IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2865 of 2020 PRATAP SINGH KURMI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Raghuvar Prasad Parajapati - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Abhishek Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

JUDGMENT Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen Heard on the question of admission.

2. Appeal is admitted and heard finally.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgement dated 07.02.2020 passed in S.T. No.185/2017, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court No.10 Electricity Act, 2003, District Sagar (M.P.) whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.2 to 6 from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, r/w 306 of IPC and Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per prosecution story, on 27.06.2017, an FIR vide Crime No.362/2017 was registered by the police of Police Station Rahatgarh against the accused persons/respondent No.2 to 6 alleging that the deceased was married with Appellant No.2 Rajesh, after the marriage the respondent No.2 and his family members was committing cruelty and marpeet with the deceased and was making illegal demand of dowry from her family members. Due to this reason, on 27.06.2017 in the midnight, she committed suicide by fallen down in the well and after investigation charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 306 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed. It is further submitted that trial court grossly erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it and exercised the same with material irregularities and illegalities. The finding of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to law and liable to be set aside by the this Court. Learned trial Court has committed grave error while pronouncement of judgment dated 07.02.2020 in which the complainant fully supported the case of prosecution and version and deposited against the respondents in her statements as well as entire prosecution witnesses have been produced which have been fully supported the case of the prosecution. Accused persons/respondent No.2 to 6 were harassing mentally and physically to the deceased in respect of demand of dowry and they committed marpeet with her and tortured her mentally. These important facts have not been considered by the learned trial Court which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. In these circumstances, judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside and accused persons/respondent No.2 to 6 be convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 306 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Shri Abhishek Singh - learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.

6. Pratap Singh Kurmi (PW-2), who is father of deceased Sulekha, stated that deceased Sulekha was married with Rajesh on 07.05.2015. After marriage, he had visited to in-laws' house of Sulekha and he had taken her at his house. After marriage deceased Sulekha had come nearabout 6 to 7 times to her maternal house. Each time, she had told that her in-laws, including Rajesh, Brajesh, her brother-in-law, Kamta Prasad, and her mother-in-law and father-in-law demanded a four-wheeler or ₹4 lakh as dowry. When his daughter had visited second time to her parents' home after her marriage, she told the alleged dowry demands from the accused. The deceased used to say that the accused used to beat and harass her for dowry. He stated that he had tried to understand to her father-in-law Tikaram that they should explain to the boy and his family why they demand dowry, then Tikaram had replied that if you fulfill the demand of his son, then they will never harass his daughter. About a month before the incident, the girl had come to her parents' house. At that time also the girl had told that her in-laws used to