No Dowry Allegation In Dying Declaration: MP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Young Woman’s Death Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of a husband and his mother in a case relating to the death of a young married woman, holding that the prosecution failed to establish dowry-related cruelty or harassment, particularly in light of an unrebutted dying declaration of the deceased.

The Division bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen upheld the judgment of the trial court, noting that the mere fact that the death occurred within two years of marriage was insufficient to attract the statutory presumption under dowry death provisions.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated October 12, 2023, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, which had acquitted the accused persons, Sajan Shukla and Savita Shukla, of charges under Sections 304-B read with 34, in the alternative Section 302 read with 34, and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The State of Madhya Pradesh assailed the acquittal contending that the trial court had erred in ignoring the proximity of the death to the marriage and the alleged cruelty faced by the deceased.

Appearing for the State, Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma argued that the marriage of the deceased Shraddha Shukla had taken place on June 27, 2019, and her death occurred on June 29, 2021, well within seven years of marriage. It was contended that such a death attracted the statutory presumption of dowry death and warranted reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused persons.

The High court, however, found no merit in the submissions, observing that the record revealed the existence of a dying declaration, which went to the root of the matter. The bench noted that the dying declaration, marked as Exhibit P/21, was recorded by Dr. Anashwara M. and contained a clear account of the circumstances leading to the incident. In the declaration, the deceased stated that her mother-in-law used to scold her and that her husband doubted her character, which left her mentally disturbed, following which she set herself on fire. Significantly, the court underlined that “there is no allegation of demand of dowry or associated cruelty” in the dying declaration.

The bench also undertook a detailed analysis of the prosecution witnesses and found material inconsistencies and admissions that weakened the State’s case. The mother of the deceased admitted in her cross-examination that no dowry was fixed at the time of marriage and that there was no demand for dowry after the marriage. She further conceded that no complaint had been made on the days immediately preceding the incident. Other witnesses either turned hostile or stated that the deceased had caught fire while preparing meals, with one witness specifically noting that the husband had sustained burn injuries while attempting to save her.

The father of the deceased, though alleging dowry demand and murder in his examination-in-chief, admitted during cross-examination that his daughter had not made any complaint against the accused during her lifetime. The court found that these admissions, read alongside the dying declaration, rendered the prosecution version unreliable.

Emphasising the evidentiary value of an unrebutted dying declaration, the bench held that the trial court had rightly relied upon it while acquitting the accused. The High court observed that once the dying declaration did not attribute the incident to dowry harassment, the presumption under Section 304-B of the IPC could not be mechanically applied. The court concluded that “the finding of acquittal cannot be faulted with” and dismissed the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir and others vs State of Haryana. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused persons was affirmed.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sajan Shukla and Others

Date of Order: February 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen