[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Yaduwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
1 CRA-4074-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4074 of 2025
RAKESH YADUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jagdish Prasad Singrol - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Choubey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023/374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 06.03.2025 in S.T. No.24 of 23 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Junnardeo, District Chhindwara (MP) whereby the appellant
has been convicted for offence under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC but in
the light of Section 71 of IPC, sentenced the accused to suffer R.I. for 05
years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 326 of IPC instead of
conviction under Section 323 and 326 of IPC.
2. The prosecution story in short is that Devram Yaduvanshi (PW-7) on
23.07.2023 got a written complaint registered at Police Station Navegaon,
District-Chhindwara (M.P.) that on the said date at 0600 a.m. his brother
Gajanand Yaduvanshi (PW-4) had gone to village Navegaon to distribute
milk. At around 10.00 a.m. Ramnath Yaduvanshi came home and told him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
2 CRA-4074-2025
that the accused had hit his brother Gajanand Yaduvanshi with a stick in
front of Ramesh Yaduvanshi's hotel located in village Navegaon, due to
which he suffered a head injury. On receiving the information, he reached
Ramesh Yaduvanshi's hotel located in village Navegaon and told him that at
around 7 a.m. his mother Gajanand had come to the hotel on a bicycle while
he was parking his bike. At the same time, the accused went with an iron
hammer in his hand and after abusing, he hit him on the head and threatened
to kill him. In the incident, Mukesh Saxena (PW-1)) and Ramesh
Yaduvanshi (PW-6) intervened. Due to the previous property/land dispute
between injured and the accused, the accused committed marpeet with the
injured. On the above basis, Sub-Inspector Mallu Kavade registered the case
as FIR No. 156/23 under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 of IPC.
3. 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 from where it was made over to Additional Sessions Judge,
Junnardeo, District Chhindwara for trial.
4 . The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made against the
accused in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 294,
323, 326 and 506 (Par-II) of IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed
to be tried. He took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the
matter due to previous land dispute. However, he has not chosen to examine
any witness in his defence.
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 09 witnesses, which are Mukesh Saxena (PW-1), Anil Yaduvanshi (PW-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
3 CRA-4074-2025
2), Dr Roma Moolchandani (PW-3), Gajanand Yaduvanshi (PW-4), Ajabrao
Nirapure (PW-5), Ramesh Yaduvanshi (PW-6), Devram Yaduvanshi (PW-
7), ASI Maan Singh Baghel (PW-8) and Jaikesh Sahu (PW-9) and placed
Ex.P/1 to P/16 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 the documents on record.
6 . The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence
vide impugned judgment has acquitted the appellant of the offence under
Section 294 and 506-II of IPC but convicted him under Section 323 and 326
of IPC. The learned Trial Court in the light of Section 71 of IPC, sentenced
the accused to suffer R.I. for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 326 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the
present appellant is innocent but the conviction and sentence is erroneous as
the victim himself in para 5 of his cross-examination has categorically
admitted that he has sustained injury on the head and he cannot say that why
the present appellant/accused has caused injury to him. He also admitted the
previous rivalry with the present appellant. The accused is the brother-in-law
of victim and they are relative to each other. It is also submitted that the
doctor who has conducted medical examination has stated that the injury was
simple as found in the x-ray report and the injury would have been caused
by falling from motorcycle or bicycle. Technician Jaikesh Sahu (PW-9) who
has conducted the C.T. scan though stated that there was internal
haemorrhage and fracture on the parietal bone but that injured indicates a
prior injury on head sustained by him. It is not established that the injury
was sustained in this incident. The learned counsel for the appellant prays to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
4 CRA-4074-2025
allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence against present appellant.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer on the ground that the victim as well as other witnesses
and the medical evidence adduced in this case are sufficient and reliable to
base the conviction of present appellant under Sections 323 and 326 of IPC.
The hammer has been seized from the possession of present appellant and a
query report has been sought in this respect as Ex.P/11, according to which
the doctor has opined that the injury could have been caused by this weapon.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution is categorically established. There is
no ground for interference with the finding of learned trial Court. Thus,
learned counsel for the State prays for rejection of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and
material available on record.
10. The victim Gajanand Yaduvanshi (PW-4) has deposed before the Trial
Court that on the date of incident at 7.30-8 a.m. when he reached at the hotel
located in front of Navegaon Police Station, suddenly accused came there
and caused injury on his head by means of hammer, therefore the blood
started oozing. When he screamed, Anil Yaduvanshi, Ramesh Yaduvanshi
and Ajabrao have intervened and he was taken to Junnardeo hospital. There
is no reason why the accused has caused injury to him because no dispute
arose there between him and accused. He also admits that the father of the
accused and his father-in-law are the real brothers and, therefore, they are
relatives. The statement of this witness has been further supported by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
5 CRA-4074-2025
Mukesh Saxena (PW-1), Anil Yaduvanshi (PW-2), Ajabrao (PW-5), Ramesh
Yaduvanshi (PW-6) and Devram Yaduvanshi (PW-7).
11. Mukesh (PW-1) has admitted that he has not seen the incident. He has
been intimated by the persons present on the spot. When he saw a crowd
there, he reached there but he has not seen any incident. Similar is the
statement of Devram Yaduvanshi (PW-7) to whom the entire incident has
been allegedly narrated by Ramnath but Ramnath has not been examined on
behalf of the prosecution. Therefor, the statements of both these witnesses
are hearsay.
12. Ajabrao (PW-5) has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has
not seen the accused causing marpeet with Gajanan by means of hammer. He
has simply seen that the accused was causing injury on the head of the
victim. In para 4, he has admitted that when Gajanan fell from bicycle then
their attention went towards Gajanan. He has not given any statement to the
police. The statement of this witness in para 4 clearly reveals that he has not
seen the incident of causing injury by means of hammer by the accused to
the victim.
13. Ramesh Yaduvanshi (PW-6) has also admitted in cross-examination
that he has not seen the incident or causing marpeet by accused to the
complainant. When the complainant fell on the ground then he reached there
and saw the accused standing there. Therefore, he has stated that the accused
has committed marpeet but he has not seen the accused causing marpeet
with the complainant. Hence, the statement of this witness also loses
importance.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
6 CRA-4074-2025
1 4 . As far as other witnesses Anil Yaduvanshi (PW-2), Gajanan
Yaduvanshi (PW-4) and Ajabrao (PW-5) are concerned, it is pertinent to
mention here that there was single injury caused to the victim and victim
himself has admitted that there was no reason for causing injury by the
accused. Gajanan Yaduvanshi (PW-4) also admitted in the cross-examination
that the injury was caused from his back side. Though he has stated that
before attack he has seen the accused by moving his neck but if he would
have moved his neck just before causing of injury to him by the present
appellant, in that condition the injury would have been caused on the frontal
bone of the head while the injury found on the person of victim was on the
temporal region.
15. Gajanan Yaduvanshi (PW-4) has also admitted that he had sustained
an injury on his head in an earlier incident and had mark of such injury on
the upper part of his head. He also admitted that there was a previous rivalry
between the father of the accused and his father-in-law, therefore, the
previous rivalry is also revealed from the statement of this witness. He also
stated that the police has not taken his statement.
16. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Roma Moolchandani (PW-3) has
found the injury on the temporal region of the victim and also pain on right
shoulder. She has given the opinion on the basis of X-ray report of chest
that there was no grievous injury. As far as the X-ray of the head is
concerned, a CT scan of head was conducted. The report in that respect has
been given by Technician Jaikesh (PW-9). Technician Jaikesh (PW-9) has
deposed before the Court that there was an injury found in the CT Scan on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
7 CRA-4074-2025
the left parietal region of the victim and also found pneumocephalus and X-
ray report has been prepared. Dr. A. Sen Gupta has prepared a computerized
report of 02 pages, which is Ex.P/16 which bears the signature of Dr.A. Sen
Gupta.
17. The statement of Technician Jaikesh Sahu (PW-9) clearly shows that
the report exhibited by this witness as Ex.P/16 was prepared by Dr. A. Sen
Gupta. He has deposed simply on the basis of Ex.P/16. Dr. A. Sen Gupta,
who has examined the CT Scan report and thereafter prepared a report
(Ex.P/16), has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution for the
reasons best known to it while the statement of Dr. A.Sen Gupta would have
been instrumental for the purpose of establishing the nature of injuries
sustained by the victim. Moreover, Dr. Roma Moolchandani (PW-3) and
Technician Jaikesh Sahu (PW-9) did not mention the duration of the injury,
which assumes importance. Keeping in view the admission of the victim that
he sustained an injury on the head in the earlier incident, the mark of which
is present on the top portion of the head. In these circumstances, the injuries
which have been revealed from the statement of these two witnesses might
have been caused in earlier incident. Moreover, the statement of these two
witnesses are contradictory as to the point of head where the injury was
found. As per Dr. Roma Moolchandani (PW-3) there was injury on temporal
region while Technician Jaikesh Sahu (PW-9) has stated that the injury was
on parietal region. This fact also assumes importance in the attending facts
and circumstances of the case.
18. Though object one hammer has been exhibited by Mansingh Baghel
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
8 CRA-4074-2025
(PW-8) in his statement and in this regard Dr. Roma Moolchandani (PW-3)
has given answer of query that the injury could have been caused by this
weapon but Dr. Roma Moolchandani (PW-3) in her cross-examination has
admitted that she has not seen the weapon and without seeing this weapon,
she has given the report. Had she seen the hammer which was submitted
before her in sealed position, she after opening it would have definitely
sealed it. She in para 9 also reiterated the fact that the seized hammer has not
been produced before her. Since the seized hammer has not been produced
before this witness, therefore, the query report given by this witness to the
extent that the injury would have been caused by the seized hammer, loses
its importance.
19. In the entirety of facts and circumstances and on the anvil of the
aforesaid discussion, a reasonable doubt created on the veracity of the
statement of witnesses and truthfulness of the prosecution story, the accused
is certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt in his case.
20. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
9 CRA-4074-2025
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.
21. 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
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."...
22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, material on record and the
legal principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it can be safely held
that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the offences charged against
the present appellant. The findings recorded for the offence under Sections
323 and 326 of IPC are bereft of any cogent reasonings. The ingredients of
offences charged against the present appellant could not be proved by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8139
10 CRA-4074-2025
prosecution with cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the judgment
under appeal convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences is liable to be
set aside and the appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal.
2 3 . E x consequenti, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2025 in
S.T. No.24 of 23 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junnardeo,
District Chhindwara (MP) is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is
hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 323 and
326 of IPC. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby ordered to be
discharged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant is ordered to
be refunded to him.
24. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property
is affirmed.
25. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back
to the court concerned.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
