IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

<>

ON THE 9

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2757 of 2024

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Versus

BHAGWATI RAIKWAR AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.

<>

None for the respondents.

<>

JUDGMENT

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani

<>

This appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.11.2023 passed

in S.T.No.32/2020 (State of M.P. vs. Bhagwati Raikwar and others) by

learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh (M.P.)

whereby respondents /accused persons, Bhagwati Raikwar, Haricharan

Raikwar, Mahendra @ Pappu Raikwar and Sanju Raikwar have

been acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of

IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2

<>

. It is not in dispute that five years ago the deceased -Sunita Raikwar,

was married to the accused - Pappu alias Mahendra. Accused Harcharan

Raikwar is the deceased's father-in-law, accused Pappu alias Mahendra is the

deceased's husband, and accused Sanju, Vanshi Raikwar are the deceased's

1 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

brothers-in-law. The deceased died after consuming a poisonous substance.

3

<>

. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 11.06.2020 Pappu alias

Mahendra Ahirwar, a resident of village Gadari village, appeared at the

Khajri police chowki and reported that he was at home on 11.06.2020. His

wife Sunita (deceased) and children were also at home. His eldest daughter

Karishma, aged two years, had asked his wife Sunita for money to buy

biscuits. When she was asking for money, she slapped the girl. He angrily

asked the deceased why she was slapping the girl. Upon saying this, his wife

went inside the house and came out and said that she had consumed fly

repellent (poison) and he should take care of her children well and Sunita was

feeling dizzy. He took Sunita to village Taktoli for treatment, where the

doctor refused to treat her, so he took her to Mauranipur by taxi for

treatment. The doctor checked and told that Sunita was dead. Based on the

above information, a case of untimely death was registered at the Khajri

police station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the case was registered and

the investigation was started.

4

<>

. During the inquest, the investigating officer recorded the statements of

the deceased's parents and other witnesses, in which it was found that due to

the accused physically and mentally torturing the deceased for demanding

Rs.50,000 and a motorcycle as dowry, the deceased consumed poisonous

substance and died under other than normal circumstances within 07 years of

marriage. Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused in Police

Station Palera at Crime No. 235/2020 for offence under Sections 304-B, 34

IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

2 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

5

<>

. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the

competent court which, on its turn, committed the case to the court of

Sessions and from where it was received by the court of First A.S.J., Jatara,

District Tikamgarh for trial.

6.

<>

The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the

charge sheet framed charges against the appellants for the offences

punishable under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition

Act. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete

innocence. The defence of accused persons is of false implication.

7.

<>

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many

as 10 witnesses, namely, Phoolwati Raikwar (PW-1), Usha Raikwar (PW-2),

Malkhan Raikwar (PW-3), Bhagunti Raikwar (PW-4), Kashiram Raikwar

(PW-5), Dhruv Pateriya (PW-6), Pushpa Dheemer (PW-7), Dr. Pushpalata

Bharti (PW-8), Ramsahai Ahirwar (PW-9) and Yogendra Singh Bhadoriya

(PW-10) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/19 the documents on record. The accused

persons examined Jeevanlal Tiwari (DW-1) and Chintaman Kushwaha (DW-

2) in their defence.

8.

<>

The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies

of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record

found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable

doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charges under

Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 . Hence, this appeal.

9

<>

. It is submitted by learned Government Advocate appearing for the

3 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

appellant/State that despite there being ample evidence available on record

against the accused/respondents, the learned trial Court has not properly

appreciated the evidence and erred in acquitting the respondents. Thus, it is

prayed that allowing the appeal impugned judgment be set aside and the

respondents/accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the

aforesaid offences.

10.

<>

We have heard learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State

and perused the record meticulously.

11.

<>

As far as the conclusion of learned Trial Court in respect of

consideration of Point No.1 is concerned, it is found warranting no

interference. It is rightly found by the learned Trial Court in light of evidence

on record that the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage and

the death was unnatural. As regards points for consideration No.2 & 3, the

story of prosecution is supported by parents mother Phoolwati (PW-1) and

father Malkhan Raikwar (PW-3). The other witnesses, namely, Smt Usha

Raikwar (PW-2), Bhagunti Raikwar (PW-4), Kashiram Raikwar (PW-5) and

Pushpa Dheemer (PW-7) have not substantiated the prosecution story at all.

Except Bhagunti Raikwar (PW-4), other aforesaid witnesses have been

declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but no fact

supporting the prosecution story is revealed from their testimonies. The

testimonies of Phoolwati (PW-1) and Malkhan Raikwar (PW-3) which are

not supported by independent witnesses, are under the scrutiny with

circumspection.

12.

<>

When we travel through the testimonies of Phoolwati (PW-1) and

4 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

Malkhan Raikwar (PW-3), it revealed that the deceased was short tempered

and she was living along with her husband separately from her in-laws and

there was no prior complaint against respondents/accused persons lodged by

the parents of the deceased qua the demand of dowry and harassment or

cruelty meted out to the deceased. It is also admitted by Phoolwati (PW-1)

categorically in her cross-examination that after the marriage of deceased

with respondent Mahendra, the accused persons used to treat the deceased

well and a daughter Karishma @ Pari was also born during the period. In

para 11 she categorically admitted that her daughter Sunita (the deceased)

never told her or her relatives about any serious problem facing by her with

her in-laws. Sunita (deceased) used to say that she had minor family

disputes with her husband.

13.

<>

It is also revealed from the testimony of Investigating Officer

Yogendra Singh (PW-10) that the FIR has been lodged after 25 days of the

incident. At the time of taking the statement under marg inquiry, no

complaint was made to him by the parents or the relatives of the deceased

qua the demand of dowry or any harassment or cruelty meted out to the

deceased by the accused persons.

14.

<>

Phoolwati (PW-1) has stated that the accused persons have demanded

Rs.50,000/- and a 'vehicle' and twenty days after giving Rs.5000/- to accused

Pappu, the accused persons started committing marpeet with the deceased

and on 11th of that month the information about death of deceased has been

received by her. Malkhan (PW-3) has stated in his chief examination that

accused persons have demanded Rs.50,000/- and a 'motorcycle' and after 8

5 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

to 10 days since giving Rs.5000/- to Mahendra, Mahendra called him and

informed that the deceased has died. There is variation in respect of what is

demanded as dowry as well as the duration after such giving when the death

of the deceased took place.

15.

<>

That apart, both the witnesses Phoolwati (PW-1) and Malkhan Raikwar

(PW-3) in their statements have categorically stated that when they saw the

deceased, there were several injuries on her persons while as per the

statement of Dr. Pushpalata Bharti (PW-8), who conducted postmortem of

the deceased, in her chief examination has stated that there was no injury

mark on the person of the deceased, which indicates falsity of the statements

of these two witnesses i.e. Phoolwati (PW-1) and Malkhan Raikwar (PW-3)

on the aforesaid point. It is also revealed from the statement of Malkhan

Raikwar (PW-3) that the financial condition of the family of accused persons

was weak and, therefore, accused Mahendra and his wife Sunita (deceased )

used to go to Delhi for doing labour work.

16.

<>

Investigating officer Yogendra Singh (PW-10) in his cross-examination

has admitted that it is surfaced from the police statement of Pushpa that

accused Sanju, Vanshi and Mahendra all were living separately from their

father Haricharan. Similar is the statement given by Bhagunti (PW-4) and

Kashiram (PW-5). He also admits that Ramswaroop in police statement

(Ex.P/6) has also deposed in similar line and has also stated that there was no

trouble/pressure to the deceased in her in-laws house. He also admits that

Pushpa (PW-7) in her police statement has stated that since a dispute arose

between the deceased and her husband, the deceased consumed poison. This

6 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

fact has also been substantiated by the defence witnesses Jeevanlal Tiwari

(DW-1) and Chintaman Kushwaha (DW-2) that there was no demand of

dowry or harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused

persons.

17.

<>

The aforesaid factual scenario revealed from evidence does not inspire

confidence of court in placing reliance on such evidence. The learned Trial

Court while considering the evidence available on record has rightly

concluded that the points No.2 and 3 are not found to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt and this court finds no ground warranting any interference

with the findings of the learned Trial Court.

18.

<>

In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14

<>

SCC 151

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice

in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the

case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his

innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In

case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605

<>

Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however

strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable

doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or

illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere

with the same.

19.

<>

Recently in the case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka,

<>

(2024) 3 SCC 544

<>

the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the

7 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the

promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the

safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are

intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which

come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be

summarised as :

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial

and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all

evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a

miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two

views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall

ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere

possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of

acquittal;

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in

appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address

all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover

all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate

court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or

fact in the decision of the trial court."...

20.

<>

In the backdrop of foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid

down in the aforementioned cases, it is found that the acquittal of the present

respondent rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds, warranting no

interference. We are of the considered view that the acquittal of respondent

from the charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and

Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is based on sound legal

reasonings. No perversity or illegality is committed while passing the

impugned judgment of acquittal.

8 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

21.

<>

Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

<>

DV

9 CRA-2757-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11443