Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sher Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26729
1 CRA-754-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 754 of 2015
SHER SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Murari Lal Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Harshit Raghuvanshi - Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1/State.
ORDER
The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 372 of Code
of Criminal Procedure (in short "CrPC") against impugned judgment of acquittal
dated 09.07.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District
Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No.156/2013, whereby respondents No. 2 and
3/accused persons have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 325/34 and
323/34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 09.10.2012 at about
01:00 AM, accused/respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Rajesh and Ghanshyam
along with another accused Naresh (died) were abusing the appellant/complainant
Sher Singh in a filthy language. When he has objected about it, then accused
persons have beaten him by means of an axe and wooden stick, due to which, he
sustained several injuries. Victim Sher Singh lodged FIR at Police Station
Bahadurpur, District Ashoknagar. Accordingly, offence has bee registered against
the accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26729
2 CRA-754-2015
JMFC, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar, who committed the case to the Court of
Session, Ashoknagar. The Trial Court has framed the charges under Sections
325/34 and 323/34 of IPC. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded
complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, while
defence did not examined any witness.
4. After completion of trial and scrutinizing the evidence available on
record, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from all the charges.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, complainant/appellant Sher Singh preferred this
criminal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondents No. 2 and 3
have been wrongly acquitted by the Trial Court on the basis of improper
appreciation of evidence. There was cogent evidence available on record to
convict them, which is also supported by medical evidence. Hence, it is prayed
that the impugned judgment be set aside and respondents No. 2 and 3/accused
persons be convicted for the aforesaid offence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/State submits that the Court
may pass an appropriate order as may be deemed fit.
7. Nobody is appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
8. Both the parties heard finally and perused the entire record with due care.
9. Complainant Sher Singh (PW-2) in his cross-examination categorically
stated that on 08.10.2012 at about 7-8 PM, when he went to the village Odar, at
that time, accused Naresh along with Rajesh and Ghanshyam consumed liquor and
and they have committed marpeet with him and tried to strangulate his neck by a
towel. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the Police Station Bahadurpur. About
01:00 O' Clock in the night when he was returning back to his home, then accused
persons also beaten, threatened and abused him in filthy language and Rajesh and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26729
3 CRA-754-2015
Ghanshyam both of them have beaten him by means of wooden stick and also
threatened him for life. When Ranveer came there for intervention, then Naresh
had inflicted an axe blow on his right leg. Bhaiyaram and Gajendra also came
there, thereafter, he again lodged the FIR at Police Station Bahadurpur. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the statements of Sher Singh with his
report Ex. P-1. In his report Ex. P-1, he did not state about the incident occurred at
07-08 PM. He has mentioned only about the incident which was taken place at
01:00 AM. Nothing is mentioned in the FIR regarding the strangulation of his
neck by a towel and inflicting the injuries by Naresh to Ranveer by means of an
axe, therefore, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of
Sher Singh and his FIR Ex. P-1.
10. Apart from the above, there are also contradictions and omissions in the
statements of Sher Singh and injured witness Ranveer Singh. Sher Singh deposed
that incident was taken place at 01:00 AM, but as per Ranveer, incident was taken
place at 08:00 O' Clock. Sher Singh specifically mentioned in his deposition that
at the time of incident at 8 O' Clock, Ranveer was not there. Statement of Sher
Singh is not duly corroborated by other eyewitnesses Bhaiyaram and Gajendra.
There are material contradictions and omissions in their statements about time,
place and manner of the incident. Hence, their statements do not not appear to be
trustworthy.
11. L earned counsel for the respondent submits that there are previous
enmity between both the parties and due to previous enmity, they have been
falsely implicated in the matter.
12. Ranveer (PW-1), Sher Singh (PW-2), Bhaiyaram (PW-3), Gajendra
(PW-4) admitted in their cross-examination that they are facing trial in a murder
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26729
4 CRA-754-2015
case, which relates to the murder of Naresh. Naresh is a family member of the
accused persons, therefore, due to the aforesaid enmity between both the parties,
possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. As per the complainant Sher
Singh and victim Ranveer, Naresh inflicted injuries to Ranveer by means of an
axe, but during investigation, no axe has been recovered from the possession of
Naresh and no weapon or stick has been recovered from the possession of other co-
accused persons.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, no
illegality or impropriety is found in the impugned judgment. Hence, no ground is
available warranting admission of criminal appeal.
14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal under Section 372 of CrPC has no
merit and is hereby dismissed.
15. Consequently, connected M.Cr.C. No.8215/2016 is also disposed of.
16. A copy of this order be placed along with M.Cr.C. No.8215/2016.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
