[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hariprasad on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22219
1 CRA-1780-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1780 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
HARIPRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma - GA for the appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal in ST No.593/2013, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the
accused persons from the charges under Sections 294, 326, 506 (Part-2) of IPC in
relation to Guddu @ Rajesh and for other accused persons Prakash and
Hariprasad, they have been acquitted from charges under Sections 294, 326 read
with section 34, 506 (Part-2) and 323 of IPC.
2. Prosecution case in short is that complainant lodged a report to the
effect that his younger brother Mahesh works as Safai Karmchari in Tripti
Apartment Eidgah Hills, Bhopal. When complainant Kamal Kishore returned
home on 02.4.2010 after working at Cancer Hospital, Bhopal, then, injured
Mahesh informed him that he was playing cricket at Bhootbangla ground where he
had an altercation with Deepu younger brother of accused Guddu @ Rajesh.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22219
2 CRA-1780-2016
Deepu was abusing him, then, he left the game and was returning home, when, he
was abused by accused persons. Then, he asked him not to abuse him, then, all the
four persons had beaten him kicks and fists. It is alleged that accused had hit him
with a bat on his stomach, as a result of which, Mahesh had fallen down. Mahesh
was threatened to not to lodge the report.
3. It is submitted that report was lodged on 4.4.2010 at PS-
Shahajahnabad, Bhopal registering crime no.148/2010. Matter was investigated
and charge sheet was filed. Upon filing of charge sheet, since section 326 of IPC
was added, matter was committed to the Sessions Court, where trial was
conducted. Accused persons abjured their guilt and learned trial court after
appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding of acquittal.
4. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned GA for the appellant State submits
that the grounds, which have been taken by learned trial Court to record finding of
acquittal are as follows namely:-
There was delay in lodging of report. Incident took place at about 12:00
noon on 02.04.2010 whereas the report was lodged on 4.4.2010 at 1900 hours.
Secondly, the cause of delay mentioned in the FIR is contradictory. In
column 8 of the FIR, it is mentioned that the FIR could not be lodged in time
because the complainant was busy in nursing his brother whereas in para 12 it is
mentioned that FIR could not be lodged in time out of fear.
5. It is submitted that the next ground which has been given by the learned
trial Court is that none of the treating doctors gave any definite opinion about the
age of the injuries of the victim. Thus, it is submitted that the trial Court has
extended the benefit of doubt in recording the finding of acquittal as there was
lack of prompt in reporting the matter and also prompt consultation with the
doctors.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22219
3 CRA-1780-2016
6. It is submitted that this acquittal despite eye witness account of
injured Mahesh is contrary to the established cannons of law and therefore, prayer
is made to alter the judgment of acquittal into one that of conviction.
7. Nobody is appearing for the accused persons.
8. After hearing learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State and
going through the record, Kamal Balmiki (PW-1), brother of the injured Mahesh
stated that at the time of incident, he was on his duty, his brother Ravi had called
him and informed him that there was an altercation amongst Mahesh and accused
persons. This witness had reached home and found that Mahesh was bleeding per
nose and was unconscious, then, he had gone to police station to lodge report. His
brother Ravi had informed him that Mahesh was beaten by Prakash, Chotu, Guddu
and Hariprasad. In cross-examination, PW-1 Kamal admits that he has not
informed the police that the incident was narrated to him by Ravi. This witness
further admits that Mahesh has not informed anything to him and whatever
information he had was given to him by Ravi. According to this witness, he had
lodged the report on the same day in the evening but i.e. 02.04.2010 but it is
contrary to the record inasmuch as FIR (Ex.P/1) reveals that it was lodged on
4.4.2010. Mahesh (PW-2) stated about the incident that he was beaten but in
cross-examination stated that his altercation had taken place at the cricket field
itself. Boys, who were present entered into an altercation and had beaten him.
Then, he had stated that at the shop of Sindhi, boys had beaten him with sticks and
bat. He states that if those boys would have been present, then, he would have
identified them. Thereafter, this witness states that the accused persons had taken
to the hospital and after 8 days, he had gained consciousness or after a month is
not known to him. According to him, he had fallen unconscious at the place of
incident and could not narrate the incident to anybody.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22219
4 CRA-1780-2016
9. In para-5 of his cross-examination, this witness stated that when
incident took place in front of the shop of a Sindhi, then, 6-7 boys who had beaten
him are not present in the Court. That means, he had given clean chit to the
accused persons. (PW-3) Ravi is a hearsay witness, he could not have narrated the
incident as according to Mahesh, he had fallen unconscious at the place of the
incident itself and Ravi has not shown his presence at the place of incident.
10. (PW-5) Dr. Farjan Medical Officer at LBS Hospital, Bhopal admitted
that he had examined Mahesh on 04.04.2010. He admitted that nature of injuries
were grievous. If timely treatment would not have been given to him, then,
injuries could have been dangerous to life. However, in cross-examination, this
witness admits that he has not mentioned about the duration of the injuries. He
could not say as to injuries were contacted recently or were of earlier origin. His
medical report is Ex.P/3 and the patient had taken primary treatment at Tripti
Hospital and had then gone to home and after two days got admitted in LBS
Hospital, Bhopal for further management. It is an admitted fact that no medical
document from Tripti Hospital was brought on record by the prosecution to prove
that the injuries, which were sustained by Mahesh were actually sustained on
02.04.2010. When these facts are taken into consideration, then, it is evident that
the chain of circumstances is not complete.
11. Mahesh admittedly had become unconscious after sustaining
injuries. He could not have given names of the accused persons. According to
Mahesh, he gained consciousness after 8 days to one month. FIR was lodged on
4.4.2010 itself at about 1900 hours naming the accused persons. When Mahesh
could not narrate the incident to the author of the FIR, Kamal, then, from where
Kamal received information about the assailant is a dark area in the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22219
5 CRA-1780-2016
12. Mahesh in his cross-examination has admitted that persons, who had
beaten him with sticks and bat in front of a Sindhi Shop are not present in the
court that means that there is lack of identification of the accused persons also.
Thus, there is no corroboration between the names mentioned in the FIR with
either dock identification or TIP. Since names of the accused persons have come
from nowhere, therefore, it was necessary to conduct the TIP so as to ascertain the
actual identity of the accused persons. Prosecution has failed to conduct a TIP and
even Mahesh did not identify the accused persons in the Court, therefore, we are
of the opinion that learned trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt in
favour of the accused persons, which does not call for any interference in the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
13. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Hashmi
