##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8576

1 CRA-1190-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1190 of 2016

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Versus

RAM DAS AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated

08.07.2010 passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur

(M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.356 of 2008, whereby the respondents No.2 and

3/accused have been acquitted of an offence under Section 306 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Kirti Prasad Shrivastava

(P.W.4), a railway employee, was on nigh duty at Devi Railway Station on

18th May, 2008. While returning from guard brake duty, he saw a woman's

dead body under a stationary freight train on the down loop line. He

informed Assistant Station Master, S. K. Shrivastqva, who informed GRP

and PS Panagar. The body was subjected to postmortem examination

(Exhibit P/8) and then buried. Bhakt Prahlad Patel, the deceased's elder

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA

Signing time: 03-02-2026

10:40:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8576

2 CRA-1190-2016

brother informed GRP, leading to registration of Merg No.8. Investigation

was done by DSP N. K. Tiwari (P.W.2). The body was identified by the

husband, Ramdas and elder brother based on clothes and jewelry. The father

of the deceased filed report (Exhibit P/6) stating his daughter was married to

Ramdas, 08 years ago and was being harassed by him and mother-in-law

Radhabai and her grand mother-in-law.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered a case for

the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

under Crime No.42/2008, and after completion of investigation, filed the

charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. The learned

Magistrate, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where it was

registered as S.T. No.356/2008. Charge under Section 306 read with Section

34 of the I.P.C. was framed against respondents No.2 and 3, to which they

abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined witnesses namely Constable Rameshwar

Paraste (P.W.1), N. P. Tiwari (P.W.2),Dr. R. P. Pyasi (P.W.3), Keerat Prasad

Srivas (P.W.4), Bhakt Prahlad Patel (P.W.5), Ramsewak (P.W.6). Gaya

Prasad Patel (P.W.7), R. V. Singh Vimal (P.W.8), G. S. Uikey (P.W.9), R.

K. Pandey (P.W.10), Vishwanath Prasad Patel (P.W.11) and Devraj Singh

Kushwaha (P.W.12) and exhibited 24 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/14) in

support of the prosecution case. On the defence side, Member Dahiya (

D.W.1), and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7.

5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial

Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 6 from the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA

Signing time: 03-02-2026

10:40:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8576

3 CRA-1190-2016

charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted

that despite sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence on record in respect of

guilt of respondents No.1 and 2, trial Court erroneously acquitted them by

the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that brother of deceased, father

of deceased (P.W.6) and brother-in-law of deceased (P.W.7) have supported

the prosecution story in toto. Moreover, story of prosecution has been

further substantiated by the evidence of Doctor concerned and Investigating

Officer. Learned counsel has contended that, upon due consideration of the

entire evidence and statements on record, the learned trial Court has erred in

law and on facts in acquitting the respondents No.2 and 3 of the c