MP News: High Court Dismisses State’s Dowry Death Appeal, Imposes ₹25,000 Costs For ‘Irresponsible’ Litigation

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday came down sharply on the State for filing what it termed an ‘irresponsible’ and meritless criminal appeal in an alleged dowry death case, dismissing the plea and imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on the prosecution.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Vinay Saraf directed that the amount be deposited with the Indian Red Cross Society, Jabalpur, while granting liberty to the State to recover the cost from officials responsible for recommending the appeal.

The appeal had challenged the acquittal of Krishna Singh Maravi by a sessions court in Anuppur in a case registered under Sections 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (cruelty) of the IPC.

At the outset, the High Court condoned a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. However, after examining the record, the Bench found no justification to interfere with the trial court’s judgment and strongly criticised the prosecution for pursuing the matter despite glaring weaknesses.

According to the prosecution, Savitri, who married the accused in 2015, was harassed for dowry, particularly for a television, and allegedly driven by cruelty to set herself on fire on November 24, 2017. She later died of burn injuries on December 9, 2017.

The High Court noted serious contradictions in the prosecution’s case. Key witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased, failed to consistently support allegations of dowry harassment. Witness Seeta Dhurve admitted in cross-examination that she had never lodged any complaint regarding dowry demand. Savitri’s mother, Sona Bai, stated that the incident was accidental and that her daughter had never complained of cruelty or harassment.

Crucially, the Bench relied on the dying declaration recorded by an executive magistrate, in which Savitri stated that the fire was accidental, caused by a kerosene chimney falling during a power outage. The court also took note of an unexplained delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR, further weakening the prosecution’s version.

Terming the appeal a ‘mere wastage of the court’s time,’ the Bench observed that it appeared to have been filed either to satisfy the state’s ‘own ego’ or to appease unnamed authorities, rather than on any legal merit.

Emphasising that appellate jurisdiction must be invoked responsibly, especially in cases of acquittal, the High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs, sending a clear message against frivolous prosecution-driven litigation.

Court’s sharp rebuke

The High Court granted the state liberty to recover the Rs 25,000 cost from officials who advised filing the appeal, implicitly holding them accountable for pushing an irresponsible and meritless case.