Akshay Kumar Verma vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).16909/2026) AKSHAY KUMAR VERMA …APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T NAGARATHNA, J. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, who is present in the Court, accepts notice. 3. Leave granted. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that Muskan alias, Rinku Verma (since deceased) was married to the accused-appellant Akshay Kumar Verma (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) on 24.05.2013 and thereafter, 1 they started residing together with the family of the appellant in village Sathini. 5. On 26.05.2014, an information regarding death of Muskan was received by the Station House Officer at Mangavan Police Station from Ashish Verma, brother-in-law of the deceased that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home. As the said death had occurred within a few months of marriage, inquest proceedings were initiated to investigate the circumstances of her death. 6. During the said inquest proceedings, broken pieces of bangles of the deceased along with her earrings were discovered at the spot of occurrence. Further, during the said inquest proceedings, statements of the father, mother and other relatives of the deceased were recorded wherein it was stated that from the inception of the marriage, the deceased's husband Akshay Kumar Verma, mother-in-law Kalawati Verma, sister-in-law Priyanka, and brother-in-law Ashish Verma had demanded a motorcycle and Rs.50000/- cash in 2 dowry. Due to non-fulfillment of the said dowry demands, they continuously tortured her physically and mentally. Based on the aforesaid information, FIR No.247 of 2014 dated 29.05.2014 was registered at Police Station:Mangawan under Section 498A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) against the appellant herein and his family members. 7. The Trial Court in Session Trial No.245/2014, vide judgment and order dated 16.05.2017, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.1000/-. He was further convicted under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.1000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.05.2017 of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.2273 of 2017 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 9. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 3 29.06.2026, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.2273 of 2017 and thereby affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. 10. Aggrieved, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2026, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant made a two-fold submission: firstly, he contended that the High Court was not right in affirming the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence by the Trial Court on merits. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case, this Court is not inclined to consider the matter on merits, this Court may remand the matter to the High Court for a re-hearing of the Criminal Appeal as the High Court has failed to give any reason whatsoever for confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. 13. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant drew our 4 attention to the impugned judgment and stated that the judgment consists of only twelve paragraphs, of which, eight paragraphs record a few facts and contentions and the consideration of the appeal on merits is only from paragraphs 9 to 10. There being no reason assigned by the High Court for confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, this Court may set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal and adjudicating the same in accordance with law. 14. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s)-State contended that when the High Court, on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, was inclined to affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, it was unnecessary to give reasons in detail and therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. 15. During the course of submissions, it was also brought to our notice that the appellant has completed twelve years’ and three months of actual sentence and sixteen years’ and seven months with remission. 5 16. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore contended that in case this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the high court having regard to the long incarceration and the fact that the appellant has a good case on merits and the matter now to be reheard by the High Court, the relief of interim bail may be granted to the appellant herein subject to the conditions to be imposed on him. 17. We have perused the impugned judgment and we are inclined to accept the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant. We find that even if the High Court was confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, it ought to have done so by adequate reasoning on re-appreciation of the evidence and not in a cryptic manner by which it has arrived at the conclusion in the impugned judgment. On that short ground alone, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the High Court. 18. The High Court is requested to rehear the appeal, re- appreciate the entire evidence on record and adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 6 19. Since the appellant has been in jail for the last sixteen years’ and seven months with remission and twelve years’ and three months without remission, we find that pending consideration of the appeal by the High Court, the ends of justice would be met if we grant the relief(s) of suspension of sentence and interim bail to the appellant herein. 20. We, therefore, allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter to the High Court and direct as under: “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings.” 21. The appellant shall appear before the High Court as and when directed to do so. 22. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the hearing of the appeal before the High Court. 7 23. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 24. Any infraction of the conditions may entail cancellation of the suspension of sentence and interim bail granted to the appellant. 25. With these observations, the criminal appeal is allowed. .………………………………………, J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) ………………………………………, J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 8 ITEM NO.9/1 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S).16909/2026 [ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29-06-2026 IN CRA NO. 2273/2017 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR] AKSHAY KUMAR VERMA PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT IA NO. 271668/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA NO. 271671/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 17-09-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR Mr. Nepal Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkatesh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Hanumant Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. Ms.Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice to the respondent. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 9 respondent-State, who is present in the Court, accepts notice. Leave granted. Appeal is allowed in terms of the non-reportable judgment, which is placed on file. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 10