[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babban Rao on 13 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3070
1 CRA-11534-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11534 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BABBAN RAO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, Deputy Advocate General for appellant.
Shri Shivnarayan Prajapati, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of judgment dated
27.5.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Bhainsdehi, District
Betul in Sessions Trial No.50/2018 acquitting the accused persons, namely,
Baban Rao and Meerabai (respondents herein) from the charges of Section
304B and in the alternative Sections 306 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short "I.P.C").
2. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that the
prosecution case in short is that Ranjana was married with Gajanan (PW.1)
in May, 2014. The marriage was performed as per community rituals. On
30.8.2018, Ranjana and her infant child were found dead. The death was on
account of drowning in a Well situated in their field. The allegation is that
the accused persons, namely, Baban Rao and Meerabai, who are respectively
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3070
2 CRA-11534-2023
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Ranjana used to torture her
for small things including demand of dowry. When the prosecution witnesses
in their examination-in-chief have categorically supported the case of the
prosecution then there was no occasion for the learned Trial Judge to record
a finding of acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that all the witnesses after
stating something in their examination-in-chief or when subjected to leading
questions after being declared hostile have not supported the prosecution
case in their cross-examination and when evidence is read in totality then it
cannot be said that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
to fulfill the requirement of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
to bring out a case within the fourcorners of Section 304B of the I.P.C or to
fulfill the requirement of Section 107 of the I.P.C to show that there was any
act of abetment so to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
He also points out that there was no demand of dowry proved and, therefore,
the finding of acquittal does not call for any interference.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
5. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in the present
case. The marriage card of Ranjana with Gajanan is available on record as
Exhibit P/4. Admittedly, their marriage was performed on 24.5.2014. It is
also an admitted fact that the incident took place on 30.8.2018. Thus, the
incident took place within seven years of the marriage.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3070
3 CRA-11534-2023
6. Gajanan (PW.1), husband of deceased Ranjana, was not made an
accused and was examined as a prosecution witness. He categorically states
that Ranjana wanted to move out of the rural setup and settle down at Athner
with a view to have better education for her son. There was no dispute either
between the husband or wife or with the in-laws. He states that accused No.1
Baban Rao had asked Ranjana to not to go to Athner because their financial
condition was not upto the mark but that probably enraged Ranjana.
7. Santosh Boptey (PW.2) after having said that there was unnecessary
interference in the life of Ranjana and she was deprived of basic amenities of
life in cross-examination admitted that there was no harassment and on the
date of the incident, Ranjana had visited the house of Kundlik Rao (PW.7)
and he had informed that Ranjana had visited his house on 30.8.2018. She
had complained that she wanted to go to Athner but her in-laws were
refusing to support her stand. Apart from this, there was no other
conversation with Kundlik Rao (PW.7).
8. Nirmala Bai (PW.3) admits that at the time of the marriage, whatever
gifts were given to Ranjana were brought back by them before performance
of 13th day ceremony of Ranjana. She admits that the police had obtained
her signatures on blank papers.
9. Ganesh Barde (PW.4) after stating that there was some altercation on
account of not providing bare necessity of life admitted in cross-examination
that 2-3 months' prior to the death, Ranjana had visited their house. She
stayed there for fifteen days and had gone back to her in-laws' house. He
admits that when the last rites were performed at Javra, that time, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3070
4 CRA-11534-2023
complainant party had participated in the last rites ceremonies.
10. Narayan (PW.5) was also declared hostile and in cross-examination, he
admits that the police had obtained signatures on blank papers, which were
never read over to him. He admits that the only point of dispute between
Ranjana and Gajanan was with regard to settlement at Athner. Ranjana
wanted to settle at Athner whereas Gajanan wanted to stay back with his
father & mother.
11. Parvati (PW.6) states that since Ranjana had jumped into a Well
alongwith her son, therefore, there was anger with her in-laws. The papers on
which the police personnel had obtained her thumb impression were not read
by her. She admits in her cross-examination that the only point of dispute
between Ranjana and her husband Gajanan was that Gajanan was not getting
her proper treatment. In Paragraph No.5, this witness admits that since
Ranjana had jumped into a Well out of anger, they had initiated police
proceedings against the accused party.
12. Kundlik Rao (PW.7) states that on 30.8.2018, Ranjana had visited his
house and had left his house after sometime and later on he came to know
that she had committed suicide. In cross-examination, this witness admits
that Ranjana, her husband Gajanan, mother-in-law Meerabai and father-in-
law Baban Rao were living cordially with each other. She never made any
complaint with regard to any torture or demand of dowry.
13. Dr.Jitendra Atre (PW.10), who had conducted the postmortem, states
that there was no external injury mark on the body of the deceased and the
cause of death was drowning.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3070
5 CRA-11534-2023
14. The investigating Officer P.S.Thakur (PW.11) admits in Paragraph
No.6 of his cross-examination that the deceased used to insist her husband to
shift to Athner for education of their child. This witness also admits that he
had not recorded statement of any independent witness residing in or around
the house of Ranjana's in-laws.
15. Santosh Singh (PW.12) admits that he had not gathered any
information while investigating merg that there was any dispute amongst the
deceased on one hand and her in-laws on other hand.
16. When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that
the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
there being no independent witness with regard to either demand of dowry or
abetment of suicide, the finding of acquittal of the respondents recorded by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-Bhainsdehi, District Betul in Sessions
Trial No.50/2018 vide impugned judgment dated 27.5.2023 cannot be faulted
with.
17. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
18. Let record of the Trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
