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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1828 of 2025 VIRENDRA AHIRWAR Versus SUNIL AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Aparna Singh and Ms. Prashansha Singh - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

Shri Veer Vikrant Singh - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No. 6/State.

J U D G E M E N T Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant party under Section

372 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Third Additional Judge to the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in S.T. No. 529 of 2022 whereby learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons except accused Sunil Ahirwar, from the charges under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused Sunil Ahirwar has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

2. It is submitted that, acquittal of accused persons is incorrect, even acquittal of Sunil Ahirwar from the charges under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is incorrect. It is further submitted that, marriage of Lalita Bai took place on 11.12.2019 with accused Sunil Ahirwar, as per the Hindu traditions and Customs.

3. Lalita Bai died on 05.08.2022 on account of cruelty being meeted out by the accused persons for demand of dowry within 07 years of marriage, therefore, presumption is to be drawn that there was associated cruelty for demand of dowry which resulted in death of deceased Lalita Bai. Thus, it is submitted that, learned trial Court erred in recording a finding of acquittal against other accused persons convicting the husband Sunil Ahirwar only under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State supports impugned judgment. It is submitted that, Govardhan Pathe (PW-15) is the Naib Tehsildar, in front of whom, Shav-panchnama (Ex.P-2) was prepared. He has admitted that, this Shav-

Panchnama was prepared in presence of Virendra Kumar Ahirwar (PW-1) father of deceased Lalita, Mohini Ahirwar (PW-3) mother of deceased Lalita so also Sheela Ahirwar (PW-4) who claimed herself to be grand-mother of Lalita and they had all stated that, Lilta died because of fall from third story of building and had not informed them anything about demand of dowry. Thus, it is submitted that, present being a case of accidental death, learned trial Court has not committed any error in recording finding of acquittal qua the accused persons except accused Sunil Ahirwar/husband, who has been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, as far as, Virendra Kumar Ahirwar (PW-1) is concerned, he has raised allegations in regard to demand of dowry etc. but admits in para-9 of his cross-examination, that police had obtained signatures on plain papers, when he had an altercation with police personnel and police personnel stated that, they are not going to write statements of this witness as per his narration. This witness further states that, last rites of Lalita were performed by her in-laws family and they had not given any intimation in regard to collection of ashes.

6. In cross-examination this witness (PW-1) admitted that Lalita was born from his first wife Chandra Rani. He admits that Mohini is second daughterwas also married and there was only desertion of Mohini in the hands of her first husband where he had kept her on the basis of an agreement entered in to in the year, 2016. This witness admitted that, he was working as Labourer and was earning Rs.300-400 per day. This witness admits that, he had given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sandeep for establishment of his lab. Thus, it is admitted that, Rs.1,00,000/- were not given to Sandeep for any dowry purposes but as a loan to establish a lab. This witness admitted that, Sandeep w