[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Tipu @ Ravendra on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
1 CRA-1601-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1601 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
TIPU @ RAVENDRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State.
None for the respondents-accused.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment of
acquittal dated 12.5.2015 passed in Special Case No.19 of 2012 (State of
M.P. vs. Tipu @ Ravendra and others) by the learned Special Judge,
Anuppur, District Anuppur (M.P.), whereby the respondents/accused, have
been acquitted of the offence under Sections 294, 506(Part-II), 452 and 323
of the IPC and sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on the night of
31.12.2012, Puran Singh Gond was present inside his house when he heard
abuses and loud altercation from outside. Upon coming out, he saw the
accused Sushil @ Guru Sahu and Tipu @ Ravindra Chaudhary arguing
loudly and using filthy language. When Puran objected, stating that
womenfolk were present in the house, accused Guru Sahu responded with
insulting remarks. Thereafter, Puran's mother called him inside. At about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
2 CRA-1601-2016
11:00 PM, all four accused persons allegedly opened the gate of the
boundary wall, trespassed into the courtyard, and started hurling obscene and
caste-related abuses, challenging Puran. When Puran and his brother
Ramswaroop came out, all the accused jointly assaulted them. Accused
Neelu struck Puran with the handle of a knife, causing injury to his cheek;
Guru and Sushil assaulted them with sticks, while the remaining accused
used fists and kicks. As a result of the assault, both Puran and Ramswaroop
sustained injuries. The incident was reported on the next day, i.e., on
01.01.2012 at about 12:30 PM, at Police Station Kotma. The injured persons
were medically examined. After completion of investigation and other
formalities, and considering that the complainant party belonged to a
Scheduled Tribe, the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court having
jurisdiction.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined
as many as 9 witnesses, namely Pooran Singh Gond (PW-1), Phoolwati
(PW-2), Suhana Bai (PW-3), Ram Bai (PW-4), Dr.Dr. Pankaj Tharpani (PW-
5), Swaroop Singh (PW-6), Amar Singh (PW-7), Govind Markam (PW-8)
and S.P. Gupta (PW-9) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/13 and Ex.D-1 to Ex. D/5, the
documents on record. In defence, the respondent/accused did not choose to
examine any witness.
5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondent/accused. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has
contended that despite ample evidence on record, in the form of Pooran
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
3 CRA-1601-2016
Singh (PW-1), Foolwati (PW-2), Suhana Bai (P.W.3), Ram Bai (PW 4) and
Swaroop Singh (PW-6), learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused
persons for the offence under Sections 323 and 452 of IPC. It is also
submitted that witnesses have categorically stated in their statements that the
respondents/accused persons have caused marpeet with them by kicks and
fists and also assaulted them by a knife but keeping in view the minor
contradictions, variance in the statement of the witnesses, learned trial Court
has given the benefit of doubt and has acquitted the respondents/accused
persons erroneously. Statements of the aforesaid witnesses have further
supported the contents of the FIR (Ex.P/1) and also by medical evidence i..e
MLC from Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/6 and statement of Dr. Pankaj Tharpani (PW-5).
Being erroneous judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court,
learned counsel for the appellant/State has requested to set-aside the
judgment of acquittal and respondents/accused persons be convicted and
sentenced appropriately.
7. None has appeared for the respondents.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ State and
perused the record meticulously.
9. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor has admitted fairly that no
evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the
caste of accused persons. and therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out. As far as the offence under Section
294 and 506 are concerned, he also not pressing the appeal in that respect as
there is no sufficient evidence in that regard but he press the appeal in respect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
4 CRA-1601-2016
of acquittal of the accused persons under Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC.
10. Regarding the charge under Section 323 of IPC, Puran Singh
(P.W.1) states that the accused persons started beating his brother Swaroop
Singh, asking him where his brother Puran was. They kicked and punched
him. When he intervened, Nilu hit him with the handle of a knife, causing
an injury to his cheek. His brother sustained injuries on his back and ear.
According to his statement, the accused persons kicked and punched
Swaroop. Witnesses Phulwati (P.W.2) and Suhana Bai (P.W.3) only state
that the four accused persons started beating both brothers. Suhana Bai says
Swaroop went inside his house and closed the gate, but the accused persons
opened it and beat him with sticks, causing injuries. When she intervened,
she was pushed to the ground. Puran Singh doesn't mention Suhana Bai
(P.W.3) being pushed by the accused. He also doesn't ssay that accused hit
Swaroop with sticks. Rambai (P.W.4) states the accused started beating
Swaroop and Puran. The witness, Swaroop Singh (P.W.6) says the accused
Neelu was holding a knife, and Rakesh had a stick. All accused persons
attacked him with sticks and fists. In his Court statement, Swaroop Singh
mentions Rakesh having a stick, but in his police statement (Exhibit P/5) he
says Guru had a lathi. Puran Singh doesn't mention sticks being used.
Swaroop Singh (P.W.6) only mentions Rakesh having a stick in his
statement whereas in his police statement Exhibit P/5, he states that Guru,
Tipu and Bhurra hit his brother Puran with lathis. Puran says Neelu hit him
with the handle of a knife on his cheek, but Swaroop doesn't corroborate this.
11. Ramswaroop (P.W.6) states the accused entered the house by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
5 CRA-1601-2016
kicking the gate and beat him with sticks and fists. When he cried out,
Suhana Bai and Santoshi arrived. This witness doesn't mention Puran being
present at the scene. He does say Puran sustained injuries to his right cheeck
and right leg, but doesn't specify who caused them or with what. Puran
Singh (P.W.1) states the accused entered and grabbed Ramswaroop, asking
where Puran was, but Ramswaroop doesn't corroborate this. Puran (P.W.1)
says he was hit with a knife by Neelu when he intervened, but Swaroop
(P.W.6) mentions Suhana Bai, Ram Bai and Santoshi being present and
intervening, without mentioning Puran.
12. Further, the FIR (Exhibit P/1) was lodged at Kotma Police
Station which is 4 kms away from the place of incidence, after 13 hours and
30 minutes. The delay was attributed to it being night time. In his statement
Puran (P.W.1) says they went to report the next day due to rain. Swaroop
Singh (P.W.6) says they reached the police station at 6:30 A.M.. If they
arrived at 6:30 A.M., it is unclear why the FIR was lodged at 12:30 P.M., 06
hours later. Dr. Pankaj Tharwani states, he examined Puran and Swaroop
Singh on 01.01.2012. Puran had a scratch on his left cheek, pain in his ankle
and Swaroop Singh had scratches on his chin and back, indicating injuries
were sustained by both around the time of the incident.
13. A bare perusal of the evidence regarding injuries makes it clear
that the prosecution witnesses don't corroborate each others statements.
Their testimonies are contradictory to each other. There are contradictions
regarding the weapons used. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held
that the evidence presented for Section 323 of IPC are not reliable and thus,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
6 CRA-1601-2016
the accused cannot be convicted as the essential elements of the offences are
not proved.
14. It is settled principle of law that if there two views are possible
from the evidence, the view favourable to the accused will prevail.
Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly adopted such view and
acquitted the respondent/accused from the levelled charge. No ground
emerges to this Court warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal by
the learned trial Court.
15. 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.
16. 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:16929
7 CRA-1601-2016
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."...
17. Ex consequenti, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the
ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful
analysis of the evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in
the impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16929
8 CRA-1601-2016
respondents/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
respondents by trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Hashmi
