[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Latif Kha on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
1 CRA-1553-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1553 of 2017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LATIF KHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur,
District Burhanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2014 reversing the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.3526 of
2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur whereby the
respondents/accused had been convicted under Section 323/34 (two counts) and
325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment each on each count and fine of Rs.500/- each on each count and one
years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each respectively with
default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.10.2010 at about 08:30 AM, the
complainant Ahmedullah and his wife Hajrabi, residents of Bairimaidan had a
dispute with the respondent No.1/accused Latif, who resided nearby, regarding the
issue of not pouring water in the toilet. On this issue, respondent No.1/accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
2 CRA-1553-2017
Latif allegedly assaulted Hajrabi. When the complainant Ahmedullah attempted to
intervene and pacify the situation, the accused persons namely Latif, Salim and
Rafiq allegedly assaulted him with an iron rod, as a result of which both Hajrabi
and Ahmedullah sustained injuries. Thereafter, other persons from the locality
intervened. Subsequently, the complainant along with his wife went to the Kotwali
Police Station and lodged a First Information Report, on the basis of which Crime
No.315 of 2010 was registered. The medical examination of the complainant and
the injured was conducted and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against the appellants/accused before the Court of competent jurisdiction
for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The trial Court framed charges against the respondents No.2 and 3/accused
Rashid Khan and Salim Khan under Sections 323/34 (two counts), 325/34 and 504
the IPC and similarly against respondent No.1/accused Latif Khan under Sections
323/34 (two counts), 325/34 and 504 of the IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial vide
impugned judgment dated 29.03.2014, the learned trial Court acquitted respondent
No.1/accused Latif Khan of the charge under Section 504 of the IPC, but
convicted all the appellants under Sections 323/34 (two counts) and 325/34 IPC
and sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/- each on each count and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
1,000/- each on each count, respectively with default stipulations.
4. An appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court/Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur has been filed before the appellate Court and the
appellate Court vide the impugned judgment reversed the finding of the learned
trial Court/JMFC by acquitting the accused/respondents from the charges levelled
against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
3 CRA-1553-2017
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has contended that the injured
witnesses namely Ahmedullah (PW-2) and Hajrabi (PW-3) have fully supported
the prosecution case in toto. It is submitted that merely because the independent
witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, the testimony of the injured
witnesses cannot be discarded per se . It is further submitted that, in light of the
statements of Dr. Anuj Mehta (PW-7) and Dr. Devendra Kanasiya (PW-8), it
stands established that Hajrabi (PW-3) had sustained a fracture on her nose. The
injured Ahmedullah (PW-2) has sustained as many as six injuries as deposed by
Dr. Devendra Kanasiya (PW-8), whereas Hajrabi (PW-3) has sustained three
injuries. Thus, the offences under Sections 325 and 323 (two counts) read with
Section 34 of the IPC stand duly proved, as rightly held by the learned trial Court.
It is contended that the learned trial Court has awarded appropriate punishment for
the said offences; however, the learned lower appellate Court, by giving undue
weightage to the minor contradictions and variations in the statements of
witnesses has erroneously passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the
accused persons. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set
aside and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
trial Court be restored.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused has
vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that the learned appellate Court, from
paragraph 19 onwards has meticulously analyzed the evidence on record and has
rightly concluded that the statements of the injured witnesses are not corroborated
by the independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence on record
reveals that there was a scuffle between the parties and the injuries sustained by
the victims occurred in the course of such scuffle, which is further supported by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
4 CRA-1553-2017
the medical evidence and the opinion expressed by the concerned doctors. It is
further contended that the respondents/accused had themselves lodged an FIR at
the concerned police station in respect of the very same incident, which has been
exhibited as Ex.D/3. The prosecution has suppressed the injuries sustained by the
accused persons, and therefore, the entire prosecution version becomes doubtful
and cannot be relied upon. The learned appellate Court considering the material
facts and evidence available on record has rightly concluded that the order of
conviction and sentence is not tenable and, therefore, has rightly set aside the
order of learned trial Court and acquitted the respondents/accused from the
charges levelled against them. There is no ground to interfere with the finding of
the learned appellate Court. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer is made to dismiss
the appeal filed by the appellant/State.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the record
meticulously.
8. D r . Devendra Kanasiya (PW-8) has deposed that on 31.10.2010, he
medically examined Ahmedullah (PW-2) and Hajrabi (PW-3). Upon examination,
he found as many as six injuries on the person of Ahmedullah (PW-2), caused by a
hard and blunt object. Similarly, he found three injuries on the person of Hajrabi
(PW-3), also caused by a hard and blunt object. He further referred both the
injured persons for specialist consultation and X-ray examination. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that the aforesaid injuries could also be sustained in
the course of a scuffle or by falling on a hard surface, such as a tin shed, etc.
9. Dr. Anuj Mehta (PW-7) has deposed that he did not find any fracture in
any bone of Ahmedullah (PW-2). He has proved his report as Ex.P/11, which also
bears the signature of Dr. K.P. Shroti, wherein a fracture of the nasal bone has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
5 CRA-1553-2017
been indicated. However, it is pertinent to note that Dr. K.P. Shroti, who is stated
to have conducted the X-ray examination of Ahmedullah (PW-2) has not been
examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the mere exhibition of such opinion,
allegedly given by Dr. K.P. Shroti and relied upon by Dr. Anuj Mehta (PW-7) is
not sufficient to conclusively establish the alleged fracture injury sustained by
Ahmedullah (PW-2). Furthermore, this witness (PW-7), in his cross-examination,
has reiterated that he did not find any fracture in any bone of Ahmedullah (PW-2).
He has also admitted that the injuries, as reflected in the report of Dr. K.P. Shroti,
could be caused during a scuffle or by a fall on a hard surface.
10. Though Ahmedullah (PW-2) and Hajrabi (PW-3) have supported the
prosecution case, but their testimonies are not corroborated by the independent
witnesses. Rehmat Ullah (PW-1), who was declared hostile by the prosecution, in
his cross-examination admitted the suggestion that a dispute had arisen between
the accused persons and his brother Ahmedullah (PW-2), who sustained injuries;
however, he has categorically admitted that he was not present at the spot at the
time of the incident and had no personal knowledge thereof. Similarly, Shahid
Iqbal (PW-4), Riyaz Ahmed (PW-5), and Mohd. Amin (PW-11) have not
supported the prosecution case. They have stated that they neither witnessed the
incident nor gave any statement to the police. Shahid Iqbal (PW-4) and Mohd.
Amin (PW-11) were declared hostile by the prosecution, whereas Riyaz Ahmed
(PW-5) was not declared hostile for reasons best known to the prosecution.
11. In the absence of independent corroboration, the testimonies of the injured
witnesses namely Ahmedullah (PW-2) and Hajrabi (PW-3) require careful
scrutiny and must be evaluated with due caution and circumspection. As per the
prosecution case, the respondents/accused allegedly assaulted the complainant
party with an iron rod, which is stated to have been seized from their possession
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
6 CRA-1553-2017
vide memorandam Ex.P/5, Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7. However, a perusal of the seizure
memos reveals that there is no mention of any bloodstains on the said iron rod,
thereby weakening the evidentiary value of the alleged recovery. It is further
noteworthy that the statements of the witnesses are stated to have been recorded
on 31.10.2010, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 16.11.2010. Although it
is the case of the prosecution that the FIR was lodged after receipt of the X-ray
report, no plausible explanation has been furnished by the Investigating Officer
K.L. Patidar (PW-9), as to why the FIR was not registered at an earlier point of
time. Moreover, both the Investigating Officer, K.L. Patidar (PW-9) and the scribe
of the FIR (Ex.P/14), Sub-Inspector P.K. Sawle (PW-10) have admitted in their
cross-examination that a scuffle had taken place between the parties. It has also
come on record that, on the basis of reports lodged by both sides, Adam Check
No.364/2010 at the instance of the complainant and Adam Check No.365/2010 at
the instance of accused Lateef were registered. Subsequently, upon receipt of the
X-ray report pertaining to Ahmedullah (PW-2), FIR No.315/2010 dated
16.11.2010 was registered. Significantly, the X-ray report (Ex.P/11) has not been
duly proved in accordance with law, inasmuch as Dr. K.P. Shroti, who allegedly
opined the existence of a fracture on the nose of Ahmedullah (PW-2) has not been
examined by the prosecution. In the absence of such medical evidence, the alleged
grievous injury cannot be said to have been established. Furthermore, the admitted
existence of a scuffle between the parties and the lodging of cross-complaints cast
serious doubt on the prosecution version, particularly in view of the fact that the
injuries allegedly sustained by accused Lateef have not been explained by the
prosecution. It is also evident from the Adam Check entries that no medical
examination of accused Lateef was conducted to ascertain the nature of injuries, if
any, sustained by him. Additionally, the statements of Ahmedullah (PW-2) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
7 CRA-1553-2017
Hajrabi (PW-3) indicate the existence of prior enmity between the parties. Both
witnesses have categorically admitted that a quarrel had taken place between them,
during which a scuffle ensued and that reports were lodged by both sides at the
police station. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution case appears
to suffer from material infirmities, rendering its version doubtful.
12. The existence of prior enmity between the parties, the registration of cross-
FIRs arising out of the same incident and the failure of the prosecution to explain
both the cross-case and the injuries sustained by accused Lateef coupled with the
fact that no independent corroboration is there to the statements of the victim
Ahmedullah (PW-2) and Hajrabi (PW-3) itself renders the entire story of the
prosecution doubtful, therefore, the view taken by the learned Appellate Court
cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Rather, it is quite legal and based on the
proper appreciation and marshalling of the evidence and does not warrant any
interference of this Court in this appeal against acquittal.
13. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
8 CRA-1553-2017
14. 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;
(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."...
15. In the sum and substance, the approach of the learned lower appellate
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 lower appellate court do not warrant any interference.
16. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29861
9 CRA-1553-2017
THK
