[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim-A vs Ankit Richaryia on 12 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
1 CRA-734-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 734 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
ANKIT RICHHARIYA
Appearance:
Shri Yash Soni - Dy. Advocate General for appellant/State.
None for respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1100 of 2025
VICTIM-A
Versus
ANKIT RICHARYIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anurag Prajapati - Advocate for appellant/victim.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri Yash Soni - Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.2/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
Heard on I.A. No.1578/2026, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing Cr.A. No.734/2026.
Same is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and delay of 291
days in filing Cr.A. No.734/2026 is condoned.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
2 CRA-734-2026
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals
are heard finally.
Criminal Appeal No.734/2026 has been filed by the State of M.P.
under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 419 of BNSS, 2023 and Criminal
Appeal No.1100/2025 under Section 413 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by
the victim assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2024
passed in S.T. No.12/2023 (State of M.P. vs Ankit Richariya) by learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, Tikamgarh (M.P.) whereby
respondent - Ankit Richariya (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has
been acquitted of the offence under Sections 450, 376, 323, 506-II of IPC.
2. In Criminal Appeal No.734/2026, an application (I.A. No.1576 of 2026)
has been filed seeking grant of leave to appeal under section 378(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973/419(3) of BNSS, 2023.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 30.12.2022, the prosecutrix
filed a report at the Jatara police station stating that on 29.12.2022 at around
6:00 p.m., her husband had gone to water the crops, while her three children
had gone to her mother-in-law's place for study, and she was alone at home.
At 8:30 p.m., when after cooking food for dinner she was sitting on a cot
inside her house, the accused- Ankit Richariya, whom she knew, entered her
room, threw her on the cot, slapped her on both cheeks, and then raped her.
When the prosecutrix screamed, the accused committed marpeet with kicks
and fists, injuring her right calf and thigh. The accused threatened to kill her
if she told anyone and jumped over the wall and fled. When the prosecutrix's
husband returned home, she gave him complete information and then
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
3 CRA-734-2026
reported the incident on 30.12.2022, on the basis of which a case was
registered against the accused at Crime No. 337/2022 and the matter was
taken up for investigation.
4. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in
the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of
sessions and from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial.
5. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the
accused in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 450,
376, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC. The accused denied having committed the
crime. The defence of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is that at the
time of the incident he had gone to his wife's house in Panna and he also
took the defence that a civil case was pending between him and the
prosecutrix, due to which there was a grudge. The DNA sampling is dehors
the procedure prescribed. The DNA report mentions another woman Mohini
Khangar. Accused has examined Dinesh Richhariya (DW-1) in his defence.
6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many
as 11 witnesses, namely, husband of the prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix
(PW-2), Brijbhushan Yadav (PW-3), mother-in-law of the prosecutrix (PW-
4), Dr. Archna Rajput (PW-5), father-in-law of the prosecutrix (PW-6),
Neetu Khatik (PW-7), Dr. Ritika Jain (PW-8), Upkar Raipuriya (PW-9),
J.N.Bhagat (PW-10) and Himanshu Bhindiya (PW-11) and placed Ex.P/1 to
P/23 and Ex.D/1 & D/2 the documents on record.
7. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies
of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
4 CRA-734-2026
has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually
extending the benefit of doubt acquitted the accused of the charges under
Sections 450, 376, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC. Hence, this appeal.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the victim and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the State that despite there being ample
evidence available on record against the accused, the learned trial Court has
not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in acquitting the accused.
Thus, it is prayed that allowing the appeals impugned judgment be set aside
and the accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid
offences.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused, in his turn, supports the
impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for in the
same.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
meticulously.
11 . The prosecutrix (PW-2) in her chief examination has stated that
on 29.12.2022 around 8.30 P.M. the accused sneaking up entered in her
house and committed rape with her. He also slapped her, gagged her and
committed marpeet with kicks and fists. As a result of which, she
sustained injuries on left side of the thigh, left side of 'Adiya' and
abrasions in right hand. Thereafter, the accused jumped over the wall and
ran away. When her husband arrived at home, she told him about the
incident and thereafter they went to lodge a report to the police station
Jatara but due to the absence of women police officers at Jatara Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
5 CRA-734-2026
Station and it being night, the police had said that the report would be
lodged in the morning. On the next day, they reached at 10-11 a.m. at
Police Station Jatara but after 2-3 hours the report lodged by the Police
Official as Ex.P/4. The police has prepared spot map (Ex.P/1). Her
clothes were seized and police prepared memo (Ex.P/5) along with
memos Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7. The statement of this witness is supported by
her husband (PW-1) and her mother-in-law (PW-4) and father-in-law
(PW-6). No independent witness has been examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
12. The Investigating Officer Himanshu Bhindiya (PW-11) has admitted in
his cross-examination that Kunjilal Richharia lives in the house of
prosecurtix in a separate room. However, he has not recorded any statement
of Kunjilal Richariya. In para 5 he categorically admitted that there are other
houses adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix but he had not taken the
signatures of any person living in the neighbourhood on spot map (Ex.P/1).
He also admits that no Rojnamcha Sanha or other document is on record in
respect of conducting enquiry qua incident with the neighbours of the
prosecutrix. He admitted in paragraph-7 that the prosecutrix's house consists
of two rooms which are adjacent to each other. Though both the rooms
having the doors from outside but a wall is there between them. He also
stated that he has not collected any forensic evidence while preparing Ex.P/1
from the room where the incident is said to have occurred. He also admitted
that if the prosecutrix would make a noise at the time of incident, it could
have reached the people in the neighbourhood. He also has not mentioned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
6 CRA-734-2026
the height of the wall of the house of the prosecutrix.
13. The prosecutrix (PW-2) herself has admitted that they have purchased
the house from Kunjilal and Kunjilal is also residing in a room of that house.
She also admitted that her marriage was solemnized 20 years ago. Her eldest
daughter is 18 years old, younger daughter is 16 years old and son is 14 years
old. The Investigating Officer, however, has neither taken the statements of
children of the prosecutrix, who could have been present there in the house
where the offence said to have been committed nor has examined Kunjilal
who was living in the house itself but in a separate room where the incident
took place. No explanation of such omission has been put-forth by the
prosecution.
14. The prosecutrix (PW-2) has admitted in her cross-examination that her
in-laws' house is 10-12 houses away from of the place of incident and it
takes 5 minutes to reach her in-laws house but why she had not told the
incident immediately after it to the father-in-law and mother-in-law who
reside at the distance of 10-12 houses away which takes only five minutes to
reach there is not explained by this witness. It is also pertinent to mention
here that though the prosecutrix and her husband stated that on the date of
offence, in the night they reached Jatara police station and tried to lodge the
FIR but the police refused to lodge the same on the ground of there being no
lady police officer and they were told by the police to lodge the report in
next morning but in this respect the statement of these witnesses is rebutted
by the evidence of Himanshu (PW-11) who is the Investigating Officer and
who has categorically stated in his cross-examination in paragraph-10 that he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
7 CRA-734-2026
was on duty all the time on 29.12.2022 (the date of incident). He denied the
suggestion that the prosecutrix visited police station in the night and was let
go, telling her to return in the morning. In paragraph-11 also he reiterated
the fact and deposed that the prosecutrix stated that she did not come to
lodge a report due to lack of transportation and it being night. It is pertinent
to mention that he also stated that the distance from the incident site to Jatara
Police Station is approximately 4-5 kms. Having regard to the distance
between the place of incident and police station, the report could have been
lodged immediately after the incident within an hour, however the report
was lodged not before 03:00 p.m. on 30.12.2022. The delay in lodging the
FIR in this respect has not been explained by the prosecution satisfactorily
which would have assisted the story of prosecution substantially.
15. The prosecutrix (PW-2) has admitted in her cross-examination that she
knew the accused since 8-10 years. She also admitted that there is rivalry
between her and family of accused. She admitted in paragraph-15 that a
litigation took place in respect of house and land, hence, previous rivalry
between the parties is also revealed from the evidence.
16. The prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 16 has stated that Kunjilal is 75 years
old person. Though he is an old aged person but he is able to walk and he is
not deaf. The aforesaid statement of this witness indicates that Kunjilal was
an important witness on behalf of prosecution but he has not been examined
on its behalf for the reasons best known to it.
17. The prosecutrix (PW-2) has stated that she has sustained injuries. In
para 18 of her cross-examination she again reiterated that the blood was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
8 CRA-734-2026
oozing from her hand and there were bruises on her body where the accused
committed marpeet by means of kicks and fists and she had also shown
these injuries to the concerned doctor while her examining. However, Dr.
Archana Rajput (PW-5) has stated categorically in her chief examination that
there was no external injury over the person of prosecutrix. Moreover, there
was no internal injury to the prosecutrix and no definite opinion could be
given by her in respect of any immediate rape committed with her. She
admitted in her cross-examination that hymen was already torned. She also
admitted that if the prosecutrix had been forcibly raped, then there would
have been injuries to her external or internal vulva. This statement of Dr.
Archana Rajput (PW-5) also belies the story of prosecution as stated by the
prosecutrix and her husband.
18. The prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 21 has categorically admitted that on
the date of incident, if she had not opened the door latch, no one could have
been able to enter the house. This also shows that she herself had opened the
door and let the accused enter in the house. In this respect it is also pertinent
to mention that in the FIR (Ex.P/4) it is stated that the door of the room was
opened and accuseds entered in the room but where from he entered, has not
been clarified by this witness. Further she has deposed that after committing
rape, the accused by jumped over the wall and ran away but as discussed
earlier that the IO has not investigated the matter in respect of height of the
wall. There is no mention of height of that wall in the record nor in the spot
map (Ex.P/1). Though the DNA and FSL reports are positive as against the
accused but the fact revealed from the evidence shows that there was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
9 CRA-734-2026
consensual cohabitation between the accused and prosecutrix. There was no
internal or external injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Moreover, she
had not intimated about the story immediately after the commission of
alleged rape to her father-in-law and mother-in-law who are residing at a
distance which takes only 5 minutes to reach there. Even Kunjilal, son and
daughter of the prosecutrix, who probably were the important witnesses to
the incident have not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation
has been offered by the prosecution in this regard.
19. The FIR is substantially delayed for which no plausible explanation has
been given. Though the plea of alibi taken by the accused is not found to be
convincing, still the burden to prove its case was on the prosecution, the
prosecution, however, has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment of acquittal of the learned Trial Court is based on the proper
appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court
has rightly observed that had the prosecutrix been forcibly raped, the
prosecutrix would have opposed it and there would be some evidence of such
opposition by the prosecutrix but no such evidence has been gathered from
the place of incident. No torn clothes of the prosecutrix have been recovered
by the police. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that when the
prosecutrix has appeared in the police station for lodging the FIR there was
no such injury on her person which requires immediate MLC.
20. In para 27 also the observation of the learned Trial Court raising
suspicion over the statement of the prosecutrix in respect of her having the
knowledge of jumping the wall by the accused, is also found to be on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
10 CRA-734-2026
cogent ground.
21. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts revealed from the evidence on
record, it is found that the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused. Thus, the accused certainly deserves
the benefit of doubt in this case and which has been rightly given by the
learned Trial Court.
22. 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.
23. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
11 CRA-734-2026
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."...
24. In the wake of foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid
down in the aforementioned cases, it is found that the acquittal of the
accused rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds, warranting no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12787
12 CRA-734-2026
interference. We are of the considered view that the acquittal of accused
from the charges under Sections 450, 376, 323, 506-II of IPC is based on
sound legal reasonings. No perversity or illegality is committed while
passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.
25. Resultantly, I.A. No.1576/2026, an application seeking grant of leave
to appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973/419(3) of BNSS, 2023 filed in Criminal Appeal No.734/2026 is
dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.734/2026 is also dismissed.
Similarly, Cr.A. No.1100/2025 is also dismissed without notice to the other
side at admission stage itself.
26. The record of the trial Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
