[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
1 CRA-3400-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3400 of 2022
RAMKUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the father of the victim being aggrieved of
judgment dated 28.01.2022 whereby learned Trial Court has acquitted the
accused Ravi Kumar Bunkar S/o Shri Ramavtar Bunkar from charges under
Sections 304-B, 498-A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla,
submits that marriage of deceased Roshni was performed with Ravi Kumar
on 15.04.2014. She committed suicide on 02.07.2018. Therefore, death
occurring within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances is a
sufficient circumstance to rebut the findings of acquittal and record a finding
of conviction.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
2 CRA-3400-2022
3. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla reading from the evidence of Siya Dulari
(PW-1), mother of the victim, submits that mother of the victim has stated
that there was a demand for Hero Honda 2 wheeler. For non fulfillment of
the said demand, Roshni was beaten and Ravi used to say that if they cannot
fulfill the demand then their daughter be taken away. It is also stated that
after killing the daughter i.e. Roshni, no phone call was given and when her
sister Meera called her then only they came to know that Roshni died.
4 . Similarly, Ram Kumar Bunkar (PW-2), father of the victim, has stated
that Roshni was his daughter. He had three daughters and two sons. Roshni
was third child, her marriage was performed with Ravi Bunkar on
15.04.2014. She was given Bidaai on the date of marriage itself. Roshni had
visited his house from her in-laws house on several occasions. Roshni had
one son and one daughter, daughter is aged about two years whereas son is
aged about eight months. Whenever Roshni used to visit him, she used to put
forth a demand of motorcycle and used to informed him that Ravi beats her
due to nonfulfillment of requirement of demand of giving a motorcycle in
dowry.
5 . Thus, it is submitted that there is cogent evidence of the parents of
Roshni and that has been overlooked while recording a finding of the
acquittal by the learned Trial Court.
6 . Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, in
her turn, submits that prosecution witness Meera Kori (PW-3) has not
supported prosecution case after being declared hostile. She has denied that
Roshni ever informed her in regard to demand of a motorcycle or any other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
3 CRA-3400-2022
item. It is pointed out that this witness Meera Kori has stated that she resides
in the same colony in which accused Ravi Bunkar stays and her house is
close by.
7. In para 6, this witness admits that two days prior to death of Roshni
there was marriage of her Nanad. Marriage was performed from a Shadi
Ghar. Meera Kori had participated in that marriage but her sister Siya Dulari
i.e. PW-1 had not come to attend that marriage because her younger son,
Pavan, was blessed with a male child. She has further stated that in that
marriage Roshni's father had come and had gone back to Nagod.
8 . Similarly, it is pointed out that Dr. R.K. Patel (PW-4) has stated that
there were no injury marks on the body of Roshni except the ligature mark.
9. Thus, it is submitted that there is no ground to show indulgence, appeal
deserved to be dismissed.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record. Siya Dulari (PW-1) has though stated that police personnel had never
recorded any statements. Though it is pointed out by Shri Bhupendra Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, that her statements are available as
Ex.D-1 and bears date of 25 July, 2018, but there is contradiction in these
statements and the evidence of Ram Kumar Bunkar (PW-2). Inasmuch as,
Ram Kumar Bunkar has admitted that on 25.07.2018 they had observed the
ritual of Chhath for the child of his son Pavan. This witness has further
admitted that after 1-2 days of Chhath celebration police personnel had come
from Rewa and had called his wife and children on which they had gone to
the Office of Rewa CSP, where their statements were recorded and on those
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
4 CRA-3400-2022
statements their signatures were obtained. On Ex.D-1 and D-2, there are no
signatures of the author, place is not mentioned and they were admittedly
taken on 25.07.2018 when as per PW-2 complainant party had never visited
Office of CSP, Rewa or no police personnel had visited them at Nagod.
11 . As far as Siya Dulari (PW-1) is concerned, she admits that report was
made to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa after 15 days of death of Roshni.
She had gone to Office of Superintendent of Police, Rewa to lodge report.
She admits several omissions in regard to marpeet and demand of dowry.
This witness also admits that Meera Kori (PW-3) is her real younger sister.
She further admits that Meera is staying in the same colony in which accused
person is residing.
12. In para 4, this witness admits that Roshni had given birth to a girl child
at a Government Hospital whereas her son was born in a Private Hospital.
Complainant party had visited the Hospital at Rewa on both the occasions
and had participated in their Chhath programme also. She also admits that
Roshni was having an independent mobile phone and she was frequently
talking to them.
13. In para 5, this witness admits that two days prior to death of Roshni,
marriage of her Nanad was performed.
14. Thus, it is an admitted fact that till lodging of FIR on 25.07.2018, no
report was made in regard to any dowry harassment or cruelty. Though, it is
admitted that Ram Kumar Bunkar (PW-2) had participated in the last rites of
his daughter Roshni and had returned back to his home along with Siya
Dulari (PW-1), his wife.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
5 CRA-3400-2022
1 5 . Ram Kumar Bunkar (PW-2), father of Roshni, admits that on
29.06.2018 there was marriage of Roshni's N a n a d Poonam. He had
participated in that marriage. He states that other family members could not
come because of birth of a child to Pavan's wife. He also admits that Meera
Kori (PW-3), who is his real sister-in-law is married in the same colony in
which accused was residing. He has admitted that for last 25-30 years Meera
is residing in that colony. This witness admits that on several occasions
Roshni used to visit their house and there was no obstruction in her
movement. He has also admitted that she was talking to her mother
frequently over mobile phone. This witness denies a suggestion that Ravi had
already purchased a motorcycle but admits that after having participated in
the last rites of Roshni, they had returned back and had not lodged any
complaint with anybody. When he has given a statement that on witnessing
the dead body of Roshni they thought that as if she was murdered, but this is
contrary to the evidence of Dr. R.K. Patel, who had conducted postmortem.
16. Meera Kori (PW-3), real sister of Siya Dulari (PW-1), denied any
demand of dowry or any other suggestion in regard to harassment. She
admitted several omissions in her case diary statement when confronted with
it, as contained in Ex.P-3. This witness has not supported the prosecution
case in regard to demand of dowry or any related harassment.
17. Dr. R.K. Patel (PW-4) stated that apart from ligature mark there were
no injury mark on the body.
18. Rohini Kumar Kori (PW-5) stated that Roshni was his sister. In para 4
of cross-examination, this witness has stated that they have not made any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
6 CRA-3400-2022
complaint that Roshni was murdered by her in-laws either by this witness or
his parents to any police officer.
19. In para 5, he admits omissions in his court testimony vis-a-vis case
diary statements, Ex.P-3.
20. Marg statements of Meera Kori are available on record as Ex.P-3, but
she has not supported these statements Ex.P-3 are, in fact, statements of
Meera Kori and not that of Rohini Kumar Kori, therefore, it is evident that he
has been wrongly confronted with Ex.P-3.
21. R.P. Soni (PW-7) is the witness of Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P-2).
This witness has admitted in cross-examination that when dead body was
taken for postmortem at that time parents of deceased Roshni were present
but they had not made any complaint in regard to any harassment.
22. Shri R.P. Shukla (PW-8), Senior Scientist, seen of crime has not stated
any thing which would go against the accused.
23. Shri S.S. Baghel (PW-10), SDOP, Kotma, admitted that no complaint
was made to him in regard to demand of dowry or related harassment.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 87, in para 11, clarifies that :
"... Interference with the order of acquittal is called for only in
exceptional cases - where there is manifest error of law of procedure
resulting into miscarriage of justice, and, there the acquittal has been caused
by shutting out evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or
where material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In
such exceptional cases, the High Court can set aside an order of acquittal,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6293
7 CRA-3400-2022
but it cannot convert it into one of conviction. The only course left to the
High Court in such exception cases, is to order retrial".
25. When these facts are taken into consideration and the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa (supra) , then
firstly, prosecution failed to prove the demand of any dowry or related
harassment soon before the incident that is soon before 02.07.2018.
Secondly, prosecution witnesses though present at the time of cremation of
Roshni had not made any complaint to any police official in regard to either
dowry harassment or related cruelty. Star prosecution witness Meera Kori
(PW-3) has turned hostile. She is real Mausi of deceased Roshni. It has also
come on record that demand of dowry could not be substantiated. There were
cordial relations between Roshni, vis-a-vis her parents and her in-laws.
Whenever, Ravi was asked to visit her parents, he used to pay a visit. Thus,
when ingredients of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act have not been
proved by the prosecution, then acquittal recorded by the Trial Court being
just and correct, is not called for any interference.
25. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
