Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Kushwaha vs Parmanand Kushwaha on 28 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
1 CRA-7701-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7701 of 2024
PRAKASH KUSHWAHA
Versus
PARMANAND KUSHWAHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anurag Prajapati - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State of
M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10th April
2024 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari, District
Tikamgarh in S.T. No.23 of 2021 whereby the accused persons namely
Parmanand Kushwaha, S/o Mulu Kushwaha, Mulu Kushwaha, S/o Chhimme
Kushwaha and Kunji Kushwaha, W/o Mulu Kushwaha have been acquitted
of the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B alternatively of Section 306 of
IPC. The accused persons/respondent nos. 1 to 3 have also been acquitted
of the charges under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The prosecution story is that on 20.3.2021, Dr. Mohammad Zoyev
Khan, the Medical Officer at CHC, Niwari had sent a written intimation to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
2 CRA-7701-2024
the SHO, Police Station, Niwari which read that the deceased Geeta, W/o
Paramanand Kushwaha, aged 19 years, R/o Ward No. 03, Niwari died as a
result of ingestion of poison.
3. On the basis of said intimation, Marg - Intimation No.15 of 2021
was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at Police Station, Niwari.
4. The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted by Shri Anil
Dhakad, Executive Magistrate, Niwari and the Naksha Panchayatnama
(Inquest Panchnama) of Ex.P-2 was prepared. The Inquest Officer concurred
with the opinion of the Panch Witnesses that the death of the seemed to have
occurred as a result of consumption of poisonous substance. However,
postmortem was advised.
5. Postmortem Examination of the body was conducted by a team of
the Doctors comprising of Dr. M.Z. Khan, Dr. R.C. Malarya and Dr. Manoj
Arya and the autopsy report is Ex.P-7. Doctors of autopsy opined that no
definite opinion could be given in respect of cause of death of the deceased.
They preserved the viscera of the organs of the deceased for FSL
examination.
6. Ex.P-12 is the report of Dr. Mohammad Zoyev Khan, the Medical
Officer at CHC, Niwari (PW-13) which mentions death of deceased occurred
due to consumption of poison.
7. FIR (Ex.P-13) was recorded as Crime No.114 of 2021 on 14.3.2021
showing incident to have taken place on 10.3.2021 under Section 304-B,
498-A and 34 of IPC and under Section 3/ 4 of Dowry prohibition Act.
8. Prakash Kushwama (PW-1) admitted that Permanand Kushwaha is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
3 CRA-7701-2024
his son-in-law and Kunji bai and Mulu Kushwaha are his Shamdhan and
Sahmdhi. Deceased Geeta was his daughter. In cross-examination, this
witness admitted that neither he had any capacity to pay nor accused had any
capacity to accept and dowry. This witness admits that he had not made any
report to the Police Personnel in regard to demand of dowry. He further
admits that he had not lodged any report to the Police in regard to demand of
any money. He further admits that since accused had not demanded any
money therefore he had not made any report with the Police. In para 9 this
witness admits that a male child was born to the victim after one year of the
Panchayat. This child was taken by the accused persons for treatment to
Jhanshi. Deceased lost her eight months' old child causing mantel agony and
pain. This witness further admits in para 9 that his daughter was never beaten
by the accused in front of him. In para-10 this witness admits that treatment
of his daughter's child was carried out by the accused persons. He also
admitted that his daughter used to visit their house for 2-3 days when
accused used to come to pick her. He also admitted that Permanand and
Geeta were residing separately from Mullu and Kunji bai. This witness
further admits that one year prior to the incident Mullu and Kunji bai had
separated their son and daughter-in-law. This witness also admitted that
their kitchens were separate.
9. PW-2 Jashoda Kushwaha is the mother of the deceased. This
witness admits that after eights of Panchyat a child was born to her daughter.
His birth had taken place at Government Hospital, Niwari. This witness also
corroborates evidence of PW-1 that when child was ailing then accused had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
4 CRA-7701-2024
taken him for treatment to Jhanshi. This witness further corroborates the
evidence of PW-1 that prior to the incident, they had never lodged any
complaint in regard to demand of dowry. She admits that her daughter -
Geeta and son-in-law - Permanand were staying separately from Mullu and
Kunji Bai and their kitchens were also separate. She also admitted that Police
Personnel had obtained her thumb impression on two blank papers.
10. Prosecution has not brought on record any marriage invitation card
or any other documentary evidence to show as to when marriage of Geeta
with Permanand had taken place. However, PW-4 prosecution witness
admitted that Geeta was married to Permanand ten years prior to the
incident. This witness admits that he is a hearsay witness. He was informed
by Prakash, his brother-in-law about the incident. This witness admits that he
does not have any information as to how Geeta died. However, after being
declared hostile, he admits that marriage was performed four years prior to
the date of the incident. In cross - examination, this witness admits that
whatever he is deposing is deposing as per narration given his brother-in-law
- Prakash i.e. PW-1. This witness further admits that when Geeta was
residing in her in-laws house and nobody had informed her about any
incident to him. He also admitted that Geeta was under depression on
account of death of her eight months' old son. This witness further admits
that Geeta consumed poison out of depression arising from death eight
months' old son. This witness further states that no Panchanama was
prepared in regard to the Panchyat which was allegedly convened.
11. PW-5 admits that Geeta was never harassed by her in-laws in front
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
5 CRA-7701-2024
of him. He also admits that Geeta never informed him she was harassed by
her in-laws or her husband.
12. PW-6 is co-brother of Geeta's father.
13. PW-7, Dr. R.C. Malarya has stated that no definite reason can be
given for death of Geeta. Viscera was preserved. Death had occurred within
6 to 24 hours of postmortem. In cross-examination he admits that there were
on injuries marks on the body of the deceased-Geeta.
14. PW-9 in cross examination admits that if Geeta would have
committed suicide out of depression originating from the death of her son
then he cannot say anything.
15. PW-17, Shailendra Shrivastava, Retired D.S.P. has stated that vide
Ex.P-14 a draft was sent to FSL Sagar for reporting. It is interesting to note
that FSL dated 15.4.2021 is on record which says that Ex. A-1 and Ex.A-2
containing viscera material was found to contained Aluminum Phosphite. In
Ex.P-2 results were negative. Neither the Public Prosecutor nor the trial court
bothered to exhibit this very vital document, though in Para-14 of the
judgment, learned trial court mentioned about this report but we are of the
opinion that without exhibiting the document which trial court could have
done on its own by exhibiting it as a court exhibit, reliance has been placed
on it.
16. In any case when evidence of prosecution witnesses is taken into
consideration few things are evident namely Geeta and her husband were
residing separately from Geeta's in-laws namely Mullu and Kunji bai.
Secondly prosecution could not prove demand of dowry. Therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53754
6 CRA-7701-2024
provisions of Section 304-B or Section 498-A of IPC are not attracted. None
of the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC could be proved to prove the aspect
of abatement so as to attract the provision of 306 of IPC and when these
facts are taken into consideration then acquittal recorded by the trial court
does not call for any interference. Our view is fortified by the verdict of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415. There is no material to show that any different view other than one
taken by the trial court can be taken.
17. The appeal fails is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
