[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chotelal vs Sudheer on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 3492
1 CRA. No.3541 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 3rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3541 of 2023
CHOTELAL
Versus
SUDHEER AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Yashwant Pagare - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Chouhania - Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 20.01.2026
Pronounced on : 03.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
I.A. No.3516/2023 is preferred under Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 for leave to appeal by one of the victims in SCATR
No.42/2016 vide judgment dated 12.12.2022 by Special Judge, SC/ST
(POA) Act, Indore arising out of Crime No.65/2016 registered at
Police Station Simrol, Indore whereby respondents have been
acquitted from the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-2(four
counts) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) (four counts)
of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The respondents were prosecuted regarding incident dated
22.02.2016 at 7:00 AM in which it is alleged that when a present
appellant - Chotelal (PW-1) belonging to Scheduled Caste community
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 3492
was going to take the milk from his house situated at Village Datoda,
Tehsil Mahu, Indore then the respondents used caste based marks and
caused injuries. Manoj alias Radheshyam (PW-2), Nandkishore (PW-
4), Dhapubai (PW-8) and Gopal (PW-9) reached there and when they
intervened then, they were also assaulted and injuries were caused by
the respondents, who does not belong to SC/ST community. The
incident was stated to be happened in front of the house of Devprasad
regarding which, Crime No.65/2016 was registered at Police Station
Simrol, Indore at the report of Chotelal (PW-1).
3. The respondents defended themselves on the ground that at the
alleged time of this incident Manoj (PW-2), Nandkishore (PW-4) and
Gopal (PW-9) caused injuries to Rukmabai then she requested not to
remove bags of sand that were lying in the gallery of house of
Rukmabai. They used abusive words and caused injuries and the
Crime No.64/2016 was registered. Rukmabai sustained undisplaced
heirline fracture in the lateral wall of left orbit associated with mild
peri soft tissue swelling and final report under Sections 323, 325, 294
and 506-2 of the IPC was submitted. To create a defence in this case,
this report was lodged.
4. The trial Court recorded the finding that the place of incident is
stated to be different whereas, the incident was happened at the same
time. There is a contradiction in oral testimony and the medical
evidence. The presence of Manoj (PW-2) is suspicious.
5. Challenging the acquittal order, this appeal has been preferred
on the ground that the trial Court has committed error in disbelieving
the evidence of Chotelal (PW-1), Manoj (PW-2), Nandkishore (PW-4)
and Gopal (PW-9). The identity of Manoj alias Radheshyam (PW-2)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 3492
was fully established. The delay in filing the first information report
was duly explained.
Heard.
6. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and prayed for
dismissal.
Perused the record.
7. The parameters for grant of leave to appeal have been reiterated
by the Apex Court in Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh
Prakash Ahuja & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 282, wherein the
Apex Court, in paragraphs 7 and 8, has laid down the principles,
which are reproduced below:-
"7. The question as to how the application for grant of leave to appeal
filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided by the
High Court and what are the parameters which the High Court should
keep in mind remains no longer res integra. This issue was examined
by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475. C.K. Thakker, J. speaking for the
Bench held in paras 19, 20, 21 and 24 respectively as under:
"19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State
in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal "shall be
entertained except with the leave of the High Court". It is, therefore,
necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded
by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by
sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can
be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court
grants leave by allowing the application filed under sub-section (3) of Section
378 of the Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave
should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind,
consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points
have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not
be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal
application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal
against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the
appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But
it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into
minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be
"perverse" and, hence, no leave should be granted.
xxx xxx xxx
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 3492
24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid
down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate court
against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We only state that in
such cases, the appellate court must consider the relevant material, sworn
testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons why leave sought by
the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial
court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the
appellate court and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are
recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable.
At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the
material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or
reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought
and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High Court, with
respect, did neither.
In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of leave. But
it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave."
8. In Sita Ram v. State of U.P. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 656, this
Court held that:
"31. ... A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the
guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the [concept] that men are fallible, that
Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure, before irrevocable
deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, a full-scale re- examination of the
facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness or
procedure."
8. Considering the para 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Chotelal (PW-1) and para
6 of Nandkishore (PW-4) and the non-explanation of the injuries on
the body of respondent No.4 Rukmabai that were of grievous in
nature and the earlier reports of the respondents, no prima facie case is
made out or arguable point arises in this case and no case is made out
for granting the leave to appeal, and accordingly, I.A. No.3516/2023
for leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal is
also hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
