CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak Jat And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 MP CK 1084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gajendra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 311 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 302, 304B, 306, 498A · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 4608 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 360 words

Gajendra Singh , J

1.

This revision petition is preferred challenging the order dated 23.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) in ST No.1125/2015 by 31st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore whereby the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure P/30 for re-summoning and re-cross-examining the witnesses namely Manjubai PW-1, Kiran Jat, Pw-2, Ranjit PW-3, Babita PW-4 and B.S. Thakur PW-5 has been rejected.

2.

Facts in brief of the case are that the petitioners were facing the trial for charges under section 302, 302 read with 120-B in alternate 304-B, in alternate 306, 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961 relating to the unnatural death of deceased Pooja on 12.09.2015 i.e. within seven years of marriage solemnized on 11.05.2011.

3.

Manjubai PW-1, Kiran Jat,Pw-2, Ranjit PW-3, Babita PW-4 were exmained on 23.02.2016 whereas d B.S. Thakur PW-5 was exmained on 05.04.2016.

4.

An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 1973 was preferred on the ground that:

(i) Cross-examination of the near relatives of the deceased has not been proper cross-examined and certain facts have not came on record;

(ii) In the month of April and May, 2018, the family members of the deceased came to meet the appellant/accused at their home and admitted that the deceased was not harassed and the FIR was lodged in pressure and confusion. They tried to provide the pen drive with contents of conversation to the police officer Deepak Jat, but they did not accept the same. Accordingly, the application preferred before the trial Court is rejected vide the impugned order.

5.

Challenging the impugned order, this revision is preferred.

6.

Referring to Zahira Habibullah Sehik vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 8 and Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203.

7.

Counsel for the State has opposed the application.

8.

First ground is not a ground available under Section 311 of Cr.P.C 1973 whereas other grounds are also the device to affect the testimony of witnesses, who have already been examined before the trial Court. Hence, this petition have no substance to be considered by this Court, therefore, the same is accordingly rejected.