceased has made a written complaint to the police station just after
the incident in which, he specifically alleged that marriage of his daughter
was solemnized with Subhash and after some time of marriage, the accused
persons started harassment and ill treatment for demand of dowry of five
tolas of gold. The said contention was supported by PW-12 Anant Kumar,
PW-13 Vijay Kumar and PW-14 Chandrakala More. The police authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
4 CRA-38-1998
has also recorded the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the
deceased in which the deceased herself stated that just after the marriage, she
was subjected to cruelty and harassment and the accused persons used to
demand five tolas of gold from her and her family members and due to said
harassment, ill treatment and cruelty, she has committed suicide.
9. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that Section 304
provides the punishment of dowry death and Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act provides the presumption for dowry death. The prosecution by
leading oral documentary evidence has properly established its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal and conviction of
the respondents under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has advanced the argument and
submitted that when the deceased set fire, they immediately admitted the
deceased in Government Hospital on 25/05/1996. The first aid was provided
at Medical Hospital by Lieutenant General Suresh Chandra. PW-18 Nayab
Tehsildar Shri R.S. Bhaskar in the presence of Doctor recorded the dying
declaration of the deceased Ex. P-4 in which she replied on asking the
specific question that she set fire on herself by pouring kerosene oil due to
domestic tension. On answering about the said domestic tension, she replied
that my matrimonial householder did not like my domestic work. There is no
value of Ex. P-37 which is the statement of the deceased recorded by the
police authority under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. because it is not admissible
in law. More so, there is no endorsement on such statement of the Doctor
about the medical condition and she is capable to give the statement. On
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
5 CRA-38-1998
getting the information that Ranjana set fire, her family members reached at
Hospital and, thereafter, father of the deceased reached at Police Station and
only informed that my daughter set fire but he has not disclosed that how she
set fire and he has also not disclosed the fact about the demand of dowry and
subsequently on the next day by making the written complaint Ex. P-28, he
levelled the allegations for demand of dowry. As per the postmortem report,
the deceased died due to complications of superficial burn injury.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that other
witnesses like PW-2 Suresh Kumar Ingle, PW-12 Anant Kumar, PW-13
Vijay Kumar and PW-14 Chandrakala More are the family members of the
deceased and prior to the incident, they have not made any complaint before
any competent authority in respect of demand of dowry. First time, the said
allegation was levelled either by making the written complaint or recording
the statement which resulted in afterthought. Thus, the impugned judgment
is well reasoned and speaking order and, therefore, learned counsel for the
respondents prays for dismissing the appeal.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. As per the record, the deceased got admitted in the Military Hospital at
3:10 P.M. on 25/05/1996 where first aid was provided by PW-7 Lieutenant
General Suresh Chandra. After following the due process, a dying
declaration was recorded by PW-18 R.S. Bhaskar Nayab Tehsildar. In the
said dying declaration, the deceased categorically replied the answer that she
herself set fire by pouring kerosene oil due to some family tension. PW-11
Saheb Rao and other family members after getting the information that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
6 CRA-38-1998
Ranjana set fire and admitted in the Military Hospital reached there and till
registration of the F.I.R., they have not told anybody about the fact that his
daughter set fire because she was subjected to cruelty and harassment due to
demand of dowry.
14. After registration of the F.I.R., the police authority has recorded the
statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex. P-37. In the said
statement of 161 Cr.P.C., there is no endorsement of the Doctor about her
medical condition or the condition to give such statement.
15. On a bare perusal of statement of PW-11 Saheb Rao (father), PW-12
Anant Kumar, PW-13 Vijay Kumar (uncle) and PW-14 Chandrakala More
(mother), it is clear that the allegation of demand of dowry was first time
made when she was admitted in the Hospital undergoing the medical
treatment of burn injury. In the cross-examination, they have stated that
prior to the incident, they have not made any complaint before any
competent authority. PW-11 Saheb Rao in para 7 of his cross-examination
has admitted that on the night of 25th May, 1996, he gave information to the
police authority in respect of setting fire by his daughter, at that time, he has
not levelled any allegation about the demand of dowry.
16. Section 304-B of I.P.C. provides the punishment of dowry death.
Section 304-B is reproduced as under :-
" [304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
7 CRA-38-1998
death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation -- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall
have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years
but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] "
17. The presumption of dowry death is provided under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is
reproduced as under :-
" 113-B. Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and
it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall
have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860)]. "
18. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid sections together, it is clear that
dowry death is presumed when the death is caused within seven years of
marriage in unnatural circumstances and the deceased was subjected for or
any other harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. In the dying
declaration, Ex. P-4, the deceased while replying the answer stated that she
herself set fire by pouring kerosene oil due to family tension occurred
between her and the accused persons. Therefore, the allegation of Section
306 of I.P.C was levelled and the charges were also framed in alternative.
19. On bare perusal of the entire record, we do not find any material
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16585
8 CRA-38-1998
available on record to show that the deceased was beaten by the accused
persons for demand of dowry, due to which, she has committed suicide.
20. In overall consideration of facts and material available on record as
well as the arguments advanced by both the parties, we have no hesitation to
hold that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality, perversity
or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment and we do not find
any substantial force in interfering with the impugned judgment dated
8/07/1997.
21. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed.
22. Record of the court below be sent back.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vy
