Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Surendra Singh on 12 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 12TH OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.688 OF 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH
POLICE STATION MYANA, DISTRICT
GUNA, M.P.
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MOHIT SHIVHARE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
APPELLANT/STATE)
AND
1. SURENDRA SINGH S/O SHIVNARAYAN
CASTE GURJAR, AGE 27 YEARS R/O
VILLAGE BHADORA, DISTRICT GUNA.
........RESPONDENT
(SHRI BRIJENDRA SINGH GOUR, ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 25th of July, 2025
Pronounced on : 12th of August, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Verma
passed the following:
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 24.04.2007 passed by the 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), District Guna, whereby appeal has been
allowed and conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Guna in Criminal Case No. 47/2005 of appellant under Section 354
of IPC has been set aside and respondent/accused has been acquitted from
the aforesaid charges.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 20.2.2005 at about 10 AM,
complainant was doing some domestic work at her courtyard, at that
time, respondent/accused came there and with an intention to outrage her
modesty pressed her breast, when prosecutrix cried then her husband
Bhagwan Singh and Ramesh came there and respondent fled away from
the spot. On the same day, prosecutrix lodged FIR against the respondent
at Police Station Myana, District Guna. Accordingly, the offence has
been registered against the respondent/accused.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Guna, who has framed the charges under Section 354 of
IPC. Respondent/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses, while
defence did not examine any witness. The Trial Court after considering
the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire
evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the
respondent/accused for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with usual
default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and
sentence, the respondent preferred a criminal appeal, same has been
allowed and respondent has been acquitted from the aforesaid charges.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid petitioner/State has preferred this
criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant contended that first Appellate
Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused on the basis of
improper appreciation of evidence. Prosecutrix(PW-1) categorically
stated against respondent regarding aforesaid offence and her statement
is well supported by Bhagwan Singh(PW-2). There is no material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of Prosecutrix with FIR.
There is no delay in reporting the FIR. Hence, he prays that impugned
judgment passed by First Appellate Court be set aside and judgment of
trial Court be upheld.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused opposes
the prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.
6.Heard both the parties and perused the entire record of both the
Courts below minutely.
7. Although Prosecutrix(PW-1) before trial Court deposed in her
statement that at about 10 AM, when she was cooking food inside her
house, at that time accused Surendra with mala fide intention caught hold
of her both hands and pressed her breast with both hands and also abused
her. When she cried, then accused gagged her mouth but after hearing her
cry, her husband Bhagwan Singh, Bharosa and Ramesh came there, then
respondent/accused fled away from the spot. Bhagwan Singh(PW-2) also
deposed that after hearing cry of her wife, he went inside the house and
saw accused Surendra gagged her wife's mouth and caught hold of her
breast but Ramesh(PW-4) did not support the case of prosecution and
turned hostile.
8. There is material contradictions and omissions in the statement
of Prosecutrix(PW-1) with her FIR(Exhibit P-1). In FIR, Prosecutrix
mentioned that at the time of incident, she was doing some domestic
work at her courtyard but in the Court statement, she narrated that she
was inside the house. There is material contradiction regarding place of
incident. In the Court statement, she deposed that accused thrown her in
field and her blouse was torn and she sustained injury of stretch mark
over her breast. But, these material facts are not mentioned in her FIR,
even in her Police Statement(Exhibit D-1). Therefore, on the basis of
material contractions and omissions in the statement of Prosecturix with
her FIR and Police Statements (Exhibit D-1), her entire testimony
appears to be doubtful.
9. Apart from above, prosecution did not seize torn blouse from
possession of Prosecutrix during investigation. No MLC of Prosecutrix
was conducted. Bhagwan Singh(PW-2) is the husband of Prosecutrix.
Therefore, he appears to be interested witness. But, Ramesh (PW-4) who
is independent witness did not support the case of prosecution. Another
eye witness Bharosa has not been examined before trial Court. Therefore,
in the absence of the corroboration of independent witnesses, the
statement of prosecutrix does not appear to be trustworthy.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that Appellate Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
respondent/accused for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, because
prosecution was unable to prove charges levelled against
respondent/accused.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the findings given by First
Appellate Court does not need any interference. Therefore, this Criminal
Appeal having no substance is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
ROHIT
Rohit
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=80fa12cbdc4eff8599ee9661f416e13bfc369c80ba
SHARMA
5b9eaac85aeede2b107b1e, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=71EF33CB088D47B0D791FB798FA8918EA7
F85B06E09FB88C9CE747E8639F9DE8, cn=ROHIT SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.13 12:30:53 +05'30'
