[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahendra Singh @ Haran Singh on 6 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
1 MCRC-2120-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2120 of 2014
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MAHENDRA SINGH @ HARAN SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Ajit Rawat - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Shri Satyam Rai - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The applicant/State has preferred the present application under
Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Special Case No.
1/2011, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. The facts of the case reveal that on 23.09.2011, acting upon secret
information, the police conducted a search of the agricultural field/farm
belonging to the accused and allegedly recovered eight green plants of
Ganja. After seizure, the contraband was weighed, and it was found that the
total weight was 6.500 kg. Upon completion of investigation in Crime No.
72/2011, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The trial
commenced, and upon conclusion thereof, the learned trial Court, vide
judgment dated 27.11.2013, acquitted the respondent of the charges under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
2 MCRC-2120-2014
Section 8 read with Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the
said judgment of acquittal, the applicant/State has preferred the present
appeal challenging its legality and correctness.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
4. The learned Government Advocate has advanced elaborate submissions
in support of the prosecution case. He has meticulously taken this Court
through the oral and documentary evidence available on record with a view
to demonstrate that the respondent is liable to be convicted. It has been
contended that the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is erroneous
both on facts and in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is further
submitted that the testimony of the star witness to the incident, R.G. Tiwari
(PW/12), has not been appreciated in its proper perspective. Lastly, it has
been urged that the accused has committed a grave and heinous offence
involving narcotic drugs, which has far-reaching consequences and is likely
to adversely affect society at large, including future generations.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned
order. It is contended that the accused is entitled to the presumption of
innocence and that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged seizure
in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case
is concocted, unreliable, and devoid of merit.
6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the
material brought on record as well as the record of the case. Before adverting
to the testimony of R.G. Tiwari (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
3 MCRC-2120-2014
apposite to examine the evidence of the other material witnesses. Rupesh
Kumar (PW-6) has been cited as a witness to the secret information (Exhibit
P/16), and his signatures appear thereon. However, in his deposition, he has
categorically denied that any secret information was received in his presence.
He has stated that he was called to the Police Station and was asked to affix
his signatures on Exhibit P/16, which he did accordingly. Under the
provisions of the NDPS Act, it is incumbent upon the officer concerned to
forthwith communicate the secret information to his immediate superior
officer, namely the SDO (P), Ajaygarh. As per the prosecution case, the said
information was transmitted through Exhibit P/30, being the relevant
Roznamacha entry. Shiv Prasad (PW-2), Constable, was examined to prove
the said document. However, no acknowledgment from the office of the
SDO (P) has been brought on record to demonstrate due receipt of the
information. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, the testimony of this
witness does not lend support to the prosecution version.
7. This Court has also noticed material contradictions in the statements of
the police witnesses with regard to the deposit of the seized articles. Though
the seizure memo (Exhibit P/15) was prepared, the same has not been duly
proved or corroborated by the testimonies of Constable Arvind Kumar (PW-
11), Constable Kishanlal (PW-5), and R.G. Tiwari (PW-12). Apart from it,
the prosecution has failed to examine any independent or neighbouring
witness to substantiate the sequence of events alleged to have taken place at
the scene of occurrence.
8. Tinku (PW-4), the photographer, was examined to prove that he had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
4 MCRC-2120-2014
taken photographs at the time of seizure; however, he turned hostile and did
not support the prosecution case. Mansukh (PW-9) and Kallu Singh (PW-
10), who were cited as seizure witnesses, were also declared hostile by the
prosecution. Likewise, Geet Govind (PW-1) did not support the prosecution
and was declared hostile. In paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 of the impugned
judgment, the learned trial Court has dealt with the issue pertaining to the
FSL report. The discussion therein casts serious doubt upon the manner and
procedure adopted for sending the contraband for chemical examination. The
chain of custody and sanctity of the seized articles have not been
satisfactorily established. In view of the aforesaid infirmities and material
contradictions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
9. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalkrishna, (2005) 9 SCC 291 , while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court observed:
"In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly
disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below.
If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are
reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused
is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for
upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the
findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or
perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or
suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or
misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court
will be justified in setting aside such an order of
acquittal."
10. In the State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755, this
Court relied on the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
5 MCRC-2120-2014
SCC 180 and observed as under:
"15. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be
interfered with because the presumption of innocence
of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The
golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. ... The principle to be
followed by appellate court considering the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons for
doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference."
"16. it is apparent that while exercising the powers in
appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal
would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by
some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at
would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and,
therefore, the decision is to be characterized as
perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
court of appeal would not take the view which would
upset the judgment delivered by the court below."
11. In Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , this
Court held:
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it
may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
6 MCRC-2120-2014
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that
in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."
12. This Court is of the clear view that the accused possessed this
presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and
consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially
true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the appellate
Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial
and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong. The Appellate
Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of
the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction - the appellate courts must rule in favour of
the accused.
13. After considering the entire evidence and material available on record
as well as the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court while acquitting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11917
7 MCRC-2120-2014
the accused and have also re-appreciated the testimony of the witnesses. In
my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has meticulously scrutinized
the entire evidence and material on record and has arrived at a just and proper
conclusion. No perversity, illegality, or material irregularity is discernible in
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Special Case No. 01/2011,
whereby the respondent has been acquitted.
14. Consequently, the present application seeking leave to appeal fails and
is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn
