[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Banti @ Manohar on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
1 CRA-595-2017
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. 595 of 2017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BANTI @ MANOHAR
Appearance:
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
01.06.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.7040/2013 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sagar, District Sagar (M.P.), whereby the
respondent/accused, has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 294,
325 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 29.06.2013 the
complainant Mulu @ Mulayam, submitted a Dehati Nalisi stating that on
28.06.2013 at about 11:00-12:00 midnight, when he had left his house and
reached near the residence of Prahlad Lodhi situated in Rawat Mohalla, the
son of Prahlad Lodhi namely accused/Bunty approached him and started
abusing him. It was alleged that Bunty stated that a report had been lodged
by Chandrabhan Lodhi against their brothers Devraj and others and further
questioned the complainant as to why his name had been mentioned in the
said report as a witness. Upon the complainant stating that he had no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
2 CRA-595-2017
knowledge of the same, it is alleged that when he was proceeding towards
Karrapur on a motorcycle along with Chandrabhan, accused-Bunty being
enraged with the same, assaulted him with a stick on the ankle of his right
leg and threatened that if he reported the matter, he would kill him. On the
basis of the said Dehati Nalisi lodged under zero, a case was registered at
Police Station Baheria, District Sagar at Crime No.187/2013 for the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 325 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was
taken up for investigation, and upon completion of the necessary
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the
competent Court. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt, pleaded
innocence and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded. Charges were framed; read out and explained to the accused. He
denied to commit the crime and sought a trial. During his examination under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he was innocent and had
been falsely implicated in the case.
3 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 06 witnesses, namely Vijay (PW-1), Raju (PW-2), Mulu (PW-3),
Dr. R.K. Khare (PW-4), Munnalal Marawi (PW-5) and Dr. Jinesh Diwakar
(PW-6) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/10, the documents on record. In defence, the
respondent/accused did not choose to examined any witness.
4 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges levelled against him.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
3 CRA-595-2017
contended that the respondent/accused has been erroneously acquitted by the
learned trial Court on the ground that there was variations in the statement of
the victim-Mulu (PW-3) in respect of the arm which has been used in the
offence. Moreover, in absence of independent corroboration, the learned trial
Court has given the benefit of acquittal to the accused but since Mulu (PW-
3) as a victim has supported the story of prosecution in toto, therefore, he
cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, and
being erroneous, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the
respondent/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
6 . I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the
record meticulously.
7 . The complainant/injured Mulu (PW-3) has supported the story of
prosecution in chief-examination but he exaggerated the story that accused-
Bunty along with one Devraj has also pulled and dragged him thereafter
Bunti has caused injury by means of rod on his leg. Bunti then taken to his
home and he continuously committed marpeet with him. There is no mention
of the person, namely, Devraj in the prosecution story that he was also
accompanied the accused in alleged marpeet. Moreover, it is stated in Dehati
Nalisi that the accused-Bunty by means of Lathi has caused injury and Lathi
has also been seized from the possession of the accused-Bunti by seizure
memo Ex.P/9, but Mulu (PW-3) has stated that a rod has been used by the
accused for causing injury. Furthermore, the fact that Bunti has taken him to
his house and during that period he was continuously committing marpeet is
also not found place in the story of prosecution. In this regard, whatever
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
4 CRA-595-2017
omissions and contradictions revealed from the statement of this witness
have not been satisfactorily explained.
8 . Mulu (PW-3), in his cross-examination has also admitted that he was
admitted in the jail ward because a case under Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, has been registered against him. Police has not interrogated him in
the hospital nor taken his statement. On the second day of the incident, his
statement has been recorded by the police in the police station. He further
stated that the police in a case of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has
taken him from the house of accused-Bunti. The entire evidence of this
witness does not inspire confidence of this Court. Keeping in view the
various contradictions, omissions and infirmities revealed from his statement
and which assumes insignificance as independent witnesses Vijay (PW-1)
and Raju (PW-2) have not supported the story of prosecution at all. They
turned hostile.
9. Dr. R.K. Khare (PW-4) has stated two injuries on the person of Mulu
(PW-3) on 29.06.2023 while his medically examination. There was a
contusion on his right leg and one abrasion on his right thigh. He stated that
he advised the injured for x-ray and as per the statement of Dr. Jinesh (PW-
6), there was a fracture in the right leg of tibia bone of the victim but both
these medical experts have admitted in their cross-examinations that these
injuries may be caused by falling on a hard surface.
10. Munnalal (PW-5), is the Investigating Officer and he has admitted that
the police had registered a case under Section 25 of the Arm Act, against
Mulu @ Mulayam. He also admitted that complainant-Mulu @ Mulayam has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
5 CRA-595-2017
reached at the house of accused-Bunti, who caused injury with the help of
revolver. The admission of this witnesses in his cross-examination clearly
reveals that the genesis of crime has not been disclosed before this Court and
suppressed by the prosecution, which also renders the prosecution case
doubtful. Munnalal (PW-5) has also admitted in his cross-examination that
the Lathi which has been seized through Ex.P/9 is generally available. He
also admitted that on 17.07.2013, he has completed the proceedings of
investigation but the seizure has been made on 15.12.2013 while the date of
incident is 28.06.2013. The delay in conduction of investigation and the
investigation has not been explained by this witnesses satisfactorily.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of offences under Sections
294 and 506 of IPC, there is no iota of evidence on record as none of the
prosecution witnesses has stated that the accused had abused the complainant
and given threat to kill him.
12. The independent witnesses, namely, Vijay (PW-1) and Raju (PW-2)
did not support the statement of complainant Mulu (PW-3) and as discussed
above, the uncorroborated testimony of complainant Mulu (PW-3), which
was under careful scrutiny, is not found to be believable. Therefore, in these
circumstance, of course, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded
in proving the guilt against the accused. It is not found that any fault has
been committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused.
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
6 CRA-595-2017
respondent/accused from the levelled charge. No ground emerges to this
Court warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial
Court.
14. 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.
15. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16809
7 CRA-595-2017
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."...
16. 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
respondent/accused. There is no ground to interference with the findings of
the learned trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of
respondent by trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
