IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

nd

ON THE 22 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.

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 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.

1 0 . 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)