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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9229 of 2024 RAMGOPAL MEENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akash Kaushal - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh - Public Prosecutor for State.

J U D G M E N T Per: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.01.2024, passed by the learned Tenth Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (OAW), District Bhopal (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No.182 of 2018, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') from the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 in alternative 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts leading to the present case are that the marriage of deceased Poonam took place with the respondent No.2 Rajesh Deshwadi in December, 2011. It is alleged that after about four years of marriage on 17.08.2017 she committed suicide on account of harassment and ill-treatment given by her husband Rajesh, father-in-law Kunjilal and mother-in-law Sugnabai in connection with demand of dowry. On 17.08.2017, the brother-in-law Rajendra Deshwadi has informed at Police Station Piplani that Poonam Deshwadi had committed suicide by hanging herself with her sari. Merg No. 46/2017 was registered. On the basis of the material collected, offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code under Crime No.505/2017 was registered against accused Rajesh, Kunjilal and Sugnabai. During the course of inquiry, statements of the father, mother and sister of the deceased were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, which, on its turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was received by the trial Court for trial.

3. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge-sheet framed charges against the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 under Sections 498-A and 306 in alternative under 304-B of the IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely Rakesh Deshwadi (P.W.1), Susheel Kumar Meena (P.W.2), Ramgopal Meena (P.W.3), Deepika (P.W.4), Nemichand (P.W.5), Constable Satyendra Singh Tomar (P.W.6), Prem Singh Meena (P.W.7), Sheron (P.W.8), Soniya Patel (P.W.9), Smt. Gaurabai (P.W.10), Head Constable Sher Singh (P.W.11), Dr. Gaurav Tiwari (P.W.12), Virendra Mishra (P.W.13), Rakesh Kumar Mishra (P.W.14) and Inspector Nilesh Awasthi (P.W.15) and placed Ex.P-1 to P-15 the documents on record;

whereas in defence, the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 have examined as many as 02 witnesses namely Dr. S.K. Tandon (D.W.1) and Dr. R.N. Sahu (D.W.2) and placed Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-13 the documents on record.

5. After conclusion of trial and hearing of both parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 from the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 in alternative Section 304-B of the IPC.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 4 primarily on the basis of certain minor contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, without properly appreciating the material evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Susheel Kumar Meena (P.W.2) Ramgopal Meena (P.W.3) and Deepika (P.W.4) have consistently supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Susheel Kumar Meena (P.W.2) has categorically deposed that his sister Poonam was subjected to harassment by respondent Nos.2 to 4 on account of continuous demand of moto