Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Leeladhar on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
1 CRA-9409-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9409 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LEELADHAR
Appearance:
Mrs. Nupur Dhamija - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant/ State.
Shri Vikram Singh Choudhary - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State
assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.06.2022 passed in SC
ATR No.07/2019 (State of M.P. vs. Leeladhar) by Special Judge (POCSO)
Act, 2012, Burhanpur (M.P.) whereby respondent /accused Leeladhar has
been acquitted of the offence under Sections 451, 354, 354(D), 354(A)(1)(i),
506 Part II of IPC; Section 7/8, 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 07.3.2019, student of Class Xth,
was alone at her house as her parents went to the market to purchase
vegetables. At that time the accused came to her house at 10.30 A.M. and
caught her hand with bad intention and told that he loves her. The
prosecutrix shouted upon him. At this the accused threatened her to death.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
2 CRA-9409-2022
The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents and along with her
parents she submitted a written report. Crime No.167/2019 for the offences
under Sections 354, 354(Ka)(1)(i), 354(Gha), 451, 506 of IPC, Section 7 r/w
8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i), Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On lodging of the FIR, the criminal law was
triggered and set in motion.
3 After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted
in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the Special
Court where the respondent/accused was tried.
4 The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against
the accused in the charge sheet framed charge punishable under
Sections 451, 354, 354-D, 354-A(1)(i) and 506 Part II of IPC; Section 3(1)
(w), Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section
7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The
respondent abjured his guilt. He took the plea that he has been falsely
implicated in the matter and he claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as
many as 08 witnesses, which are prosecutrix (PW-1), father of prosecutrix
(PW-2), Yogesh Jaiswal Head Master of the School (PW-3), Mother of
prosecutrix (P.W.4), Manisha Assistant Grade III (P.W.5), S. R. Sengar,
SDOP Nepanagar (P.W.6), Dr. Gourav Thavani (P.W.7) and Investigating
Officer Kavita Arya (PW-8) and placed Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/34 the documents on
record. Accused/ respondent has examined himself as DW-1 in his defense.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
3 CRA-9409-2022
6. The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the
evidence came to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused are
not found to be proved and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of
the charges under Sections 354, 354(a)(1)(i), 354(D), 451, 506 of IPC,
Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Hence, this appeal.
7 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant/State
that the accused/respondent has been erroneously extended the benefit of
acquittal while as per the statement of prosecutrix, she was found to be child
as per para 18 of the impugned judgment and she was minor at the time of
commission of offence. It is also submitted that prosecutrix (PW-1) has
categorically stated in her statement that respondent/accused has applied
criminal force and outraged her modesty with ill-intention. It is also
submitted that the prosecutrix's version remained intact in her cross-
examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of victim. The
statement of victim is also supported by her father (PW-2). Therefore, in the
light of the statements of prosecutrix (PW-1) and father (PW-2) which are
supported by the statements of other witnesses, prosecution has proved the
alleged offence against the present respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that
the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal
respondent/accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the
aforesaid offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
4 CRA-9409-2022
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record meticulously.
9. The learned trial Court in para 18 of the impugned judgment has
found that prosecutrix was a minor girl less than 18 years of the age.
Similarly in para 24 it is also found proved that prosecutrix was a Member of
Scheduled Caste community and the present appellant/ accused does not
belongs to member of SC/ST community. These observations of the trial
Court is not challenged before this Court.
10. As far as the observations of learned trial Court regarding point
Nos. 3 to 11 of questions for consideration is concerned, the learned trial
Court has categorically appreciated the evidence on record. It reveals from
the evidence on record that though prosecutrix (P.W.1) has corroborated the
prosecution story in chief examination that the present appellant Leeladhar
has outraged her modesty by holding her hand and proposed her to marry
with him and that he loves her but in cross-examination, she categorically
admitted that before the incident the appellant use to come to her house. She
was in acquaintance with the family of accused. She use to go to his house
and both the families were visiting their houses. She used to talk with the
present appellant prior to the incident. Though she denied that she has
written some letters (Exhibit D/1 to D/7) to the present appellant but in cross
examination in para 16 she admitted categorically that the letters Exhibit D/1
to D/29 have been written in her writing and these letters have been written
to the present appellant. She also admitted the photographs Exhibits D/32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
5 CRA-9409-2022
and D/33 showing that she was with the accused appellant. She also
admitted in para 17 of the cross examination that she has written to the
accused appellant that her relationship with the present appellant is not liked
by anyone in her family and they may take decisive action against him. The
letters and photographs have been filed by the accused appellant in his
testimony and keeping in view the acceptance of the documents by the
prosecutrix herself in her statement, these documents are believable beyond
any iota of doubt.
11 . The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has also admitted in her cross
examination that there were earlier disputes between her family and family
of accused/appellant and because of these disputes, she has lodged report in
Police Station Shahpur but she also admits that she has signed the FIR at the
instance of police. In para 17 of her cross examination, she categorically
admitted that present appellant did not commit any wrong with her.
Statements of father (P.W.2) and mother of prosecutrix (P.W.4) are based on
the incident narrated to them by the prosecutrix. Therefore, they are hearsay
witnesses. They also in their cross examination in para 8 and 9 respectively
have admitted that the incident is false and nothing wrong has been
committed by the present appellant with prosecutrix and they were not
present at the time of incident. They have not seen anything. Therefore, the
statement of these witnesses also belies the prosecution story.
12. Learned trial Court while considering the evidence on record
and the aforementioned facts has rightly appreciated it and found that
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
6 CRA-9409-2022
present appellant.
13. As far as the injury on the body of the prosecutrix is concerned,
Dr. Gourav Thavan (P.W.7) has also admitted in his cross examination that
such injury may be caused while colliding with the rough object. There is no
ground or material available on record to indicate the appreciation of offence
by the learned trial Court to be perverse and illegal. Having considered the
entire material on record as well as attending facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered opinion that the finding as recorded by the trial
Court is neither perverse nor illegal warranting interference in this appeal.
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 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.
15. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka,
(2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
7 CRA-9409-2022
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
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."...
16. In light of the foregoing discussion and the legal
principles enumerated in the aforementioned cases, the acquittal of the
present respondent rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds, warranting no
interference. This Court is of the considered view that the acquittal of
respondent from the charges under Sections 354, 354(a)(1)(i), 354(D), 451,
506 of IPC, Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54577
8 CRA-9409-2022
Atrocities) Act is based on sound legal reasonings, and no perversity or
illegality is apparent in the impugned judgment.
17. Accordingly, while affirming the judgment of acquittal, this
appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
