[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupali D/O Sukhdev Mukati Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2026
1 CRA-2692-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2692 of 2022
(RUPALI D/O SUKHDEV MUKATI THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SUKHDEV MUKATI AND OTHERS Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 16-03-2026
Shri Gaurav Laad - Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Usha Chouhan - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
This appeal has been filed under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C against
the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)
Mandleshwar, District Khargone in Sessions Trial Case No.300648/2016 dated
28.1.2022 whereby the respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted from the
charges under Section 354, 323, 342 of IPC and under Section 9(G) read with
Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.208 of 2016 registered at police
station Karahi, District Khargone, (west) Neemar.
2 . Respondents No.2,3 and 4 were prosecuted regarding incident dated
6.11.2016 at village Bhampura, police station Karahi, District Khargone regarding
which Crime No.208 of 2016 was registered.
3. As per prosecution, accused Manju asked the victim to bring the broom
from the chaff room, on which she went inside the room, where the accused
Pintu@ Abhishek was and the victim started coming back with the broom, then
the accused Manju closed the door of the room, she came near the door. When she
started screaming, Pintu grabbed her left hand with a bad intention and pulled her
towards him, when she cried loudly then the door opened from outside and the
accused Manju and Mohan were outside. The victim went to her house and when
her parents came in the evening, told them about the incident and the next day she
went to the police station and got the report of the incident done.
2 CRA-2692-2022
4. The trial Court has recorded the finding that victim (PW.1) was aged 16
years on the date of incident but acquitted the respondents No.2,3 and 4 recording
the finding that delay in filing the report is not duly explained and rendered the
incident suspicious. The allegations against the respondents No.2,3 and 4 are for
commission of offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 342 of IPC and under
Section 9(G) read with Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
5. The provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is reproduced here
as under:-
29. Presumption as to certain offences.--
Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and
section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that
such person has committed or abetted or attempted to
commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is
proved.
6. Challenging the acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred on the
ground that the trial Court passed the judgment of acquittal by drawing
unwarranted inferences. The trial Court failed to properly consider the facts and
the law. It also did not duly appreciate the deposition of the appellant/complainant
and the other witnesses.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The parameters for grant of leave to appeal have been reiterated by the
Apex Court in the case of Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja
& Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 282 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 7 and
8 has laid down the principles, which are reproduced below:-
"7. The question as to how the application for grant of leave to appeal
filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided by the High
Court and what are the parameters which the High Court should keep in
3 CRA-2692-2022
mind remains no longer res integra. This issue was examined by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in
(2008) 9 SCC 475. C.K. Thakker, J. speaking for the Bench held in
paras 19, 20, 21 and 24 respectively as under:
"19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by
the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal
"shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court". It is,
therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of
acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave
to appeal as required by sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is
also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the
High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the
application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether
requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must
apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out
or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of
acquittal would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of
universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer
an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be
allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and
decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the
court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence
and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial court could not be said to be "perverse" and, hence, no leave should
be granted.
xxx xxx xxx
24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have
laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the
appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the
relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record
reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed.
Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons
(may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the
court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time,
however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record
discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or reconsideration
of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide
the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High Court, with respect,
did neither.
In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of
leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave."
9. In Sita Ram v. State of U.P. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 656, this
Court held that:
4 CRA-2692-2022
"31. ... A single right of appeal is more or less a universal
requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the
[concept] that men are fallible, that Judges are men and that making
assurance doubly sure, before irrevocable deprivation of life or
liberty comes to pass, a full-scale re- examination of the facts and
the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness
or procedure."
10. Considering the statement of victim (PW.1) and the presumption under
Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012, it is a case which is satisfying the criteria of
prima facie case to be made out or in which arguable points have been raised.
Accordingly this appeal is fit to be admitted and hence it is admitted for final
hearing.
11. Accordingly, leave is granted.
12. Issue bailable warrant of arrest against the accused respondents No.2 to
4 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for their appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 14.5.2026 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf
by the Office.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
SS/-
