The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Gajraj Singh on 29 January, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128




                                                                  1                                   CRA-1048-2017
                                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. 1048 of 2017
                                                 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             Versus
                                                   GAJRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                Shri Aditya Choubey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
                                Shri Samar Singh Rajput - Advocate for the respondents/accused.

                                                                JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.09.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.169/2012 (State of M.P. vs Gajraj Singh and others) by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa (M.P.) whereby respondents, namely, Gajraj Singh, Ramesh Sigh, Rahul, Dharmendra and Lokendra (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 323 r/w S. 34 and 325 r/w

Section 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the accused Ramesh Singh's wife had tied a buffalo in the barn of Yadi Thakur Singh. When complainant Thakur Singh objected to tying the buffalo in the barn, accused Lokendra, Rahul, and Ramesh abused him and moved from there. Accused Gajraj and Dharmendra then came and started abusing him, and accused Gajraj hit complainant Thakur Singh with a stick, which struck him on the hand.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

2 CRA-1048-2017 Accused Gajraj also manhandled complainant Thakur Singh. When complainant Thakur Singh's son intervened, he also received a scratch on his hand. The complainant reported the incident to the Dhangaon Police Station.The injured were medically examined at the Primary Health Center, Dhangaon. Complainant Thakur Singh was referred to Khandwa District Hospital for further treatment. An X-ray performed at Khandwa District Hospital revealed a fracture in the ulna of his right hand. After receiving the medical report, the original FIR No. 2/2012 (Ex. P/5), was filed against the accused persons. Witness statements were recorded during the investigation. A spot map (Ex.P/2) was prepared at the direction of complainant Thakur Singh.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on

27.01.2012.

4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the

accused persons in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 323 r/w S. 34 and 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 0073 witnesses, which are Thakur Singh (PW-1), Gajendra (PW-2), Dr. K.P.S. Chauhan (PW-3), Dr. Azad Jain (PW/4), Narayan Rao (PW/5), Govind (PW/6) and Kishan (PW/7) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/12 and Ex.D/1 to D/4-C the documents on record. They examined ASI Prakash Badole as (DW-1) in their defence.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

3 CRA-1048-2017

6. 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 Sections 323 r/w S. 34 and 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

7. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State that there is ample evidence on record in the form of statements of victim Thakur Singh (PW-1), son of victim Gajendra (PW-2) who was eye witness also and the story of prosecution is further substantiated by the statement of Dr. K.P.S. Chauhan (PW-3) and Dr. Azad Jain (PW-4). The victim and other witnesses have categorically stated that the present accused by means of lathi and by kicks and fists have caused injuries to Thakur Singh and in X-ray examination it is found that there was a fracture. Therefore, the offence under Section 325 of IPC is clearly made out but the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused/respondents. Thus, it is prayed that while allowing the appeal, impugned judgment be set aside and the accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid offences.

8 . Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has opposed the appeal on the ground that the learned Trial Court in respect of evidence on record has rightly appreciated the evidence and concluded that no case is made out for conviction. It is also submitted that the statements of victim and other witnesses are not supported by the statement of Dr. K.P.S. Chauhan (PW-3)

and Dr. Azad Jain (PW-4) keeping in view the fact revealed from their cross-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

4 CRA-1048-2017 examinations. There is no ground warranting any interference in the findings of learned trial Court.

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

10. Injured Thakur Singh (PW-1) has has stated in chief examination that the accused persons reached at his field and started marpeet with him. Ramesh, Lokendra and Gajraj had sticks in their hands by means of which they caused injuries to him and other persons have caused marpeet by means of kicks and fists. He has sustained injury on shoulder, thigh and elbow. His son Gajendra has intervened who also sustained an injury on his hand which was caused by means of stick. Gajendra (PW-2) has supported the version.

11. These two witnesses in their cross-examinations have admitted that accused Ramesh has also lodged a report against them and filed a private complaint. In that respect, the defence has examined ASI Prakash Badole (DW-1) who has stated that on 29.12.2011 a report has been lodged by Ramesh against Thakur Singh and Gajendra Singh etc. and others, upon which he has reduced it in writing. The private complaint No.1037/2013 contained this report Ex.P/1. The injured Ramesh was also sent for MLC. Though this report is not in relation to the incident allegedly happened on 03.01.2012 but that shows that there was previous enmity between the parties.

12. The independent witness Govind (PW-6) and Kishan (PW-7) have turned hostile and they did not support the story of prosecution at all.

13. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, Dr.K.P.S. Chauhan (PW-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

5 CRA-1048-2017

3) has stated that he had examined Thakur Singh and Gajendra, victim persons and he found Thakur Singh had some pain and swelling in right elbow. He referred him for Orthopaedic Surgeon and given report Ex.P/3. Gajendra has also complained pain in left wrist but there was no external injury on the person of Gajendra. He also admitted in the cross-examination that Gajendra had no injury and he has indicated pain and swelling at the instance of victim. Such injury could be sustained while falling on hard surface. This witness has not explained the duration of the injury which was said to have been found on the person of the victims. In absence of any duration indicated by the concerned doctor, it cannot be assumed that this purported injury has been sustained by this witness in the incident.

14. Dr. Azad (PW-4) has stated that he has taken the X-ray of Thakur Singh and found a fracture on right ulna bone. He admitted in the cross- examination that the X-ray has not been taken by him, he simply has given his report on the basis of X-ray plate. The X-ray has been taken by other person and in the evening he while seeing the X-ray plates has prepared the report. He has not seen the injured persons, therefore, he cannot say that the X-ray examination of which person. This witness has also not explained the duration of the injury, therefore the purported injury could not be connected with the alleged incident. The learned Trial Court has also highlighted various contradictions and omissions revealed from the testimony of this witness. The observations of the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment can not be said to be unnatural or perverse or illegal.

15. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

6 CRA-1048-2017 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8128

7 CRA-1048-2017 court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."...

17. 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 discussion 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.

18. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE