[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
1 CRA-7199-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7199 of 2023
VINOD AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Dubey, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, Deputy Advocate General for State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard on I.A.No.6851/2025, which is an application for amendment.
2 Application is allowed.
3 Let necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
4 With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is finally
heard.
5 This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "Cr.P.C") is filed by the complainant being aggrieved of judgment
dated 12.4.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in
Sessions Trial No.200161/2013 acquitting the accused persons from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
2 CRA-7199-2023
charges under Sections 304B & 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short "I.P.C") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the marriage of Namrata
Agrawal was performed with Saurabh Agrawal on 2.5.2013 at Seoni.
Namrata Agrawal died on 6.11.2013 within less than one year of her
marriage. The allegation on the accused persons, who are son and mother i.e.
husband and mother-in-law of Namrata Agrawal is that they were harassing
Namrata Agrawal for demand of an Alto car. Thus, it is submitted that when
the death of Namrata Agrawal had occurred within one year of her marriage,
there is allegation of demand of dowry in the form of an Alto car and cash
and also the fact that Namrata Agrawal died in her matrimonial home due to
drowning just few days after the major Hindu festival of Deepawali then
presumption is to be drawn against the accused persons under Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that there was cruelty associated with
demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand,
presumption is that Namrata Agrawal was subjected to cruelty or harassment
in connection with demand of dowry and when the aforesaid presumption is
to be drawn then learned Trial Court committed an error in recording a
finding of acquittal. More so, it is pointed out that the treatment, which was
taken by Namrata Agrawal, was on account of depression caused due to the
acts of the accused persons and it had nothing to do with any constitutional
weakness in the body of Namrata Agrawal.
7 Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State in his turn submits that
in every case, presumption cannot be drawn. There are several contradictions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
3 CRA-7199-2023
in the testimony of father of the victim, Vinod Agrawal (PW.1). It is pointed
out that Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) admits that at the time of the marriage, there
was no demand of dowry. Saurabh Agrawal lost his father in the year 2010.
The Karta of his family was grand-mother of Saurabh Agrawal. Saurabh
Agrawal was residing in a self owned flat at Pune alongwith his mother.
Thus, it is submitted that the story of demand of dowry has been concocted
subsequently with a view to coerce the accused persons.
8 It is pointed out by learned Deputy Advocate General for the State that
Dr.Mahesh Narayan Trivedi (DW.3) states that he is Director of Narmada
Nursing Home, Seoni. On 17.3.2013, Smt.Namrata Agrawal, aged about 28
years, had visited him for treatment. She had complained of irritation,
sadness, not getting involved in work, always feeling sleepy and weakness.
The patient had stated that she gets negative emotions, which makes her
think that she should do something. Smt.Namrata Agrawal was patient of
depressive psychosis and, therefore, he had prescribed certain medicines to
her. It is also pointed out that since the deceased Namrata Agrawal died
because of depressive psychosis, the allegation of demand of dowry and
related cruelty being not proved, there is no point in showing any indulgence
in this matter.
9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
10 Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) is father of deceased Namrata Agrawal. He
states that Namrata Agrawal used to call him from her matrimonial home on
phone and used to inform him that she was being harassed by her husband
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
4 CRA-7199-2023
Saurabh Agrawal and mother-in-law Manju Agrawal. He states that there
was demand of Alto car, as a result of which, Namrata Agrawal was being
harassed. This witness in his cross-examination admits that he is residing at
Chhapara for few generations and the family members of the accused
persons are residing at Seoni for few generations. He admits that at the time
of the marriage, it was informed that Saurabh Agrawal works in Open
Luxury Time Product Company at Pune but denies his annual package to be
Rs.4,20,000/-. He admits that Saurabh Agrawal had taken education of MBA
(Finance) and owned a flat at Pune. He admits that it was informed that
Saurabh Agrawal and his mother Manju Agrawal were residing in Pune in
their private flat but this witness has no information that in the year 2005, the
said flat was purchased for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-. He states that Namrata
Agrawal had completed her B.Sc (Computer Application) from Home
Science College, Jabalpur. After attaining her graduation, she was working
as an Assistant Manager at Godrej Anandam at Nagpur. This witness
expresses his innocence about the fact that Namrata Agrawal had worked
from February, 2011 to April, 2011 in Wockhardt Hospital at Nagpur. He
admits that he has a Kirana Shop at Chhapara and his annual turn over is
Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. He states that his only source of income is
Kirana Shop. This witness states that his elder son Nilesh Agrawal is
working at Nagpur and his marriage was performed eight months' ago. He
admits that the grand-father of Saurabh Agrawal is Deendayal Agrawal and
he stays at Seoni. A suggestion was given to this witness that they are
wholesale businessman of Soyabin and other grains and they have a huge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
5 CRA-7199-2023
turnover, which was denied by this witness for want of knowledge.
11 Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) in Paragraph No.22 admits that in his written
complaint (Exhibit P/4), it was not mentioned that Manju Agrawal had
demanded Alto car. This witness in Paragraph No.23 admits that his
daughter-in-law Pooja Agrawal had filed a case against him and his son
Nilesh Agrawal in which they were arrested and granted bail. Nilesh
Agrawal was granted bail after fifteen days. He admits that a criminal case is
still pending against Nilesh Agrawal in a Court at Seoni. This witness in
Paragraph No.35 admits that after hearing the news of death of Namrata
Agrawal, they had gone to Seoni alongwith other relatives where they had
participated in the last rites of Namrata Agrawal. His uncle Babulal Agrawal
had also participated in the last rites of Namrata Agrawal and thereafter they
had returned back to Chhapara. This witness admits that he had not
mentioned in his report (Exhibit P/4) about the injury marks, which were
seen by him on the body of Namrata Agrawal. This witness admits
photographs Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D being that of Namrata Agrawal and
Saurabh Agrawal.
12 Dr.M.R.Vasnik (PW.2), Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital, Seoni
states that he had conducted the postmortem on the body of Namrata
Agrawal. The death of Namrata Agrawal was due to asphyxia and drowning.
The death had occurred within twenty-four hours of the postmortem. The
postmortem report is Exhibit P/9. This witness in cross-examination admits
that he and the concerned Naib Tahsildar had shown brother of Namrata
Agrawal and other persons from her parental side, the dead body of Namrata
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
6 CRA-7199-2023
Agrawal and had clarified that there were no injury marks on the body
of Namrata Agrawal. The deceased died only because of cardio respiratory
failure. This witness admits that abrasion, which is mentioned in the
postmortem report, could not have been caused by any third party.
13 Naib Tahsildar Preeti Nagendra (PW.4) states that at the time of
preparation of the Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2) of Namrata
Agrawal, her father Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) and uncle Ashok Agrawal were
present as witnesses. At the time of preparation of Naksha Panchayatnama
(Exhibit P/2), Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) and Ashok Agrawal had not made any
complaint against the accused persons. There is no mention of this fact that
any complaint was made in Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/2).
14 Pooja Agrawal (PW.7) states that Namrata Agrawal was her Nanad.
Namrata Agrawal's marriage was performed on 2.5.2013 with Saurabh
Agrawal of Seoni. She states that there was demand of Alto car in dowry.
This witness in her cross-examination states that she is originally resident of
Nagpur and her marriage was performed with Nilesh Agrawal, who is elder
brother of deceased Namrata Agrawal. She states that there used to be
exchange of SMSs and whatsapp chats between her and Namrata Agrawal so
also with Saurabh Agrawal. This witness was confronted with Exhibit D/3
i.e. printout of whatsapp messages and SMSs. This witness admits that she
and her parental side had lodged a report against her husband Nilesh Agrawal
and her in-laws at Police Station Lakhnadon where the matter is still pending.
After lodging that report, she stayed in her 'Maika' at Nagpur for two and a
half years. She admits that from the photographs Exhibits D/2E & D/2L,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
7 CRA-7199-2023
both Saurabh Agrawal and Namrata Agrawal are looking happy. In the
photograph Exhibit D/2M, Namrata Agrawal is seen with her husband
Saurabh Agrawal and mother-in-law Manju Agrawal. She admits that before
2.5.2013, no demand of car was made in front of her. This witness in
Paragraph No.24 admits that on 6.11.2013, when she had gone to the house
of the in-laws of Namrata Agrawal, the police was present. She or any of her
relatives had not made any complaint against Saurabh Agrawal or Manju
Agrawal. She admits that the accused persons were financially more stronger
than the parental side of Namrata Agrawal. This witness in Paragraph No.31
admits that in her case diary statement (Exhibit D/7), till the recording of her
Court statement, she had not stated as to how the accused persons were
torturing Namrata Agrawal mentally or physically and for the first time, she
stated before the Court that there was demand of Alto car.
15 Nitin Agrawal (PW.8) is brother of deceased Namrata Agrawal. This
witness though tries to support the prosecution case but in cross-examination
admits that during the Deepawali festival, he had made whatsapp messages
to his brother-in-law Saurabh Agrawal and sister Namrata Agrawal and those
messages were taken on record as Exhibits D/10 & D/11. He admits that the
marriage of Namrata Agrawal was performed with consent of both the
families. This witness admits that on 30.10.2013, he had arranged a ticket for
Saurabh Agrawal for a cricket match, which was to be played between India
and Australia and he had also arranged a taxi from railway station and till
then, there was no grievance against Saurabh Agrawal.
16 A.I.G. Dr.Sanjeev Kumar Uikey (PW.9) states that he was posted as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
8 CRA-7199-2023
S.D.O.P at Seoni on 12.11.2013. He had registered Merg No.68/2013 and
then recorded the FIR Exhibit P/12. This witness admits in Paragraph No.11
of his cross-examination that before 12.11.2013, when he had recorded merg
statement, no complaint was made by the complainant party. He admits that
during merg investigation, he had not recorded the statement of Pooja
Agrawal (PW.7). He admits that on Exhibit P/4, there is no mention of any
harassment or demand of dowry. In Exhibit D/7, Pooja Agrawal had not
informed anything about demand of dowry or related harassment. This
witness admits that he had not recorded statement of Nitin Agrawal (PW.8)
during merg investigation.
17 Dr.Mahesh Narayan Trivedi (DW.3) states that Exhibit D/6 is written by
Dr.Surendra Patil in which he had mentioned that Namrata Agrawal was
suffering from somatization, which is a phycological disorder. Such persons
had tendency to commit suicide. The aforesaid statement has remained
unrebutted. Dr.Mahesh Narayan Trivedi (DW.3) also points out that the
ailment of Namrata Agrawal was infact existing 10 to 12 months prior to her
marriage with Saurabh Agrawal. When the whatsapp chats as contained in
Exhibit D/3 and the prescription as contained in Exhibit D/6 dated
16.10.2013 are taken into consideration then it is evident that the doctor had
diagnosed the deceased to be suffering from somatization.
18 When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that
merely saying that treatment was given after marriage of Namrata Agrawal
with Saurabh Agrawal is not a sufficient circumstance to point out
that Namrata Agrawal was suffering from phycological disorder, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
9 CRA-7199-2023
contracted only after marriage. Even if it is presumed that the disorder
developed after marriage, she was being properly treated. Dr.Mahesh
Narayan Trivedi (DW.3) admits that such patients have a tendency to
commit suicide.
19 As far as the demand of dowry is concerned, none of the prosecution
witnesses could substantiate that allegation. Infact, Pooja Agrawal (PW.7),
the daughter-in-law of Vinod Agrawal (PW.1), states that the financial status
of Saurabh Agrawal and Manju Agrawal was much higher than that of Vinod
Agrawal's family. Vinod Agrawal (PW.1) also admits that his annual
turnover was between Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-. There is also a tacit
admission that Saurabh Agrawal was residing in his own flat at Pune, which
he had purchased for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-.
20 When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is evident that
there is no evidence to establish that the deceased Namrata Agrawal was
subjected to cruelty or that there was any demand for dowry. On the
contrary, the evidence, which has come on record, demonstrates that the
deceased Namrata Agrawal was happy and there was exchange of cordial
messages between the parties as reflected in Exhibit D/4 and the photographs
brought on record. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case and upon such scrutiny, the finding of acquittal recorded by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide its impugned judgment dated
12.4.2023 in Sessions Trial No.200161/2013 cannot be faulted with.
21 Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
22 Consequent upon dismissal of the present appeal, I.A.No.13436/2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8658
10 CRA-7199-2023
for grant of leave to appeal also stands dismissed.
23 Let record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
