[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharamdas Pal vs Raja Pali on 17 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
1 CRA-4030-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4030 of 2025
DHARAMDAS PAL
Versus
RAJA PALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Malik - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.5-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in S.T.
No.85/2022 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raja Pali and others ),
whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted accused persons, namely,
Raja Pali, Gulab Pali, Kusum Pali, Bhoori Bai Pali and Roopchand Pali
from the charges under Section 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Shri Saket Malik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present is a case where it has come on record and is not disputed that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
2 CRA-4030-2025
victim Shivani was married to accused Raja Pali on 07.07.2021. Shivani
committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 04.11.2022.
Thus, it is submitted that since death of Shivani occurred within less than
16 months of her marriage, presumption is to be drawn in regard to
cruelty associated with demand of dowry and, therefore, the learned trial
Court committed an error in recording a finding of acquittal. Thus, it is
submitted that the impugned judgment having been passed without due
appreciation of facts, needs to be reversed.
3. It is pointed out that the marriage invitation card of Vaishnavi
(Shivani) with Khet Singh (Raja) is available on record as Ex.P-9. It is
submitted that complaints were made in regard to demand of dowry and
associated torture and they being available on record, so also certain
electronic evidence as contained in Ex.P-15, the learned trial Court
should have recorded a finding of conviction. It is further submitted that
merg intimation (Ex.P-20) was recorded under Section 174 of the
Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, regular merg was registered on 09.11.2022 at
Police Station Tendukheda. Thereafter, the FIR was registered. The
investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. Thus, it is
submitted that the present is a case for conviction, where the learned trial
Court has wrongly recorded a finding of acquittal.
4. It is also submitted that in the viscera report (Ex.C-1), it has come
on record that the deceased died because of consumption of aluminum
phosphide, which was found to be positive in the viscera report. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
3 CRA-4030-2025
further submitted that the prosecution had examined as many as 9
witnesses and since they have supported the prosecution case, the finding
of acquittal be reversed.
5. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn, supports
the impugned judgment.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-1 Dharamdas Pal stated that Shivani was his daughter. Her
marriage was performed as per Hindu traditions on 07.07.2021. Up to 3
months of her marriage, Shivani had not informed them anything about
any cruelty or torture, but from the 4th occasion onwards, she used to
inform them about harassment.
7. PW-1 Dharamdas Pal in his cross-examination stated that at the time
of the incident, Shivani was pursuing her M.A. The marriage of Shivani
was fixed through his co-brother Shyam Lal. This witness admitted that
at the time of marriage, there was no dispute between the parties in
regard to demand of dowry. This witness admitted that on 09.11.2022
vide Ex.P-14, for the first time, a complaint was made against the
accused persons. This witness further admitted that prior to death of
Shivani, no action was taken on any of the complaints made by them.
This witness admitted that Shivani was brought to the hospital by her in-
laws and when she was referred from Tendukheda to District Hospital,
Narsinghpur, then her in-laws had only taken her to Narsinghpur. This
witness also admitted that after post-mortem, dead body was handed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
4 CRA-4030-2025
over to Gulab and her in-laws only had performed the last rites of
Shivani and other sanskars were performed by them.
8. PW-2 Rekha Pal stated that Shivani was her daughter. She admitted
that Lash Panchanama (Ex.P-2) was prepared in front of her, which
contains her signatures. She stated that no seizure was made in front of
her. This witness admitted that the family members of accused are non-
vegetarian and due to this reason, Shivani was upset. This witness
further admitted that the last rites of Shivani were performed by the
accused persons, so also the 13th day ceremony, etc. were performed by
the accused persons. This witness stated that she cannot say as to
whether Shivani was upset with other family members because she
wanted to live separately with her husband Raja Pali.
9. PW-3 Dr. Damodar Jatav, Medical Officer, stated that Shivani was
admitted on account of consumption of some unknown poison. She was
brought by her devar. Information was given to the police. Name of
devar was Ankit Pali. This witness further stated that after giving
preliminary treatment, victim was referred to the District Hospital.
10. PW-4 Jagannath Gyarasiya stated that he was posted as Sub-
Inspector at Police Chowki situated at District Hospital, Narsinghpur. He
had received the merg intimation. He had received Tehrir through ward
boy Akash Namdeo.
11. PW-5 Dr. Navneet Jain stated that he had conducted post-mortem
on the body of deceased Shivani. According to him, cause of death was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
5 CRA-4030-2025
failure of heart and respiratory system. The viscera was preserved. This
witness further stated that there were no injury marks on the body of
deceased Shivani.
12. PW-6 Akrajay Dhurve, Sub-Inspector, had taken the merg
intimation.
13. PW-7 Sachi Pathak, SDOP, admitted that she had taken
investigation in her hands on the date of the incident i.e. on 04.11.2022
and had filed the charge-sheet on 19.12.2022. She admitted that the spot
map was prepared on 10.11.2022 vide Ex.P-3 and it contains signatures
of Shivani's father Dharamdas and her grandfather Komal Prasad. On
09.11.2022, no written complaint was given to her. On 10.11.2022, she
had made a Panchnama for opening of lock. This witness further stated
that Ex.P-7 is Mauka Panchanama of Talashi, again where Dharamdas
and Komal Prasad were witnesses. They have not given any statements.
They were also witnesses of seizure memo (Ex.P-4). This witness stated
that vide Ex.P-23, all jewellery and money were handed over to
Dharamdas. They had not given any statement in support of the FIR.
14. PW-7 Sachi Pathak, SDOP, admitted that since 28.05.2022,
Shivani was residing in her Mayaka at Ghanghor. Shivani had visited
Tendukheda on 04.11.2022 itself. The distance between her Mayaka at
Ghanghor and Tendukheda is about 100 kms. This witness admitted that
prior to 23.11.2022, none of the witnesses had recorded their statements.
She admitted that in 161, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, it is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
6 CRA-4030-2025
mentioned that Shivani was being harassed for demand of dowry. She
admitted that during the investigation, no such statement was produced
before her that the in-laws or the husband of Shivani had harassed her
parents at the time of marriage or thereafter. This witness admitted that
she had recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section
161, Cr.P.C. at village Ghanghor, District Damoh. Merg intimation was
recorded by Raja, husband of Shivani. This witness stated that she had
neither received any letter from the Sub Divisional Officer, Tendukheda,
or the Collector, Narsinghpur nor had received any complaint. This
witness further stated that Dharamdas Pal in his case diary statements
(Ex.D-1) admitted that he had brought Shivani to his house on
28.05.2022.
15. PW-8 Srangesh Rajpoot, Inspector, is the author of the FIR (Ex.P-
33)
16. PW-9 Sanjay Shah, Head Constable, stated that he could not record
any statement of the deceased because the doctor had informed him that
Shivani was not in a position to give any statement.
17. Thus, it is evident that none of the witnesses could prove the aspect
of demand of dowry soon before death of deceased Shivani. In fact it has
come on record that since May, 2022, Shivani was residing in her
Mayaka. She visited her in-laws' house on 04.11.2022 and consumed
poison. There is no material on record that there was any demand of
dowry or harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
7 CRA-4030-2025
persons.
18. Recently in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhagwati
Raikwar and others (Criminal Appeal No.2757 of 2004, decided on 9 th
February, 2026), the coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-
"18. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Jayrajbhai
Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in
criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other towards his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil
Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 , Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law
that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place
of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial
Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not
permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same.
19. Recently in the case of Mallappa & others v.
State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has again summarized the principles while deciding the
appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
8 CRA-4030-2025
the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty.
All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal
law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The
principles which come into play while deciding an appeal
from acquittal could be summarised as :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a
criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive --
inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may
result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of
challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds
that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused
shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible
view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the
acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must
specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for
acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction,
the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14288
9 CRA-4030-2025
or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."...
19. In the backdrop of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles
laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is found that the acquittal of the
present respondents rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds,
warranting no interference. Thus, we are of the considered view that the
acquittal of the accused persons from the charges under Sections 498-A,
304-B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is
based on sound legal reasoning. No perversity or illegality was
committed while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
20.02.2022 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.85/2022.
20. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed. The record
of the trial Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
