[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malti Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3405
1 CRA-8594-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8594 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PRADEEP SONI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh - Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8523 of 2019
MALTI SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Christopher Antony - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh - Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State
Shri Rakesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
These appeals have been filed by the State and the complainant party
respectively being aggrieved of judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by
learned 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.544/2012
whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons, namely,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3405
2 CRA-8594-2019
Pradip Soni, Sandip Soni and Vidyabai from the charges under Section 304-
B in the alternate 302, 306 and 498A of IPC so also from charges under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant party submits
that marriage of the deceased Kanchan was performed with Pradip Soni on
18.02.2012. Kanchan had put herself on fire on 08.07.2012, therefore, it is
evident that death of Kanchan occurred under unnatural circumstances within
less than 5 months of marriage, therefore, trial Court erred in recording a
finding of acquital against the accused persons. It is submitted that the
presumption under Section 304-B as can be drawn in the light of Section
113B of Evidence Act is un-rebuttal and that presumption should have been
drawn by the learned trial Court while passing the judgment.
3. Shri Rakesh Shukla, learned counsel for the accused persons
supports impugned judgment and submits that dying declaration (Ex.P-5) of
Kanchan is crystal clear and in the dying declaration Kanchan has
categorically stated that she had an altercation with her mother-in-law, when
she had put herself on fire.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, PW1 is the mother of the victim, namely, Malti Soni. Malti Soni
after having stated that at the time of fixation of marriage, there was a
demand of Rs.40,000/- which was met by her, admitted in cross-examination
that there was no demand after marriage. She admitted that she had not
cancelled the marriage on account of any demand. She further admits that
she had not made any complaint or raised any objection to the so called
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3405
3 CRA-8594-2019
demand of Rs.40,000/-.
5. She also admits that at the time of marriage, there was no demand.
She also admits that she had engaged her private counsel. She in para 10 of
her cross-examination, she stated that at Mohanlal Hargivnd Das Hospital,
Kanchan died in front of her and prior to her death this witness PW1 had
talked with the deceased.
6. Similar statements have been given by Mama of the victim,
namely, Uday Chand Soni (PW-2). Therefore, none of the prosecution
witnesses PW1 and PW2 have proved demand of dowry soon before the
incident.
7. PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar Verma has stated that he was working as
Medical Specialist at Mohanlal Hargovind Das Hospital on 07.07.2012.
Injured Kanchan Soni wife of Pradip was admitted. He had certified that
Kanchan was in a position to give her statements and thereafter her
statements as contained in Ex.P-5 were recorded by the Executive
Magistrate.
8. PW4 Dr. Vivek Shrivastava, Assistant Professor of Forensic
Medicine at Medical College, Jabalpur had conducted post-mortem and
opined that deceased died because of shock on account of 95% burn injuries
sustained by her. In cross-examination this witness admitted that probability
of victim putting herself on fire cannot be ruled out.
9. PW7 Shri Anoop Shrivastava, Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate
recorded the dying declaration. He has reproduced the dying declaration and
proved it as such. In cross-examination this witness has categorically stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3405
4 CRA-8594-2019
that Kanchan had never informed him about any cruelty or any demand
which prompted her to commit suicide.
10. When these facts are taken into consideration then the
ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC having been not proved by the
prosecution, acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be faulted with.
Mere emotional angle in a case is not sufficient especially when it has come
on record as stated by deceased/Kanchan in her dying declaration that it was
in fact her Devar who had saved her and quenched the fire and admitted her
to the hospital. Thus prosecution blindly registering cases against innocent
persons and having failed to prove them filing appeals without there being
any substance is a practice which needs to be deprecated because such
frivolous appeals could unnecessary load on the system.
11. Both the appeals fail and dismissed accordingly.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SM
