WhatsApp Messages Naming Accused Before Death Prima Facie Dying Declaration: MP High Court Denies Bail
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered the WhatsApp message sent by the deceased to his father before committing suicide, naming the accused men, as prima facie dying declaration. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 304]The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai upheld the Trial Court's order denying bail to three men accused of abetting the suicide of a man belonging to the Scheduled Caste "A critical piece...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered the WhatsApp message sent by the deceased to his father before committing suicide, naming the accused men, as prima facie dying declaration. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 304]
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai upheld the Trial Court's order denying bail to three men accused of abetting the suicide of a man belonging to the Scheduled Caste
"A critical piece of evidence produced by the prosecution is the Panchnama related to the deceased's mobile phone. The record reflects that shortly before his death, the deceased sent three WhatsApp messages to his father's mobile number... This electronic evidence serves as a crucial prima facie dying declaration explicitly naming the appellants".
A criminal appeal was filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order of June 30, 2026, wherein the prayer for bail of the appellants was denied.
Per the case, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Badnawar police station received information of a suspicious death under Section 194 BNSS for investigation. It was revealed that Santosh, aged 25 years, a resident of the village Jharipada, belonging to the Bhil caste, was found dead. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death as "Asphyxia".
The deceased's father and brother claimed that the appellants used to threaten, abuse, insult, and harass the deceased with death threats over an old agricultural dispute. It was alleged that the deceased was frightened and saddened by the abuse and hanged himself texted to his father.
It was claimed that from the deceased's phone, three WhatsApp messages were recovered regarding his suicide, naming the appellants.
The counsel for the appellants claimed that they were falsely implicated solely due to enmity. The counsel argued that the father's official statement does not relate to any WhatsApp messages, which is contradictory to the prosecution's story. Further, it was argued that the prosecution had not submitted the mobile-related CAF Form along with the chargesheet.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Panchanama of the viewing of the mobile phones indicated a friendly relationship between the named accused and the deceased and the absence of any old land-related dispute.
The counsel for the appellants contended that the complainants are taking advantage of their caste to conspire against the appellants.
The court noted that under the appellate jurisdiction (Section 14 of the SC/ST Act), the appellate court has to examine whether the material on record justified denial of bail under the facts and circumstances of the case. Examining the case diary, the court noted that crucial evidence presented by the prosecution was a panchnama related to the deceased's mobile phone, which reflects that he sent three messages to his father on WhatsApp.
The bench further held, "Furthermore, the statements of the deceased's father, Bhuralal Ausari, and brother, Bhima Ausari, recorded during the investigation, corroborate the prosecution's narrative. Both witnesses have categorically stated that the appellants systematically threatened, abused, and insulted the deceased over an old agricultural land dispute, subjecting him to continuous death threats which allegedly drove him to end his life".
The court rejected the appellant's objection over non-submission of CAF Form, documentary proof over land dispute and alleged friendly relations between appellant and the deceased. The court clarified that at the stage of considering a bail application, the court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously or conduct a mini trial.
Therefore, the court held that, looking at all the circumstances and evidence, a 'strong prima facie' case is made out. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's order was upheld.
Case Title: Dharmendra v State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A. NO. 5816/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 304
For Appellants: Advocate Kaushal Sisodiya
For State: Advocate Ambuj Patel
For Deceased's father (respondent no 2): Advocate Pankaj Vishwakarma