[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ajay Gautam on 9 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2244
1 MCRC-5228-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5228 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
AJAY GAUTAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Patel - Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Shri Diwakar Nath Shukla - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.2014 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anuppur in Criminal Case No.598/2013,
whereby learned Trial Court acquitted the accused (respondents herein) of
the charges under Sections 294, 323, 506 part-II of Indian Penal Code, the
present petition has been filed under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking leave to appeal, assailing the aforesaid judgment.
2 . The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, as per the
prosecution case, complainant Radhabai Rathore, resident of Village Kolmi,
lodged a report on 06.08.2013 alleging that the accused (respondents herein)
abused her in obscene language, physically assaulted her with bamboo sticks
causing injury and threatened her with dire consequences.
3 . It is contended by learned counsel appearing for applicant/State
that impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2244
2 MCRC-5228-2015
incorrect, improper, and bad in law. The procedure adopted by learned Trial
Court is contrary to the evidence and material available on record and is
perverse. It is also contended that learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and has erroneously acquitted the
respondent. The prosecution has proved the commission of the offence
beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
fully supports and corroborates the case of the prosecution. Consequently,
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the accused (respondents
herein) deserves to be convicted in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that no
obscene language was used by the respondents. No physical assault was
committed by them and no threats were given to the complainant. They
submit that the complainant's allegations are false and motivated. It is further
submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the
aforementioned charges. No credible evidence has been produced by the
prosecution to substantiate the charges. In the absence of proof, the
respondents are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The allegations are wholly
uncorroborated, vague, and based on conjecture. In the absence of any direct
or circumstantial evidence linking the respondents to aforementioned
offence, the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper, and there
is no ground for interference. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2244
3 MCRC-5228-2015
6 . Perusal of the impugned order and other material available on
record reflects that learned Trial Court has duly considered all the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. Learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and has acquitted the accused on the ground that the
evidence produced by the prosecution is mutually inconsistent and does not
inspire confidence. The Trial Court has meticulously examined the testimony
of the witnesses, the surrounding circumstances, and the material on record,
and no infirmity is discernible in the order of acquittal. The evidence on
record, as rightly noted by the learned Trial Court, has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of the accused through credible, consistent, and reliable
evidence. In view of the aforesaid, the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court
cannot be said to be perverse, irregular, or contrary to law.
7 . Perusal of the record does not disclose any infirmity warranting
interference. Consequently, present petition seeking grant of leave to appeal,
being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
8 . Let Trial Court record, if available, along with copy of this order be
transmitted to the Court concerned.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
