[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Padam Adivashi on 12 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2713
1 CRA-2596-2017
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 12th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2596 of 2017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PADAM ADIVASHI
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This criminal appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panna,
District Panna in Sessions Case No.17/2016 whereby, learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondent-Padam Adivashi from the charges under Sections
304(B), 498(A) the IPC and also from charges under Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State has drawn
attention of this Court to the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Jada Bai Adivashi and
PW-5 Smt. Kasturi Bai Adivashi to point out that the marriage had taken
place within one and half year prior to the incidence which took place on
07.10.2015. It is submitted that deceased Sunita Adivashi committed suicide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2713
2 CRA-2596-2017
on 07.10.2015. She was carrying pregnancy of two months at the time of
suicide.
3. Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that in the present case, PW-1
Smt. Jada Bai has stated that after marriage whenever Sunita used to come
to her parental home, she used to inform that she was being beaten for
demand of a motorcycle. However, in cross-examination she admits that
marriage was performed in the month of Vaishak. There was no dispute at
the time of Chalav (Vidai). She admitted that Gauna was performed
instantaneously. She stated that Sunita had informed her that she was being
beaten for demand of dowry. Similar statements have been recorded by PW-
5 Kasturi Bai Adivashi and on such statements, it is submitted that acquittal
be reversed.
4. When we wanted to know that after death of Sunita Bai on
07.10.2015 whether postmortem Dr. had opined that there were injuries
marks on the other part of the body, then Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned
Government Advocate for the State submits that there were no injuries
marks as can be seen from the evidence of PW-3 Dr. Praveen Kumar
Dwivedi. Doctor has opined that death was due to asphyxia on account of
hanging which occurred within 24 hours. In cross-examination, Dr.
categorically stated that there were no other injuries marks on the body of
the victim.
5. When we asked Shri Manas Mani Verma as to whether PW-1 and
PW-5 had deposed in their 161 statements that there was demand of dowry,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2713
3 CRA-2596-2017
then it is revealed that Ex.D-1 is case diary statement of Smt. Jada Bai (PW-
1) whereas, Ex.D-4 is 161 statement of Kasturi Bai. Both were recorded on
11.02.2016 i.e. after about four months of the date of the incident. Even FIR
was lodged on 11.02.2016 at 12.52 and it is mentioned that information was
received in the Police Station on 11.02.2016. Date of occurrence is shown as
07.10.2015. Respondent/accused was also arrested on 11.02.2016 at 16:10
hours. No reason is mentioned for four months delay in lodging of FIR. To
do complete justice between the parties, we asked Shri Manas Mani Verma
to show that whether during Marg investigation any statements were
recorded in which it may have been mentioned that victim was harassed for
demand of dowry, then no such statements have been shown from record for
our perusal.
6. Thus, it is evident that its a case of false implication. For four
months complainant party was sitting quite. After four months FIR was
recorded on 11.02.2016, arrest was made on the same date and on the same
date, statements were recorded. This in fact puts the author of FIR and I.O.
of the case also in a dock. Their conduct become suspect full. In fact,
independent inquiry should be conducted in their conduct that without there
being any material during Marg investigation how FIR came to be recorded
and what was the pressure on inducement to record FIR after four months.
When examined from this aspect, then it is clearly a case of false implication.
Appeal has been filed without application of mind, therefore, we not only
dismiss the appeal affirming the judgment of acquittal, but also imposed cost
of Rs.25,000/- for such irresponsible act on the part of the State. State will be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2713
4 CRA-2596-2017
free to recover the cost from the persons who had given opinion to file
appeal, but it will have to deposited in the Red Cross Society within 30 days
from today. It is also directed that if the Police Officer who recorded the FIR
and the I.O. are still in service, then their conduct be also investigated by an
Officer not less than DIG in rank and reported be submitted within 30 days
from today.
7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
8. With the copy of the judgment, record of the trial Court be returned
back.
9. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Shri Manas Mani Verma -
Government Advocate.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
