Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Saket vs Suraj Saket on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
1 CRA-2372-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2372 of 2021
ASHISH SAKET
Versus
SURAJ SAKET AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent.
Ms. Pushpanjali Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 372(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.01.2021
passed in Cr.A. No.01/2021 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.),
whereby respondent No.1/accused has been acquitted of the offence under
Section 456 of IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.05.2019 at around 2:00
am, the accused, Suraj Saket, entered the house of the complainant, Kunnu
Devi Saket, in village Karkoti, under Police Station Sabhapur, Satna,
Madhya Pradesh. The accused locked the room from inside, and despite
efforts by the family members to open the door, he refused to do so. The
complainant's son, Ashish Saket, called the police, and upon their arrival, the
accused was apprehended and taken to the police station. Based on the
complaint, the police registered a case against the accused. The investigation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
2 CRA-2372-2021
was initiated, and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses
were recorded. The accused was subsequently charge-sheeted and presented
before the court. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Charges
were framed against the accused.
3 . The accused/respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence and he claimed to be tried. In his defense he examined Ganesh
Prasad Saket as DW/1. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has
examined as many as 05 witnesses, namely, Ashish Saket (PW-1), Ashok
Saket (PW-2), Rangdev Singh (PW-3), Priyanka @ Akansha Saket (PW-4)
and Ajeet Verma (PW-5) and placed Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 the documents on
record.
5. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties
acquitted the accused person, hence, this appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the
accused/respondent has been convicted by the learned trial Court but the
learned appellate Court has erroneously acquitted the present appellant. If
one view is taken by the learned trial Court on anvil of cogent and reliable
evidence then learned Appellate Court might not to have been set aside the
findings of trial Court. There is ample evidence against respondent/accused
to convict him under Section 456 of IPC and learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the respondent/accused.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused as well as for
the State have opposed the prayer on the ground that the learned appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
3 CRA-2372-2021
Court on the material has rightly find out that the conviction is bad, perverse
and illegal, therefore, it rightly set aside the conviction and sentence and
acquitted the accused. There is no ground for interference, therefore, prays
for rejection of appeal.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
record, it is found that only charge under Section456 of IPC has been
levelled against the present appellant. Section 456 of IPC provides for
"punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night".
Criminal Trespass, house trespass, lurking house trespass, lurking house
trespass by night and house breaking are defined in Sections 441, 442, 443,
444 and 445 respectively. Both the offences of house trespass and house
breaking requires that accused who enter into the house or any part of it for
the purpose of committing an offence.
9. In this case though witnesses Ashish Saket (P.W.1), Ashok Saket
(P.W.2), Priyanka @ Aakansha Saket (P.W.4) deposed before the Court that
the accused had entered into their house and he has locked himself therein by
locking door from inside. It is pertinent to mention here that FIR in the form
of written letter to Police Station Sabhapur has been submitted by Kunnu
Devi which is Exhibit P/3 but Kunnu Devi Saket has not been examined
before the trial Court. It is stated that she has been died. This FIR has been
exhibited in the statement of P.W.5 Ajit Verma who was posted as Head
Constable in Police Station Sabhapur. Though he stated that Kunnu Devi
had submitted the application in the police station and signed it before him
but he admitted in cross examination that the incident was of 2 a.m. in night
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
4 CRA-2372-2021
and this written application has been submitted before the Police Station in
the afternoon at 4 P.M., after around 12 hours of the incident but no reason
for such delay has been assigned. It is interesting that this FIR has not been
exhibited during the examination of other witnesses who were the close
relatives of Kunnu Devi. It is admitted by Ashish Saket (P.W.1) that his
mother Kunnu Devi was totally illiterate and he accompanied his mother
when she submitted FIR in the Police Station but Ajit Verma (P.W.5) did not
depose that Ashish Saket (P.W.1) has also visited the police station along
with his mother. Ashish Saket (P.W.1) has also stated that the report has
been written by him and the writing in the report belongs to him but even
though this FIR (Exhibit P/3) has not been exhibited to this witness by the
prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Had this report (Exhibit P/3)
written by this witness in the absence of statement of Kunnu Devi, the FIR
ought to be exhibited and proved during the evidence of this witness Ashish
Saket (P.W.1) who allegedly had written that FIR. In this circumstances,
FIR (Exhibit P/3) cannot be said to be appropriately proved before the Court.
10. Keeping in view the definition of house trespass, criminal
trespass and house breaking, it ought to be indicated in the evidence adduced
on behalf of the prosecution that for the required intention or motive accused
has entered in the house of the complainant and particularly in the room of
Priyanka (P.W.4). It is not stated in the FIR as well as in the statement of
Ashish Saket (P.W.1) and Ashok Saket (P.W.2) that accused has entered in
the room of Priyanka (P.W.4) but Priyanka (P.W.4) has categorically stated
that accused has entered in her room and when she raise noise, nobody had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
5 CRA-2372-2021
responded and then she came out of the room and locked the door from
outside. On making noice her mother and brothers came there and when
they told the accused to open the door, he did not open the door which was
locked by him from inside. When the police came there, after calling Dial
100, then the door was got opened by the accused and police arrested him.
But no such story has been revealed from the story as put forth by the
prosecution that when police reached there then the door was opened by the
accused and he has been arrested there forthwith. Similarly, this fact is also
missing from the story of prosecution that the present appellant has entered
into the room of Priyanka (P.W.4).
11. It is not revealed from the evidence on record that for what
offence or for what motive or intention, the accused has entered into the
house of complainant. There is material variation, contradictions, omissions
in the Statement of Ashish Saket (P.W.1) in para 5, 6 and 7 and para 2 and 3
of Ashok Saket (P.W.2) and para 4 of Priyanka (P.W.4) as to the identity of
the person entered into the house of complainant. Ashish Saket (P.W.1) had
deposed that he was sleeping but when he heard some noise, he woke up and
found that accused was inside the house and he had locked the door from
inside in the room but how he had identified the person who entered in the
house is not clarified. Ashok Saket (P.W.2) had stated that when he asked
the person who entered into the house, he stated that he is "Suraj". At the
same time, Priyanka (P.W.4) stated that she thought any member of the
house has entered in her room but since on making noise no one has
responded, she came out of the room and locked the door from outside how
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
6 CRA-2372-2021
she identified the accused has not been clarified by this witness. More over,
the prosecution story in respect of locking the door from outside is also
missing. The fact is also missing in the prosecution story that at the time of
incident police has reached on the spot and arrested the accused forthwith as
stated by the witnesses of the prosecution. More over, witness to the spot
map Exhibit P/1, Priyanka (P.W.4) had stated that police had not prepared
any spot map in her presence and this witness has not been declared hostile
by the prosecution on the point, therefore, it is binding on the prosecution.
12. Police has set in motion after the submission of written report
(Exhibit P/3) which is filed on 19.5.2019 at 4 P.M. and not before it,
therefore, there was no occasion for police to arrest the accused before it.
Similarly, the statement of defense witness Sandeep Saket (D.W.1) revealed
the fact that Priyanka (P.W.4) has instituted case against the brother of the
appellant Sandeep Saket under Section 354(a)(2) and 7/8 of POCSO Act in
which after trial he has been declared acquitted and a case has been
registered against Keshav Prasad Saket, Munni Saket and Priyanka under
Section 193 of IPC. The judgment in respect of it passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna dated 6.4.2018 is Exhibit D/3
has also been produced by the defense.
13. Keeping in view the entire material on record and evidence, the
learned Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that
the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the present appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, rightly acquitted the accused in appeal
by setting aside the judgment of trial Court of conviction under Section 456
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
7 CRA-2372-2021
of IPC. This Court in this appeal does not find any perversity or illegality in
the impugned judgment of the appellate Court.
14. In the case of State of Gujarat v. 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 the 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.
16. Recently in 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56727
8 CRA-2372-2021
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 or error of law or
fact in the decision of the trial court."...
15. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the
Appellate Court, needs not to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
RS
