IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2952 of 2014 PARUSHRAM SARANG Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vijay Bhushan Garg - Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5.

JUDGMENT This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') against the judgment dated 30.08.2014 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.105 of 2011, whereby the respondents No.2 to 5/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have been acquitted of offence under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506 and 306 of the IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that from 24.04.11 and before that, the accused used to mentally torture the deceased Pramod and his family members by abusing them over a land dispute. On 24.04.11, at about 7:00 PM, Parasram Vishnoi, Smt. Parvati Vishnoi and deceased Pramod were going from village Domnamou under Harda police station on the road from Masangaon to Domnamou. At that time, the accused came there and stopped them and started abusing them. They caught hold of Parasram's collar, slapped him and threatened that if he told anyone about the incident, they would kill him. Being harassed by the continuous beating and abuse by the accused, deceased Pramod committed suicide by consuming poisonous medicine on 24.04.11. During the investigation, a Marg (inquest) was registered, and witness statements were recorded. A spot map of the incident was prepared, and a Lash Panchayat Nama was prepared. During the evidence, the case was found to be one of abetment to suicide, eventually a case number 223/11 was registered against the accused at Harda police station under sections 341, 506, and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons by the Police Station, Harda under Sections 341, 506 and 306/34 of IPC. Statement of the witnesses got recorded. Charges were framed; read out and explained to the accused persons, they denied committing the crime and sought a trial. During their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Parasram Saran (PW1), Smt. Parvatibai (PW2), Brajesh Vishnoi (PW3), Ramjivan Baghela (PW4), Mansharam Korku (PW5), Dr. Arjun Singh Mohe (PW6), Dr. Manish Sharma (PW7), Maya Singh (PW8), Mahendra Singh Meena PW9) and Gulab Lakra (PW10) and exhibited 22 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/22) in support of the prosecution case. During the accused examination conducted under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied committing the crime and expressed their view that they were falsely implicated and gave their defence evidence. Ramsevak (DW1) and Kishore (DW2) were examined as defence witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3.

5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 from the charge under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved of the order of acquittal, this appeal has been filed by complainant/appellant.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the learned trial Court, despite there being sufficient evidence available on record, has erroneously acquitted the accused persons/respondents. It is contended that Parasram (PW1), Parvati Bai (PW2), and Brajesh (PW3), who are respectively the father, mother, and brother of the deceased, have categorically supported the prosecution case. They have depose