'Irresponsible Appeal Filed To Appease Ego': MP High Court Slaps Costs On State In Dowry Death Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed ₹25,000 costs on the State for wasting judicial time by filing an "irresponsible" criminal appeal against acquittal in a dowry death case (Section 304B IPC).The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice BP Sharma observed; "...filing of this Criminal Appeal is mere wastage of time of this Court. It reflects that State has irresponsibly...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed ₹25,000 costs on the State for wasting judicial time by filing an "irresponsible" criminal appeal against acquittal in a dowry death case (Section 304B IPC).
The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice BP Sharma observed;
"...filing of this Criminal Appeal is mere wastage of time of this Court. It reflects that State has irresponsibly filed this Criminal Appeal just to appease their own ego or somebody else to whom they claim themselves to be answerable, but at best they appear to be not answerable to the Court. Therefore, we not only dismiss the appeal affirming the judgment of the learned trial Court, but impose cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for such irresponsible act on the part of the State".
The appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of District Sehore, which had acquitted the respondents of offences related to dowry death (Section 304B) read with dowry-related cruelty (Section 498A) of IPC and punishment for dowry demand (Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act).
The State contended that the deceased woman had died on December 25, 2018, due to the consumption of aluminium phosphide within three years of marriage. It was further submitted that the FIR was filed on January 14, 2019 and that the prosecution witnesses supported the case. On this basis, the State argued that the Trial Court arbitrarily acquitted the accused.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that although the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses, none of them were able to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304B or Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Upon examining the record, the Court considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses and held that the evidence did not support the case of dowry demand or dowry related crulety. The court observed that the death does not appear to be dowry-related and noted that it could be a case of suicide.
The bench further noted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded after considerable delay and did not inspire confidence. In view of these deficiencies, the court held that the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was justified and did not warrant interference.
Emphasizing that the appeal was a sheer waste of time, the court held that the State's conduct reflected irresponsibility and an attempt to pursue litigation merely to appease their ego or satisfy higher authority.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Trial Court's judgment and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the State for its irresponsble conduct.
The court also directed, "State will be free to recover the above cost from the persons who had given opinion to file this Criminal Appeal and the same shall be deposited in the Indian Red Cross Society, Jabalpur, within thirty days from today".
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v Manohar and Others [CRA-9939-2022]
For State: Governmet Advocate Ajay Shukla
For Respondents: Advocate Satyam Agarwal