[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2026
1 CRA-12664-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 12664 of 2022
(BRIJENDRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 10-03-2026
Shri N.S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Kumar Choudhary -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ravindra Rajput - Panel Lawyer for State.
Heard on I.A. No.2578 of 2026, which is a first application under Section
430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1
Brijendra Ahirwar.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar,
District Chhatarpur (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No.100293 of 2016, whereby the
appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and further convicted under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine
of Rs.1,000/-, respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of present appellant has pointed out
that the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the present appellant without
proper appreciation of facts of the case. It is submitted that the deceased was the
sister-in-law (Nanand) of Smt. Tulsa (PW-3). In her statement, Smt. Tulsa (PW-3)
did not state anything regarding any demand of dowry by appellant No.1 from his
in-laws. In paragraph-5 of her cross-examination, Smt. Tulsa (PW-3) has
categorically stated that the deceased used to share with her everything that
2 CRA-12664-2022
occurred at her matrimonial home. However, the deceased never informed her
about any demand for dowry. On the contrary, the deceased used to speak about
the alleged illicit relationship of her husband with a woman named Kranti. Smt.
Tulsa (PW-3) has further stated that due to the aforesaid alleged relationship of her
husband, the deceased always remained upset. It is further submitted that Smt.
Tulsa (PW-3) was not declared hostile by the prosecution, therefore, the statement
made by her in paragraph-5 of her cross-examination is binding upon the
prosecution. Even in her examination-in-chief, she has not made any statement
regarding any demand of dowry by appellant No.1 or the other co-accused
persons. Hence, in view of the testimony of Smt. Tulsa (PW-3), the allegation of
demand of dowry is not established. It is further submitted that although certain
injuries were found on the wrists of both hands of the deceased, as stated by Dr.
Surendra Sharma (PW-13), the said injuries could have been caused due to
abrasion against some object. Therefore, such injuries did not indicate that any
cruelty has been meted out to the deceased soon before her death. Though Narbad
Ahirwar (PW-1), Ganesh Ahirwar (PW-2) and Damodar (PW-4), who are the
parents and brother of the deceased have supported the prosecution case, the
testimony of Smt. Tulsa (PW-3), read in its entirety, creates serious doubt
regarding the allegation of dowry demand. Furthermore, considering the period of
custody already undergone by the appellant No.1, which is approximately four
years and the fact that the co-accused persons have already been released on bail,
the appellant has a good case on merits. It is further submitted that final disposal
of this appeal will take considerable time. He is ready to comply with the
conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the
remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be suspended and he may be
released on bail.
3 CRA-12664-2022
Per contra , learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer of bail and
prayed for rejection of application.
Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties,
perused the record and keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of
case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A. No.2578 of 2026 is
allowed. It is directed that subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if not
already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.1 shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail. The appellant No.1 is further directed to
mark his appearance before the concerned trial Court on 06.07.2026 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
