Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hakeem Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27333
1 MCRC-1971-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1971 of 2017
HAKEEM SINGH JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashirbad Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on IA No. 1905/2017, an application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay is taken up, considered and allowed
for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. Delay of 32 days in preferring this petition stands condoned.
3. The present petition under Section 378(4) for leave to appeal has
been filed by the complainant against the order dated 10.11.2016 passed in
Special Case No.38/2015 by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhind whereby the respondent No.2
was acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506 Part -2 IPC and Section
3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.
4.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.09.2014, at about 4:00
p.m., during the distribution of food grains in front of the house of
Ramswaroop in village Barauli, the complainant, who was the then Sarpanch
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27333
2 MCRC-1971-2017
of the village, was present at the spot. When he sat down on a cot due to
fatigue, the accused allegedly hurled caste-related abuses and insulted him on
account of his caste. The accused further threatened the complainant that if
he lodged a report, he would be killed. On the basis of a written complaint
submitted by the complainant, Crime No. 3311/2014 was registered at Police
Station Mau for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the Special Court for
trial. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence adduced by both
sides, acquitted the accused of all charges.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant
and eyewitnesses have consistently supported the prosecution version, and
the evidence clearly demonstrates that the accused used caste-based abusive
language, attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. It
is contended that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
material evidence and acquitted the accused based on conjectures and
assumptions, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of
the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has duly
considered the depositions of the complainant and the witnesses. The Court
found material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements
regarding the exact words allegedly used by the accused, the presence of
independent witnesses, and the place of occurrence. The trial Court also
observed that there was no credible evidence to establish that the alleged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27333
3 MCRC-1971-2017
abuses were made in public view, which is an essential ingredient to
constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal,
interference is warranted only when the judgment of acquittal is perverse or
manifestly illegal, or where the view taken by the trial Court is wholly
unsustainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements
has laid down the broad guidelines with regard to the approach in acquittal
appeals including the observations made in a judgment in case of
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415.
8. In the present case, the learned trial Court has assigned cogent and
plausible reasons for acquitting the respondent No.2. There is no perversity
or illegality in the impugned judgment which may warrant interference by
this Court at the stage of grant of leave to appeal.
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The petition
seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
