Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra @ Gabbar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035
1 CRA-15750-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15750 of 2023
MAHENDRA @ GABBAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shubham Rai - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3648 of 2024
BALMUKUND YADAV
Versus
MAHENDRA URF GABBAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Teeka Ram Kurmi- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on : 05.02.2026
Pronounced on : 02.04.2026.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 15750 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 3648 of 2024.
2. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 2 CRA-15750-2023 therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Cr.A. No. 15750 of 2023 has been preferred by the accused persons namely Mahendra @ Gabbar Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjana and Sangeeta Yadav under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the conviction part of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Goharganj, District Raisen (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 87/2020, whereby the aforesaid accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default stipulations.
4. Cr.A. No. 3648 of 2024 has been preferred by complainant namely Balmukund Yadav under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the acquittal part of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Goharganj, District Raisen (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 87/2020, whereby aforesaid accused persons have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:-
5.1 Upon receiving information from the deceased's father Balmukund that his daughter, Kshama Yadav, had died by suicide by hanging at her parental home, police initiated proceedings under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 3 CRA-15750-2023 174 CrPC at Obedullaganj Police Station, Raisen District, Madhya Pradesh. They prepared a spot map (Ex. P-4), seized the cut cloth rope used for the noose, and issued a seizure memo. Seizure memos were also prepared for the deceased's prior medical records and keypad mobile phone (Ex. P-6), plus her personal mobile phone produced by her father, containing a pre-incident video recorded by her (Ex. P-7). 5.2 During the inquest, witness statements revealed that post-
marriage, the deceased faced ongoing harassment, beatings, quarrels, and physical/mental cruelty from her husband Mahendra @ Gabbar, mother-in-law Ranjana, father-in-law Ramesh, brothers-in-law Jitendra and Dharmendra, and sister-in-law Sangeeta Yadav. They demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- cash or a second-hand minibus, leading to her unnatural death by hanging on 13/05/2020.
5.3 Investigation confirmed these details via witness statements and the deceased's video (transferred to a seized pen drive, Ex. P/15). Crime No. 111/2020 was registered under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death), and 34 (common intention); FIR lodged (Ex. P-20). Accused were arrested (arrest memos, Exs. P-21 to P-26). 5.4 Post-investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 of Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Goharganj, Raisen. The case, being sessions-triable, was committed to Sessions Court, Raisen on 27/07/2020 and transferred to this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the accused persons submits that the trial Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 4 CRA-15750-2023 has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective and committed error while convicting the accused persons under Sections 498-A the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased faced cruelty or harassment for dowry demands soon before her death. Prosecution witnesses mainly interested relatives gave inconsistent evidence with material contradictions between investigation statements and court testimony. No reliable, independent proof exists for the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/- or a second-hand minibus. The video recording was not properly proved and cannot be relied on. The deceased committed suicide at her parental home and the accused persons were not present there at that time, therefore, the conviction of the accused persons under Section 498-A of the IPC is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the State supports the trial court's judgment. He argues that the prosecution proved the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage. Evidence shows the accused harassed and tortured her over dowry demands. He further submits that witness statements, especially from the deceased's family consistently prove the accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- cash or a second-hand mini bus, causing physical and mental cruelty. The deceased's video recording before her death corroborates this. All ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are established, triggering the presumption under Section 113-B of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 5 CRA-15750-2023 the Indian Evidence Act against the accused. The trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and gave a reasoned judgment. The State prays that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence upheld.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.
10. Balmukund Yadav (PW-1), father of the deceased, testified that his daughter Kshama Yadav married the accused Mahendra alias Gabbar in 2019. Post-marriage, Mahendra fought with Kshama two or three times over dowry demands. He stated that one month before her death, they fought again. Accused Mahendra called him, who visited, pacified them and took Kshama home at Mahendra's insistence. Fifteen days later, Mahendra's father Ramesh Yadav and associate Kelaram visited his home. Accused Mahendra had previously asked Kshama to fetch Rs.1.5 lacs from her parents for a second-hand vehicle. Ramesh demanded fulfillment of prior dowry claims to take Kshama back. He refused due to financial constraints, promising to arrange it later. Mahendra continued threatening Kshama over phone calls. Unable to pay, he believes this drove Kshama to suicide by hanging in May 2020. He denied any prior forced abortion. He further deposed that on the date of incident, (at around 5:30-6 AM in the morning), he was at the DFO bungalow in Obedullaganj. Neighbors informed him and upon return, he found Kshama hanged from a beam with a dupatta. He called Dial 100 and 108. Police arrived, recorded the unnatural death report (Ex. P-1), Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 6 CRA-15750-2023 prepared panchnama (Ex. P-2), safina form (Ex. P-3), site map (Ex. P-
4), and seized items i.e. iron knife, cut white dupatta, glass-embedded dupatta (Ex. P-5), two mobiles (one in his name, one in wife's Ex. P-6), wife's mobile with pre-incident video of deceased (Ex. P-7). He stated that police obtained pen drive of video from Anil Arora (Ex. P-8). Postmortem followed and thereafter body was handed over (Ex. P-9). This witness in para 7 of his cross-examination has admitted that he, his wife, and daughter Kshama were at home on the date of incident. He further admitted in para 11 of his cross-examination that his daughter- in-law Pooja filed FIR against him, wife, son, and daughter Jyoti. In para 13 of his cross-examination he admitted that his daughter Kshama hanged herself at his home. He further admitted in para 26 of his cross- examination that his daughter died while still a furtunate woman (suhagan). She wore a mangalsutra, bangles, rings and toe rings and also applied vermillion to her forehead. He stated that the jewellery was removed at the mortuary and his sister-in-law Sonu was present at that time.
11 . Radha Bai (PW-2), mother of the deceased; Sonu Kumari (PW-
4), sister of the deceased; and Mukesh Yadav (PW-5), brother of the deceased, all corroborated Balmukund's (PW-1) statement in their examination-in-chief. Radha Bai (PW-2) admitted in para 6 of her cross-
examination that she visited her daughter's in-laws' house due to the accused's loving behaviour, where she was treated with respect, and her daughter welcomed her warmly. In para 12, she admitted that from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 7 CRA-15750-2023 marriage until the deceased's death, neither she, her husband, nor the deceased filed any complaint against the accused for dowry demands (Rs. 5 lacs or a minibus), harassment, or assault. She further confirmed that deceased always went to her in-laws' house willingly, without force. Sonu Kumari (PW-4) admitted in para 15 of her cross-examination that the deceased went to her in-laws' house happily and of her own free will. Mukesh Yadav (PW-5) admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that he resided in Bhopal with his wife and children at the time of the incident. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that he had no knowledge as to how often his sister visited her parents' home. In para 12, he admitted his wife had filed a dowry case against him and his parents.
12. Jyoti Yadav (PW-13) who is sister of the deceased, Kshama, stated that her sister Kshama got married to accused Mahendra, in the year 2019. She stated that initially, the marriage went well, but within 1- 2 months, her sister Kshama and her mother-in-law Ranjana Yadav started fighting over minor issues and Kshama's husband Mahendra ignored her complaints. Despite being newly married, Kshama was burdened with all household responsibilities. She further deposed that accused Mahendra, Ranjana and sister-in-law Sangeeta frequently quarreled with her sister over small matters. She further stated that her sister shared these details with her over the phone and during visits her mother-in-law Ranjana taunted Kshama about waking late and not sweeping the floor. This witness further deposed that one to two months Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 8 CRA-15750-2023 post-marriage, her sister Kshama became pregnant but suffered a miscarriage, which she attributed to accused Mahendra. Mahendra then neglected her, abandoned her at her parental home, and ignored her despite passing by the house. According to this witness, her father arranged her treatment and within a year of marriage, in May 2020, her sister Kshama died by suicide by hanging at her father's house. She stated that after her sister's death, she returned home. On the third or fourth day, while cleaning, she found her sister Kshama's mobile phone (later clarified as her mother's phone, which her sister Kshama used). In the gallery, she saw a video featuring her sister's voice (face and body not visible). She further stated that she viewed only a brief portion, handed the phone (MO-3) to her father, and could not recount its full contents.
13. Babulal Yadav (PW-6) deposed that the deceased's father told him that his daughter's in-laws were harassing her and demanding Rs. 5 lacs. He stated that a few days later, he learned that Kshama had hanged herself at her father's house. He went there and saw her body already removed from the noose. Police arrived simultaneously, conducted proceedings, seized her mobile phone (seizure memo: Ex. P/7), extracted data onto a pen drive using a computer (panchnama: Ex. P/8), and seized the pen drive (seizure memo: Ex. P/14). In para 4 of his cross- examination, he stated that he could not recall the exact time, date, or year of the father's disclosure. He denied any knowledge of pen drives or computers.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 9 CRA-15750-2023
14. Shobharam (PW-3) stated that, upon learning of Balmukund's daughter's death, he visited Balmukund's house. There, he saw Kshama hanging from the ceiling. He further deposed that police seized a knife and a scarf, and prepared seizure memo Ex. P/5.
15. Manoj Sahu (PW-7) deposed that early in the morning, he heard screaming from Balamukund Yadav (Chacha)'s house. While on duty at the forest office, he went there and saw Kshama hanging from a wooden beam in the kachcha house, with her dupatta tied around her neck. He called Balamukund on his phone to inform him. Balamukund came home, cut the dupatta, brought Kshama down, and took her to the government hospital in Obedullaganj. He further stated that he did not know why Kshama hanged herself. Police prepared a site map and panchayatnama (Ex. P-2) at the hospital, which he signed along with the Safina form (Ex. P-3). They seized the mobile phone and prepared seizure memo Ex. P/7. This witness further stated that he also visited the Sub-Divisional Police Officer's office in Obedullaganj, where a panchnama regarding the mobile was prepared (Ex. P/8) and in his presence, police made a CD and pen drive copy of a voice recording from the mobile at Senior Photo Studio, Obedullaganj. They seized the pen drive and prepared seizure panchnama Ex. P/14.
16. Anil Arora (PW-8) deposed that on 21/05/2020, Balamukund, father of the deceased Kshama Yadav gave him a mobile phone. He extracted three video clips from it and saved them on a laptop. His employee then copied them onto a 16 GB SanDisk pen drive. He stated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 10 CRA-15750-2023 that he handed the pen drive to Sub-Divisional Police Officer Malkeet Singh, who seized it under seizure memo Ex. P-15. He also provided a Section 65B certificate (Ex. P-17). In cross-examination, he admitted the police prepared Ex. P-17 and he only signed it.
17. S.D. Bhalekar (PW-10), Sub-Inspector at Obedullaganj Police Station, stated that on 13.05.2020 at around 8:20 AM, informant Balamukund Yadav reported about his daughter Kshama Yadav's death. He stated that Kshama had married Mahendra Yadav alias Gabbar from the neighbourhood about a year earlier and had been staying at her parents' home for the past 20-25 days. He further stated that father of the deceased Balamukund stated that the previous evening, he left for duty, leaving Kshama and his wife Radha Bai at home. At about 6:00 AM, neighbour Chhotu urged him to return home urgently. He rushed back, found a crowd gathered, and saw Kshama hanging from the ceiling fan by her dupatta. He cut her down and rushed her to Obedullaganj Hospital in a 108 ambulance, where doctors declared her dead on arrival. He registered merg (inquest) report No. 22/2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P/1), along with the sudden unnatural death information form (Ex. P/19). In para 2 of his cross-examination, he confirmed that the informant Balmukund Yadav reported no harassment, torture, or dowry demands at Kshama's in-laws' house.
18. Mukesh Kumar Raj (PW-11) was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Tehsil Obedullaganj from 13.05.2020. He deposed that on the said date following Kshama Yadav's (wife of Mahendra) death by hanging, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 11 CRA-15750-2023 issued notice Ex. P/3 to prepare her inquest report (naksha panchayatnama) in the Community Health Center mortuary, with witnesses present. He prepared the report (Ex. P/2), observing the body covered by a red-yellow odhni (shawl) on the stretcher. Kshama's father, Balmukund, removed the odhni (shawl), identified the body as his daughter's, and confirmed the details.
19. Malkeet Singh (PW-12) Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) at Obedullaganj stated that he received the case diary (Marg No. 22/2020) under Section 174 Cr.P.C., (Ex. P/1) on 14-05-2020 for investigation. He deposed that on the said date, he recorded statements of witnesses Balmukund and Mukesh Yadav. He further stated that on 15-05-2020, he visited the scene, prepared spot map (Ex. P/4), and recorded statements of Radha Bai and Sonkumari. From the spot, he seized an iron knife, a cut white terricot dupatta from the beam, and Kshama's white terricot dupatta with glass work (seizure memo Ex. P/5). He deposed that at Balmukund's instance, he seized Kshama's wedding invitation, two marriage photos, gift/cash lists, household articles list, and seven clothing bills (seizure memo Ex. P/11). He also seized (via Balmukund) Kshama's ZIOX keypad mobile, Arogya Hospital records, and Sevashri Hospital slips (memo Ex. P/6). On 21-05-2020, he recorded statements of Balmukund, Manoj Sahu, and Babulal Yadav, seized Kshama's red-covered Jio keypad mobile (M.O.-3, with video; memo Ex. P/7); and had Anil Arora (Senior Photo Studio) transfer videos from both mobiles to a pen drive (M.O.-4; memos Ex. P/8, P/14, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 12 CRA-15750-2023 P/15). Similarly, on 28-05-2020, based on the inquest, he found dowry harassment led to Kshama's unnatural hanging death, registered FIR (Ex. P/20, Crime No. 111/2020, PS Obedullaganj) under Sections 498- A, 304-B, 34 IPC. On 30-05-2020, he recorded statements of Balmukund, Radha Bai, Sonukumari, Mukesh and on 02-06-2020 recorded statements of Manoj Sahu, Babulal Yadav whereas on 12-06- 2020 he recorded the statement of Jyoti Yadav. On 05-06-2020, he arrested accused Mahendra Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Dharmendra, Ranjana, and Sangeeta (arrest memos Ex. P/21-P/26). He further stated that Balmukund later produced a working Jio keypad mobile (used by Radha Bai, with SIM 7828792961), which is M.O.-3.
20. It appears from the analysis of the oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution that Kshama Yadav committed suicide by hanging herself at her father's house, i.e., her natal home, on 13.05.2020, and that M.R. No. 22/2020 was recorded on the same date, 13.05.2020, on the basis of the information given by the deceased's father, Balmukund Yadav (PW‑1), but the said Exhibit P‑1 does not mention at all that the accused persons, i.e., the in‑laws of the deceased Kshama Yadav, were harassing her in any manner. Similarly, there is no mention in Exhibit P‑1 that the deceased Kshama Yadav had committed suicide due to harassment by her husband, mother‑in‑law, father‑in‑law, etc. Likewise, the site‑panchnama dated 13.05.2020, i.e., Exhibit P‑2, was prepared in the presence of the panchnama witnesses, but even that site‑panchnama does not contain any reference to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 13 CRA-15750-2023 deceased Kshama Yadav to the effect that she had committed suicide as a result of harassment by her in‑laws demanding dowry and subjecting her to cruelty on account of dowry. The site‑panchnama Exhibit P‑2 was prepared by Mukesh Kumar Raj, the Tehsildar (PW‑11). The deceased Kshama Yadav's father Balmukund Yadav (PW‑1), mother Radhabai (PW‑2), Sonu Kumari (PW‑4), Mukesh Yadav (PW‑5), and Jyoti Yadav (PW‑13) have admitted in their cross‑examination that the wife of Mukesh, Pooja, had reported that Balmukund Yadav, Radha Bai, brother Mukesh, and the deceased Kshama herself were being harassed and had dowry demanded from them, and that on the basis of that report a criminal case is pending against them in court. However, they have also stated that the case was falsely lodged by Pooja. The evidence of Balmukund Yadav (PW‑1), who is the father of the deceased Kshama Yadav, nowhere reveals that the deceased Kshama Yadav had made any complaint at any police station regarding the accused persons demanding dowry from her and harassing her, or that any proceeding had been initiated against the accused on the basis of such a complaint. Similarly, there is no evidence at this stage that any kind of caste or village panchayat was held with respect to the allegation that the accused had demanded dowry from the deceased and harassed her on account of dowry.
21. So far as the question of the video recording allegedly made by the deceased on her mother Radha Bai's mobile phone is concerned, the reliability of that video is affected because the said video was not Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 14 CRA-15750-2023 produced during the lifetime of the deceased. Additionally, it is also to be noted that the deceased Kshama Yadav died by hanging on 13.05.2020, whereas the mobile phone related to that video was seized by Balmukund on 21.05.2020, i.e., about eight days after the incident. That mobile phone was used by the mother of the deceased Kshama Yadav, Radha Bai. It has been stated that in the video the deceased had recorded herself while wrapped in a blanket. Under such circumstances, even the fact that the deceased herself had recorded the video is doubtful. Similarly, there are many contradictions between the statements of Balmukund Yadav (PW‑1), Radha Bai (PW‑2), Sonu Kumari (PW‑4), Mukesh Yadav (PW‑5), and Jyoti Yadav (PW‑13) made before the court and those recorded during the investigation.
22. After the above discussion, it becomes clear that the deceased Kshama Yadav committed suicide by hanging herself in her own father's house; under these circumstances, the allegation that the accused persons had been harassing the deceased Kshama Yadav for dowry, and that she committed suicide as a result of such harassment, stands disproved. On the contrary, it appears that after the deceased herself committed suicide, the parents of the deceased, being aggrieved by her death, planned and later lodged a complaint against the in‑laws of the deceased, i.e., the accused persons.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful examination of the evidence available on record, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 15 CRA-15750-2023 doubt so far as offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. The material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, absence of reliable corroborative evidence, and the overall circumstances of the case create a reasonable doubt regarding the allegations levelled against the accused persons. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
24. Accordingly, the criminal appeal No. 15750/2023 filed by accused persons is allowed. Accused persons namely Mahendra @ Gabbar Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav, Ranjana and Sangeeta Yadav are acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2 5 . The accused persons are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. The fine amount, if already deposited by the appellants, shall be refunded to them in accordance with law.
26. As the accused persons have been acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, as a consequence thereof, the Criminal appeal, i.e. Cr.A. No. 3648/2024 preferred by the complainant against acquittal of the accused persons is hereby dismissed.
27. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the record of the connected appeal. Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26035 16 CRA-15750-2023 JUDGE JUDGE Rao Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 04-04-2026 11:27:29