[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dhaniram Rai on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
1 CRA-8787-2022
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. 8787 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
DHANIRAM RAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Rawat - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
None for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.18430/2022 has been filed by the appellant/State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 28.05.2022 passed in Special Case No.19/2021
(State of M.P. vs Dhaniram Rai and another) by learned Special Judge,
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012,
Tikamgarh (M.P.) whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent
No.1 Dhaniram from the offences punishable U/s 354(Kha) of IPC r/w
Section 3(1)(w) 1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 9/10 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act and acquitted respondent No.2 Punna @ Poonam from the
charge U/s 16 read with Section 17 of POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-
1) submitted a written application to the Jairon Police Station stating that on
03.03.2021, at approximately 11:00 a.m., her daughter had gone to the field
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
2 CRA-8787-2022
to feed her husband. When she did not return after a short while, she looked
outside and found her daughter standing in a corner of the goat shed, with
Dhaniram standing next to her. She tried to grab her daughter, but Dhaniram
had fled. The daughter stated that she had come to Punna's house to learn
bhajans with the dholak. The old man from Kalar had come to offer the
dholak. He forcibly grabbed her, took her to the shed, removed her clothes,
and touched her breasts. Based on this information, a First Information
Report was filed at the Jairon Police Station.
3. A case was registered under Crime No. 36/2021 under sections 354 (ka)
and 354 (kha) of IPC, Cections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections
3(1) (w) (i), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the matter was taken up
for investigation.
4 . The complainant's mother submitted a written application regarding the
incident at the police station, following which a First Information Report was
filed. During the investigation, the prosecutrix statement was recorded under
Section 164 of the CrPC, and she underwent a medical examination. A map
of the scene was prepared, and witness statements were recorded. Documents
regarding the prosecutrix's age were obtained. Her original caste certificate
and original fifth-class marksheet were obtained and attached to the case.
Accused Dhaniram was arrested and an arrest warrant was prepared. The
another accused, Punna alias Poonam, was produced after being informed.
5 . After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the
court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Tikamgarh.
6. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made in the charge
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
3 CRA-8787-2022
sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 354(kha) r/w Section 3(1)
(w)1 of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 9/10 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v)
(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against accused-appellant Dhaniram and also
framed charge punishable under Sections 16 r/w Section 17 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 against accused/appellant- Punna @ Poonam Pandey. They
denied the allegations and claimed for trial.
7. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many
as 07 witnesses, which are prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix's mother (PW-2),
Vinod Kumar Khare (PW-3), Dr. Gajendra Niranjan (PW-4), Namrata Gupta
(PW-5), Ashish (PW-6) and Surendra Singh (PW-7) and placed Ex.P/1 to
P/11 and Ex.D/1 the documents on record.
8. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies
of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually
acquitted the accused Dhaniram of the charges under Sections 354(kha) r/w
Section 3(1)(w)1 of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 9/10 of POCSO Act and
Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also acquitted
accused/appellant Punna @ Poonam Pandey of the charge under Section 16
r/w Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, this appeal.
9. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellant/State that, despite the consistent and unshaken testimonies of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2), the learned Trial Court has
erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused. It is further submitted that the
minor contradictions and variations on record, when tested on the anvil of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
4 CRA-8787-2022
the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother, do not affect the credibility
of the prosecution case. It is also contended that the statement of the
prosecutrix stands duly corroborated by the FIR, which was lodged on the
following day without any undue delay, as well as by the medical evidence
proved through the testimony of Dr. Gajendra Niranjan (PW-4). Therefore, it
is argued that the prosecution has successfully established its case. Thus, it is
prayed that while allowing the appeal, impugned judgment be set aside and
the accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid
offences.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record
meticulously.
11. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her chief examination that accused
Dhaniram forcibly took her by the hand to the Jhirian house and touched her
chest. Her mother Ramdevi came there and on seeing her mother, the
accused Dhaniram ran away from there. She has been declared hostile by the
prosecution and suggestions given to her which have been admitted by this
witness that when accused Dhaniram took her by the hand and led her to the
goat room, accused Punna was playing the dholak. It is further admitted by
this witness tha taccused Dhaniram removed her clothes and touched my
breasts. In cross-examination she admitted that the time of incident was 12
O'clock. She has not intimated in her statement Ex.D/1 and FIR (Ex.P/1) as
the time of incident was 11 O'clock. Further she stated that when the accused
held her hand, she tried to free it. While trying to free her hand, she was
pricked by the accused's nails, causing bleeding. When the accused was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
5 CRA-8787-2022
taking her away by holding her hand, she refused. She fell while the accused
was forcibly taking her away. When the accused dragged her by holding her
hand, her clothes were torn and her hands and legs bled. She further stated
that accused Punam has caught her hands and Dhaniram has started
removing her clothes. She further stated that she went to the police station on
next day for lodging the FIR. There is some contradictions and variations in
respect of the story of prosecution qua the statement of prosecutrix. There is
no injury as depicted by this witness in her cross examination found in her
medical examination conducted by Dr. Gajendra Niranjan (PW-4) who has
stated that there was no injury found on the person of the prosecutrix. The
police has not seized any torn clothes.
12. The Investigating Officer, Namrata Gupta (PW-5), and Surendra (PW-
7) have not stated that any torn clothes of the prosecutrix were seized during
the investigation. They have also not deposed that, at the time of lodging the
FIR on the written application (Ex. P/2), the prosecutrix had any visible
injuries or that blood was oozing from her person. Furthermore, there are
material variations and omissions qua the statements recorded and that under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the FIR, for which no
satisfactory explanation has been provided.
13. As per the statemen of prosecutrix (PW-1) her clothes were removed
by the accused and then her mother came in then accused fled away but the
mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has not stated in her statement that she has
seen the prosecutrix without clothes. She only stated that her daughter was
get hidden by Dhaniram and when she scolded her daughter, Dhaniram ran
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
6 CRA-8787-2022
away. When she beat her daughter, then she has intimated that Dhaniram has
committed marpeet with her and taken her by hand to the goat shed.
Therefore, there is material contradictions between the statements of both
these witnesses.
14. FIR (Ex.P/2) did not contain any date. The registration of FIR (Ex.P/3)
did contain the date "04.03.2021" while the incident is of "03.03.2021", why
it has been lodged with delay of one day has not been explained by the
prosecution. Moreover, Ex.P/2 is a computer typed application on which the
mother of the prosecutrix has put her thumb impression but it has not been
clarified by mother of the prosecutrix or prosecution that by whom this
application was got typed. This witness (PW-2) in her statement in this
regard has deposed that she has lodged the report verbally stating the facts to
the Police Station Incharge. She has not given any application in typed form
to the police. She has denied to give application (Ex.P/2) to the Police. She
also stated that why the police has annexed this application with the case, she
cannot say. She further stated that she has not submitted any typed
application after affixing her thumb impression to the police station. She
further stated that Ex.P/2 has not been read over to her. She further stated
that police has not taken statement of the person residing in neighbourhood.
She admitted in para 7 that her daughter used to go Punna's house to play and
she becomes angry due to that and she committed marpeet with her daughter
out of anger.
1 5 . In light of the aforesaid factual scenario, the statements of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) do not appear to be cogent and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
7 CRA-8787-2022
reliable, and therefore cannot form a sound basis for conviction.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix, the view taken by the
learned Trial Court of acquittal of the accused persons cannot be said to be
erroneous, illegal or perverse and liable to be interferes.
17. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal, if two views are
possible from the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has adopted the
view favourable to the accused then in appeal it cannot be set aside on the
ground that other view is also possible.
18. 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.
19. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
8 CRA-8787-2022
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."...
20. In the sum and substance, the approach of the learned Trial Court and
conclusion of acquittal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in light of the
foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid down in the
aforementioned cases. This Court is of the considered view that the findings
and conclusion of acquittal of learned Trial Court do not warrant any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29224
9 CRA-8787-2022
interference.
21. Resultantly, I.A. No.18430/2022, an application seeking grant of leave
to appeal under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Consequently,
Criminal Appeal No.8787/2022 also stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
