Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balwant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321
1 CRA-9912-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9912 of 2019
BALWANT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bramha Nand Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Singh - Government Advocate for respondent
no.1/State.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Sulakhe - Advocate for respondent no.2 to 6.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal Appellant is aggrieved of judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in S.T. No.432/2017, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted all the five accused persons, namely Golu @ Bharat Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Rajput, Ku. Arti D/o Rajendra Singh Rajput, Krishna Gopal S/o Rajendra Singh Rajput, Rajendra S/o Gajraj Singh Rajput, Smt. Janki W/o Rajendra Singh Rajput of the charges under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is submitted that marriage of Neetu had taken place with Krishna Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 2 CRA-9912-2019 Gopal on 19.06.2014 and she died on 28.06.2016, therefore, there is a presumption of dowry related harassment and consequent death of deceased Neetu under unnatural circumstances.
3. It is submitted that when these facts and evidence of important witnesses PW1 father of deceased, PW2 mother and PW3 sister of deceased are taken into consideration, then it is a case of death on account of demand of dowry, therefore, this Court should show indulgence and reverse the finding of acquittal.
4. Shri Mukesh Kumar Sulakhe, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 6 and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Government Advocate in their turn support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no illegality in the said judgment.
5. Shri Bramha Nand Pandey, learned counsel for appellant places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa AIR 2013 SC 2176 to support his claim that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that what is the meaning of cruelty soon before death and also that statements of parents of victim/deceased cannot be discarded lightly. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manisha Tyagi vs. Capt. Deepak Kumar AIR 2010 SC 1042 , wherein it is held that use of physical violence need not be established, although continuous ill- treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to other may lead to an inference of cruelty.
6. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i n Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 2007(4) SCC 511 , wherein in a matter of Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 3 CRA-9912-2019 divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act the Hon'ble Court has defined the mental cruelty and recorded parameters which can be said to be constituent of mental cruelty in para 74 of said judgment. Thus, it is submitted that when any of these parameters are fulfilled then case will fall under the aspect of mental cruelty which is a sine qua non for recording a conviction under Section 304-B IPC inasmuch as admittedly, the death of Neetu had taken place within two years of marriage and that too under unnatural circumstances.
7. Reliance is also placed on para 7 and 10 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder @ Kala Ram and others vs. The State of Haryana 2012 (10) SCC 763.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and evidence available on record.
9. PW1 Balwant Singh, the father of deceased Neetu has stated that he had performed marriage of Neetu with Krishna Gopal on 19.06.2014 as per Hindu traditions at Green Guarden, Bina. After marriage, he had performed Bidai of Neetu and then after staying for 8-10 days she had returned back.
10. This witness has stated that on 22.02.2016, Neetu had called him and stated that she is not keeping good health and asked him to take her because she was not getting proper treatment at her matrimonial home. On 22.02.2016 PW1 had got Neetu back to his home and got her treated at Paras Hospital, Khurai.
11. It is alleged that Krishna Gopal used to call Neetu over the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 4 CRA-9912-2019 telephone and used to demand Rs.50,000/- and a fridge. He used to threaten her that in absence of fulfillment of demand of dowry, he will kill her brother and other family members.
12. Similarly, it is pointed out that PW2 mother of deceased Smt. Ranjana has stated that victim was not treated properly. In examination-in- chief she has only stated that she had performed marriage of Neetu with Krishna Gopal, resident of Bothighat Kurwai, District Vidisha about 4 years prior to date of deposition. Marriage was performed as per their status and customs.
13. When Neetu used to visit them, then she used to inform that accused persons demand a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a fridge. Husband of this witness, PW1 Balwant Singh used to visit the in-laws' of Neetu and used to counsel them. This witness stated that when Neetu was at Khurai, she had gone to Khurai Market alongwith her sister Swekchha (PW3). Krishna Gopal had called Neetu and Swekchha had informed PW2 mother that Neetu was cut in a train accident, as a result of which she died. At that time, Ranjana PW2 was at her village.
14. Swekchha (PW3) has stated that on 28.06.2016 when Neetu was with her at Khurai, then Krishna Gopal had called Neetu and asked her to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He had threatened that if his demand is not met then he will kill Neetu and her sister and will not allow their marriage to be performed. Thus, reading evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 it is submitted that it is a case of conviction, whereas the learned trial Court has wrongly recorded finding of acquittal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 5 CRA-9912-2019
15. Balwant (PW1), father of Neetu in para 19 of his deposition states that when he had asked Neetu as to from which disease she is suffering, then she stated that 'I am not able to speak, you ask the doctor, on upper side of waist I sustained injury from cooking platform, I am not in a position to speak.' In para 22 of her deposition, when Court asked about treatment papers, then this witness admits that though he got her treated, but those papers were not produced by him and when verified, the police had said that since treatment was taken at a private hospital those papers were of no use. However, those papers were not even produced before the Court.
16. In para 24, PW1 Balwant Singh admits that from 22.02.2016 till her death Neetu was with him, she had not gone to her in-laws house. In para 27, this witness admits that at the matrimonial home of Neetu this witness had not seen any injury on the body of Neetu. In para 33, this witness states that Krishna Gopal was constructing a house at Bina, he used to tell him that Neetu be sent to Bina, he will keep her properly.
17. In para 35 this witness on his own stated before the Court that Neetu was talking over a phone when a train came and there was an accident, as informed by the gateman. This witness states that he had given this information to the police while recording his case diary statement vide Ex.D/1, but this fact is not mentioned in Ex.D/1 and he cannot give any explanation for such omission.
18. In para 36, this witness further states that he cannot say as to with whom Neetu was talking, as informed by gateman that Neetu was attending a phone call. This witness further admits that said mobile phone was not Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 6 CRA-9912-2019 recovered. This witness admits that he had not informed the police that before death Neetu was talking over a phone. Then stated that gateman must have informed the police about the said fact.
19. Ranjana (PW2), the mother of victim in para 9 of her cross- examination admitted that accused had not demanded a fridge and Rs.50,000/-. She stated that her daughter (Neetu) had informed her that her mother-in-law was saying about such demand. This witness further admits that accused persons had not even informed this witness or her husband that there was any demand of Rs.50,000/- or a refrigerator.
20. This witness in para 10 admits that the conversation between Neetu and her in-laws was cordial, there were even joking relationships and they were talking cordially.
21. In para 15, this witness states that after 22.02.2016 when her husband had brought Neetu, they had not sent Neetu to her in-laws' house. She admits that her in-laws family had visited them on 2-3 occasions to take her but Ranjana stated that she had not sent her back and then clarified that Neetu herself was not interested in going, therefore, she was not sent.
22. In para 17, this witness states that after 22.02.2016 till her death Neetu never visited her in-laws' house. She stated that she had though taken initiative to send to her in-laws' house, but belies statement of PW1 that any panchayat was convened. On the contrary, she states that they had not convened any panchayat. She admits that they had not given any counselling to Neetu or other party. In para 18, this witness admits that from 22.02.2016 till death accused persons neither had beaten Neetu nor had raised any Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 7 CRA-9912-2019 demand. In para 19 this witness states that she was not interested in sending her daughter to her matrimonial home.
23. In para 23, this witness admits that accused Rajendra and Janki had never called her and had never demanded any dowry. She improvised her statement that when she used to call mother-in-law of Neetu then she used to put forth some demands. She admits that for the first time she is giving statements before the Court in regard to demand of dowry.
24. Swekchha (PW3), sister of Neetu stated that on 19.6.2014 marriage of Neetu was performed with Krishna Gopal as per Hindu rites. In para 3, she stated that Neetu had informed her that she had received a phone call from Krishna Gopal and he had threatened her with dire consequences for demand of dowry. However, in cross-examination, in para 15, this witness categorically states that on the date of the incident or a day earlier no altercation had taken place with the accused party.
25. In para 16, this witness admits that since 22.02.2016 Neetu was in her parental home. In para 17, this witness clearly states that she never had any conversation with in-laws of Neetu. This witness admits that though Neetu had visited Khurai to purchase certain goods, but upto 3:00 PM she had not gone to market for purchasing those goods and continued to remain in room. In para 20, this witness admits that while giving her case diary statements (Ex.D/3) she had not informed police about second mobile phone of Neetu.
26. In para 21, this witness admits that she had visited Neetu's matrimonial home after one year of her marriage to attend a Puja of Lord Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 8 CRA-9912-2019 Shiva. She attended that puja and returned back. During that period there was no dispute, nor anybody had informed her about any dispute. She had not witnessed any unusual behaviour of in-laws of Neetu. In para 22, this witness admits that from 22.02.2016 Neetu never visited her matrimonial home. In para 23, this witness admits that she had not informed anything about demand of dowry to police personnel when she had visited matrimonial home of Neetu at the time of Puja.
27. When these statements of material prosecution witness are taken into consideration, then it is pointed out that PW4 Dipendra Rajput, brother of Neetu admits in cross-examination that he had never seen any injury marks on the body of Neetu. PW7 Jagdish Prasad stated that according to him, Neetu had committed suicide.
28. Dr. Pradeep Sarmaria (PW8) stated that Neetu died due to vasovagal and hemorrhagic shock caused by injuries that had occurred within 24-25 hours. This doctor proved his postmortem report (Ex.P/7).
29. PW9 Vikram Singh Kushwaha, Additional S.P. admits in para 10 of his cross-examination that complainant party had not produced any medical document to show that there was any physical torture with the deceased. They had even not given any papers of medical treatment. On 02.07.2016 he had registered a case on the basis of merg. In para 13, this witness admits that prior to 02.07.2016, he had not received any document during investigation. In para 16, this witness admits that there was no dispute in regard to the ceremonies relating to marriage or demand of dowry between the family of Neetu and accused persons. This witness admits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 9 CRA-9912-2019 during investigation, no fact was brought to his notice that there was any demand of dowry. This witness admits that he had not collected the call details of deceased and Krishna Gopal nor had carried out investigation in this regard. This witness admits that during investigation neither there was any eyewitness nor there was any suicide note. He admits that during investigation, he had not recovered the mobile phone of deceased Neetu. He stated that mobile was not recovered because it was not produced by her father.
30. When these facts are taken into consideration, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manisha Tyagi vs. Capt. Deepak Kumar (supra), the same relates to Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is stated that continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to another may lead to an inference of cruelty. In the present case, PW2 Ranjana admitted that though accused party visited them on 2-3 occasions since 22.02.2016 to take back Neetu, but Neetu was not sent. There is no material on record to substantiate allegation of ill-treatment or demand of dowry. Since, accused persons visited Neetu's house to take her back, it cannot be said to be a case of studied neglect or indifference of one spouse to another, therefore, ratio of this judgment will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
31. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (supra) again case of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act has been produced by learned counsel for the appellants. It is held that it is not necessary that for mental cruelty spouses live together, spouses living apart can by their acts cause mental cruelty.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 10 CRA-9912-2019 However, this aspect has not been proved in case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra). There was evidence of sending vulgar or defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable, but in the present case no such facts have been brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
32. As far as law laid down by Full Bench of Supreme Count i n Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (supra) is concerned, in para 74 Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted as under:-
"74. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 11 CRA-9912-2019 cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 12 CRA-9912-2019
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 13 CRA-9912-2019 scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
33. None of the circumstances mentioned in para 74 of the said judgment are made out to infer that there was any demand of dowry or cruelty attached to such demand. Similar is the ratio of law in Devinder @ Kala Ram (supra), wherein it is noted that deceased's statement to medical officer that burns were sustained while cooking on a stove, recorded in bed- head ticket is relevant as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Appellant husband's statement under Section 313 CrPC also supports accidental fire while preparing tea. In the present case, statements of PW1 supports the fact that it was a case of accidental death as was narrated by the gateman of railways to PW1 and there is no rebuttal to this fact, therefore, when tested then the acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be considered to be arbitrary or illegal calling for interference.
34. Prosecution has failed to prove its case. In fact, witnesses have given contrary statements. PW1 on the one hand stated that they had convened a panchayat, whereas PW2 his wife, totally declined this statement and stated that panchayat was never convened. Admittedly, Neetu was with her parents since 22.02.2016 and incident took place after more than 4 months of her return from the matrimonial home. Witnesses have admitted that during the intervening period there was no demand of dowry, no cruelty. So called phone calls which have been intercepted to show demand of dowry have not been proved by the prosecution, as has been admitted by the investigating officer of the case that he had not collected any evidence in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 30-01-2026 17:20:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6321 14 CRA-9912-2019 regard to call details. He had even not collected the mobile phone of deceased Neetu.
35. When these facts are taken into consideration, then the impugned judgment being passed in correct appreciation of evidence, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-01-2026
17:20:22