[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoj Patel vs Ganesh on 27 January, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

1 CRA-3730-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3730 of 2019
MANOJ PATEL
Versus
GANESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aniruddh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kamal Singh Rajput - Advocate for the respondents.

Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19708 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
GANESH PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.R. Vishwakama - Advocate for the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No.3730/2019 under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') and M.Cr.C. No.19708/2019 has been filed by the State of M.P. under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.02.2019 passed in S.T. No.73/2015 (State of M.P. vs Ganesh Patel and another) by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Harda (M.P.) whereby respondents - Ganesh Patel and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

2 CRA-3730-2019 Anand (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 195(A) in the alternative 195(A)/34, 294, 506 of IPC.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.05.15 at about 09:30 pm,

the complainant Manoj Patel was closing his shop. Vikas, who worked at the shop, and another person Anand were present there. The complainant was locking the shop after switching off its lights when the accused persons came to his shop. Accused Ganesh had a gun in his hand and threatened the complainant that he had committed a grave mistake by lodging a report against accused persons and that he should settle the matter with them otherwise he would have to face dire consequences. It was also said that what had the complainant achieved by objecting to their bail. Accused Anand said

that he had money and the law could do nothing to him. The complainant got his wife arrested by the police but they got her released within a day. According to the prosecution, the complainant and Anand told the accused that they did not want to fight with the accused. On this, the accused Ganesh told the complainant that he was explaining to the complainant for the last time and if the complainant did not make compromise, he would shoot the complainant anywhere. Ganesh looked towards the people sitting in the Scorpio and said that they should recognize the complainant Manoj and whenever he spoke, they should kill the complainant. The complainant got scared and started leaving, then the accused Ganesh hit him from behind with the butt of the gun, which injured his butt. When he was returning, the accused Anand threatened him that if he raised any objection against them in the court or gave a statement, they would kill him. The accused had come to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

3 CRA-3730-2019 the spot in a Scorpio jeep, in which four other people were sitting with deadly weapons like Tangia, axe and Farsa in their hands. The complainant gave a written application Ex.P/1 to the Superintendent of Police, Harda in connection with the incident, on the basis of which on 01.06.15, at Police Station Harda, First Information Report Ex.P/6 was registered against the accused at Crime No. 376/15 for the offence punishable under Sections 195- A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the investigation of the case, on 02.06.2015, a spot map Ex.P./2

was prepared. On 06.06.2015, the accused Anand Patel and Ganesh Patel were arrested and arrest panchnamas Ex.P./4 and Ex.P./5 were prepared respectively. Statements of witnesses Vikas, Anand Bhari, Kashiram and Manoj Patel were recorded, on 06.06.2015, Scorpio No. MP-47 CA 1264 and deposit receipts of a 12 bore gun and a pistol were seized from accused Ganesh Patel and seizure panchnama Ex.P/3 was prepared.

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 persons in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 195(A) in the alternative 195(A)/34, 294, 506 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed for trial. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution allegation. Accused Ganesh Patel got examined himself as DW-1 in the defence.

6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

4 CRA-3730-2019 as 07 witnesses, namely, Manoj (PW-1), Vikas Rathore (PW-2), Rameshwar Jat (PW-3), Anand Bhari (PW-4), Kashiram Vishwakarma (PW-5), B.M.S. Solanki (PW-6), A.R. Mamoriya (PW-7) and I.O. Vineeta Vishwakarma (PW-3) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/8 and Ex.D/1 to D/10 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 has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused of the charges under under Sections 195(A) in the alternative 195(A)/34, 294, 506 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and

the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that the version of the prosecution has been fully supported by the statement of Manoj (PW-1), Vikas (PW-2) and Anand (PW-4). They have supported the story of prosecution that the accused persons by means of pistol and rifle have threatened them to file compromise in the matter otherwise they will have to face dire consequences and they also exerted pressure to give false evidence before the court. They have also abused them. It is also submitted that having regard to statements of these witnesses as well as the FIR and other documents, the case of prosecution is categorically established and, therefore, respondents/accused persons are liable to be convicted in the aforesaid sections and they are entitled to be given appropriate punishment in the aforesaid cases.

9 . Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused persons has refuted the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

5 CRA-3730-2019 arguments advanced on behalf of the State and the complainant on the ground that the accused Ganesh himself has given the statement before the Trial Court as a defence witness and he categorically stated that since the daughter of the complainant Manoj has demanded Rs.50 lakhs for divorce and that amount has not been given to her, therefore they have been implicated falsely in this case. In another case under Section 498-A and 307 of IPC they have been declared acquitted in respect of which the copy of judgment dated 06.02.2019 has been filed on behalf of accused. Moreover, the compromise between both the parties have been settled and divorce petition has been filed on behalf of Anand and Neelam. The compromise has ben allowed by the Court. There is no ground warranting any interference in the findings of learned trial Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.

11. Manoj (PW-1) has stated in his statement that on 27.05.2015 at 9.30

p.m. when he was closing his shop, at that time servant Vikas and one customer Anand were present on the shop. Suddenly white colour scorpio bearing registration No. MP47-1264 came there and the husband of his daughter Neelam and father in law Ganesh came out of the vehicle. Ganesh had in his hands a rifle and he in filthy language abused and said that you have committed a grave error by lodging a report against them. If you do not change your statement and do not give statement in their favour, they shall suffer dire consequences. It is also stated by them that we have got bail in a day, you cannot harm to them in any way and settle a compromise in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

6 CRA-3730-2019 case. Four other persons were seated in the vehicle but due to darkness he could not identify them . They were having Tangiya, Farsa and axe. They also threatened him to kill. On the next day morning on 28.08.2015 he submitted a typed application to S.P. Harda which is Ex.P/1 and police prepared spot map Ex.P/2. The statement of this witness has been substantiated by the statements of Vikas (PW-2) and Anand (PW-4).

12. The perusal of Ex.P/1 a typed report shows that it was submitted before the police on 28.5.2015. No date is mentioned on the report by the complainant. Therefore, it reveals that the report has been lodged not before 28.05.2015 by the complainant. Though it reveals from the testimony of this witness that this report has been first submitted in Police Station, Harda but since police has not received the report, therefore, this has been submitted before the S.P. Harda. However, the Investigating Officer B.M.S. Solanki (PW-6) has denied this fact that the information has been first filed before the Police Station. Moreover, it is also revealed from the testimony of Vikas (PW-2) who was the servant of the complainant that the incident was not narrated by him or by Manoj (PW-1) to residents of adjacent premises. Similar is the statement of Anand (PW-4) who also admitted in his cross examination that he told Manoj to lodge the report of the incident but Manoj said that this is the routine matter and denied to lodge the report. It is revealed from the statement of B.M.S Solanki (PW-6) that the place of

incident is a busy square, there were various shops established near the place of incident and they remain open till 10-11 p.m. When the question is asked to him about taking the statement of any independent witness, he denied.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

7 CRA-3730-2019 Though he again stated that he has enquired with the adjacent residents and shopkeepers but no independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution in this case. Admittedly, Vikas (PW-2) was a servant of the victim and Anand was the customer though Kashiram (PW-5) is a Mechanic but he also admitted that his shop and shop of Manoj are situated opposite to each other and he has good relations with the complainant Manoj. Therefore, this witness also cannot be said to be an independent witness. 1 3 . Ex.P/1 also revealed that there is no mention of the fact that the accused persons have compelled the complainant to give false evidence. It is revealed from the FIR that the accused persons have told him to settle a compromise in the case lodged against them or withdraw the case. Though complainant Manoj (PW-1) has stated in his chief examination that the accused persons have given threat to change the statement but this fact does not find place in the FIR as well as in the police statement. Moreover, the statement of Manoj (PW-1) contains contradictions, omissions and variations which are stated in para 14, 17 and 18 of the statement. The statement of Vikas (PW-2) also contains various omissions and contradictions in para 12 and 13 of the statement. Similarly the statement of Anand also reveals various contradictions, omissions and variations viz.a.viz. police statement which are revealed from para 6 to 8 of his statement. Kashiram (PW-5) also has some variations and contradictions which are revealed in para 3 of his statement.

14. Manoj (PW-1) has admitted that he has mobile phone, motorcycle but

having an opportunity to lodge the report on the same day he has not lodged

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

8 CRA-3730-2019 the report on the same day to police. He stated that he felt that police will not register a crime, therefore, he has not lodged the FIR. He has not intimated any neighbour or shopkeeper adjacent to his shop about the incident but for such omission he has not offered any plausible explanation.

15. Vikas (PW-2) has also stated in para 13 of the statement that the entire incident is committed by the accused persons to settle the case by compromise, which is lodged against them. He has not mentioned any fact that the accused persons have given any threat to the complainant to give false evidence. No such fact has been stated by Kashiram (PW-5) in his statement. The fact which is revealed from the statement of this witness is that the accused persons have given threat to settle the matter by compromise. In this regard the provisions of Section 195-A of IPC is relevant which is verbatim as under :-

"Section 195A - Threatening any person to give false evidence.─ Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both;

and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced."

Section 195 itself shows that if threatening is given by any person to give false evidence then the offence will be made out but there is absence of such fact on the record. Moreover, in absence of any independent witness and keeping in view contradictions variations and omissions revealed from the testimonies of these witnesses, the statements of these witnesses become doubtful. One more fact is pertinent to mention here that the complainant and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

9 CRA-3730-2019 other witnesses have stated that accused Ganesh hit with the Butt of the rifle. However, B.M.S. Solanki (PW-6) has stated that he has seized the receipts of depositing pistol and 12 bore rifle vide seizure memo (Ex.P/3) and as per the receipts these arms have been deposited in the police station Harda since 17.11.2014. Therefore, on the date of incident i.e. 27.5.2015 there was no arm possessed by accused Ganesh, therefore it was not plausible for the accused Ganesh to commit any marpeet by means of butt of the rifle.

16. On the anvil of the aforesaid discussions, the observations of the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused persons cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.

17. 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.

18. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7481

10 CRA-3730-2019 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 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."...

19. In the sum and substance, the approach of the learned Trial Court and conclusion of acquittal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in light of the foregoing discussions and the legal principles laid down in the aforementioned cases. This Court is of the considered view that the findings and conclusion of acquittal of learned Trial Court do not warrant any interference.

20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.3730/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.19708/2019 being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE