[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rishikesh Mishra on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
1 CRA-3942-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3942 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RISHIKESH MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Pramod Pandey - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order
of acquittal dated 22.09.2016 passed in Special Case No.04 of 2015 (State of
M.P. vs. Rishikesh Mishra and Anr.) by the learned Special Judge Panna,
District-Panna (M.P.), whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted
of the offence under Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 26.08.2014 at about 09:00
pm, the complainant, Vimlesh Singh, was present at her government
residence bearing No. F-20, Civil Line. At that time, the accused Rishikesh
Mishra, son of Narendra Mishra, resident of Jaisingh Nagar, along with his
brother Ranu Mishra, resident of Bajrang Nagar, arrived at the complainant's
residence. It is alleged that both accused persons were under the influence of
alcohol and were carrying a revolver. Acting in furtherance of their common
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
2 CRA-3942-2026
intention, they forcibly entered the house of the complainant without
permission. After entering, they began to abuse the complainant in a filthy
and obscene manner. During the course of the incident, they used derogatory
caste-related words such as "Godin" and "Adivasi," thereby intentionally
insulting and humiliating the complainant. The accused persons also
criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening to kill her and further
threatened that they would have her kidnapped in broad daylight through
hired persons. In addition, they attempted to physically scuffle with the
complainant, creating fear and disturbance. During the incident, the accused
persons forcibly snatched the complainant's mobile phone and took it into
their possession. Due to this, the complainant was temporarily prevented
from seeking immediate help. Approximately half an hour after the incident,
upon regaining possession of his mobile phone, the complainant informed
the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the occurrence. Upon receiving
the information, a PCR van was immediately dispatched to the complainant's
residence. The complainant also narrated the entire incident to the PCR
personnel upon their arrival and thereafter, an offence vide Crime No.528 of
2014 for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code has been registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-
Rewa (M.P.) and the accused persons were thereafter, arrested.
3. Upon completion of investigation and other formalities, the charge-sheet
was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District
Rewa. Since the offences were triable exclusively by the Court of Special
Judge, the case was committed accordingly. The learned trial Court framed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
3 CRA-3942-2026
charges against the accused persons under Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
respondents/accused abjured guilt and claimed to be innocent, contending
that they have been falsely implicated. No evidence has been adduced by the
respondents/accused in their defence.
4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 03 witnesses, namely Vimlesh (PW-1), Soukhilal Kushwaha (PW-
2), Ashutosh Pandey (PW-3) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/19 and Ex.D/1 to
Ex.D/3, the documents on record. In defence, the respondents/accused
examined Shivendra Pratap Singh (DW-1) and Harish Kumar Namdeo (DW-
2) as defence witnesses.
5 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondents/accused. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has there is
ample evidence inform of statements of witnesses namely Vimlesh (PW-1)
and Soukhilal Kushwaha (PW-2) and the prosecution has established the
guilt of the accused persons in light of statement of these witnesses despite
that, the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused persons on
the ground that there were previous relationship remain in exist prior to the
incident between the complainant and respondents/accused and the accused
persons used to visit the house of complainant frequently but that is not a
sole ground to reject the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, who remained intact
in their cross-examination. On these grounds, it is contended that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
4 CRA-3942-2026
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal be
allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the
respondents/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record
meticulously.
8. The evidence led by the prosecution,.....The view taken by the learned
trial Court is a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence on
record. It is settled law that an appellate Court should not interfere with an
order of acquittal unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse
or wholly unreasonable.
15. In H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal,
is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8 . 3 . The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal
only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
(Emphasis Supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
5 CRA-3942-2026
16. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024
SCC Online SC 561, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to relevant
precedents, has observed as follows:-
"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to
be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view
consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above
factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 397 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate
Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there
is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the
paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice
and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the
accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that
may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. Appellate Curt, while enunciating the
principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal, has not absolute restriction in
law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of
acquittal is founded."
18. Similar, in case of Harijan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat , (2016) 12
SCC 665, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two
views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal,
the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However,
this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has
recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34724
6 CRA-3942-2026
the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is
against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always
open for the appellate court to express the right conclusion after
re-appreciating the evidence if the charge is proved beyond
reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused."
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis of the
evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on proper
appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
respondent/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
20. Ex. consequenti, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
respondents by the learned trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is
hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
julie
