[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hiralal ( In Compliance Of C.O. Dt. ... on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
1 CRA-1551-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1551 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
HIRALAL ( IN COMPLIANCE OF C.O. DT. 01-04-26 NAME OF A-1 IS
DELETED AS HE HAS EXPIRED). AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri Hemant Sen - Advocate for respondents.
JUDGMENT
Since the appeal in respect of respondents No.1 and 2 has already been
abated in pursuance to the order dated 01.04.2026, therefore, the same is
being decided in respect of respondents No.3 to 5.
2. This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 31.05.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.2066 of 2009
(State of M.P. vs. Harilal and others) by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Gram Nyayalaya, Chhatarpur (M.P.), whereby the respondents have been
acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 506-
B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 28.08.2009, the injured
persons, namely Lallu Kushwaha and Mankunwar Kushwaha were admitted
to the District Hospital, Chhatarpur for medical treatment, whereupon
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
2 CRA-1551-2026
information was transmitted to Police Station Kotwali through the Police
Outpost situated at the District Hospital, Chhatarpur. During the course of
investigation, statements of the injured witnesses, namely Lallu Kushwaha
and Mankunwar Kushwaha, as well as other prosecution witnesses, were
recorded. Upon medical examination, and on perusal of the MLC and X-ray
reports, the attending doctor opined that Lallu Kushwaha had sustained a
fracture in his left leg. On the basis of the aforesaid, a First Information
Report came to be registered vide Crime No. 471/2009 against the accused
persons, namely Lakhan Lal, Hiralal, Manoj, Golu Kushwaha, and Geetabai,
for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 325, 506-B and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. During investigation, statements of witnesses were
recorded. The accused persons were thereafter arrested. Upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon committal, when the
charges for the aforesaid offences were read over and explained to the
accused persons, they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In their
statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the defence of the accused persons is that accused Hiralal was excavating a
latrine tank on his own land, when Lallu Kushwaha arrived at the spot and
objected to the same and began hurling abuses. It is further their case that
upon refusal, Lallu Kushwaha assaulted Hiralal with a spade, causing injury
to his leg, in respect of which a report was lodged and medical treatment was
obtained.
4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
3 CRA-1551-2026
many as 09 witnesses, namely Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1), Maan Kunwar (PW-
2), Sunil Kushwaha (PW-3), Rammilan Chourasiya (PW-4), Dr. R.K.
Sharma (PW-5), Kasturi Bai (PW-6), Chatur Kachhi (PW-7), Ramesh
Chandra (PW-8) and Investigating Officer Manpyare (PW-9) and placed
Ex.P/1 to P/17 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6, the documents on record. In defence,
the respondents/accused examine Heeralal (DW-1).
5 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondents/accused. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State contends that
the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the
respondents/accused despite there being cogent and sufficient evidence
available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution case stands duly
proved by the testimony of complainant Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1), injured
witness Maan Kunwar (PW-2) and other eyewitnesses namely Sunil
Kushwaha (PW-3), Rammilan Chourasiya (PW-4), Kasturi Bai (PW-6) and
Chatur Kachhi (PW-7), all of whom have supported the prosecution version
in material particulars. Their testimonies are further corroborated by the
complaint (Ex.P/2) and First Information Report (Ex.P/7) and the medical
evidence adduced through Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-5). It is further contended
that the learned trial Court has erred in discarding the prosecution case
primarily on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, without properly
appreciating that the delay was sufficiently explained, as the complainant
Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1) remained hospitalized for a period of 15 days from
the date of incident. Learned counsel further submits that the defence set up
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
4 CRA-1551-2026
by the accused, to the effect that the complainant himself caused injury to
Heeralal is untenable and unsupported by reliable evidence. Although
Heeralal was examined as a defence witness, no cogent material, such as any
medical evidence or counter FIR, has been brought on record to substantiate
the said plea. Hence, such a defence does not advance the case of the accused
nor justify the order of acquittal. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be
allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the
respondents/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 to
5/accused has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the FIR
suffers from inordinate delay, for which no plausible or satisfactory
explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is further contended
that the initial report (Ex.P/2) does not disclose the names of the alleged
assailants. Although the subsequent FIR (Ex.P/7) mentions the names of the
present respondents, paragraph-12 thereof does not contain any such
particulars. It is also submitted that, as reflected in paragraph-8, the FIR was
registered after conducting an enquiry; however, the said enquiry report has
not been brought on record. The nature and scope of such enquiry as well as
the statements, if any, recorded during the course thereof, have not been
disclosed by the Investigating Officer, Manpyare (PW-9). Learned counsel
contends that the learned trial Court has duly and correctly appreciated the
evidence available on record and has rightly acquitted the
respondents/accused. The impugned judgment of acquittal, being well-
reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence, does not call for any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
5 CRA-1551-2026
interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal
be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
meticulously.
9 . The initial information furnished to the police in the form of Ex.P/2,
given by Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-5) to the Chowki Incharge, merely states that
the injured Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1) was brought to and admitted in the
hospital and that he informed about an incident of assault having been
committed with him. However, the said document does not disclose the
identity or name of any assailant. The absence of the name of the accused in
the initial information (Ex.P/2) casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.
Furthermore, the First Information Report (Ex.P/7) came to be lodged on
15.09.2009, wherein the incident is stated to have occurred on 28.08.2009 at
08:00 AM. Notably, the registration of the FIR is entirely based on Ex.P/2
i.e. the information provided by Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW-5), which does not
mention the time of the alleged incident. In such circumstances, the basis on
which the specific time of the incident has been incorporated in Ex.P/7 has
not been explained by the prosecution, thereby creating further doubt
regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.
10. The FIR (Ex.P/7) was registered on 15.09.2009, whereas the
Investigating Officer Manpyare (PW-9) has admitted in his deposition that
he had received the initial information (Ex.P/2) on 28.08.2009 itself. In such
circumstances, no explanation has been furnished as to why the statement of
the victim was not recorded on the same day and why the FIR was not lodged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
6 CRA-1551-2026
at the instance of the victim on that date. Instead, the FIR came to be
registered after an inordinate delay of about 18 - 19 days i.e. on 15.09.2009.
The said delay has not been explained by the prosecution witness, which
assumes significance and materially weakens the prosecution case.
11. That, apart Manpyare (PW-9) has admitted in paragraph-7 that when
Heeralal and others were digging pit in their premises then complainant
Lallu Kushaha (PW-1) has assaulted Heeralal because Lallu Kushwaha (PW-
1) wants to stop digging such pit. His statement shows that the aggressor
party was the injured victim himself. It is also pertinent to mention that at the
instance of Heeralal offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of the IPC
under Crime No.441 of 2009 has been registered at Police Station which is
also admitted by Manpyare (PW-9) in paragraph-5 of his statement.
12. It is also evident from the statement of Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1) that he
had gone to the outside for the purpose of attending the nature's call;
however, he has admitted that a lavatory is available in his house. Thus, no
explanation has been furnished as to why he chose to go outside for the said
purpose, which creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. It has further
come on record that the accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the
injured either by kicks, fists and by means of lathis. There are material
variations in the statements of the witnesses on this aspect. Additionally,
Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1) has stated that upon receiving information about the
incident, his son Sunil reached the spot after leaving his shop. This clearly
indicates that Sunil was not present at the time of the incident and arrived
only thereafter, and thus, he cannot be treated as an eyewitness to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
7 CRA-1551-2026
occurrence.
13. Rammilan Chourasiya (PW-4) has admitted in his deposition that a
civil litigation is pending between the complainant Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1)
and Hiralal before the Civil Court at Chhatarpur and that he has deposed as a
witness in favour of Lallu Kushwaha (PW-1). This circumstance indicates
that he is an interested witness. Furthermore, the said witness has stated that
his house is situated at a distance of about half a kilometer from the place of
occurrence; therefore, his presence at the spot at the time of the incident
appears doubtful.
14. Kasturi Bai (PW-6), who is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of Lallu
Kushwaha (PW-1), is an interested witness. It is also revealed from her
deposition that she was inside the house, and Maan Kunwar (PW-2) was
taking a bath at the relevant time; thus, both these witnesses were not present
at the spot at the time of the occurrence. Further, Chatur Kachhi (PW-7) has
also admitted that a civil litigation is pending between the parties before the
Court. His testimony as an eyewitness to the incident appears doubtful,
inasmuch as he has not disclosed the complete facts of the incident in his
statement.
15. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the findings recorded by
the learned trial Court are not found to be faulty, illegal, or perverse. No
ground is made out for interference with the said findings by this Court.
Accordingly, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence.
16. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
8 CRA-1551-2026
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.
17. 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29441
9 CRA-1551-2026
(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."...
18. Ex consequenti, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis
of the evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
respondents/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
respondents by the learned trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is
hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
