[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohammad Raheesh Mansoori on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
1 CRA-8955-2022
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. 8955 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MOHAMMAD RAHEESH MANSOORI
Appearance:
Shri Atmaram Bain - Dy. G.A. for appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A. No.19682/2022, an application for condonation of delay.
On due consideration, I.A. No.19682/2022 is allowed.
The delay of 13 days occurred in filing this appeal is hereby
condoned.
This criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Chhatarpur, in SC No.111/2021,
whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been
acquitted from the charges under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 9(1)
(m)/10 of the POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.07.2021 at about 18:00
hours, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-02), accompanied by the prosecutrix
(PW-01), appeared at Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur, and submitted a
written complaint (Exhibit P-4). In the said complaint, it was alleged that his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
2 CRA-8955-2022
daughter, namely, the prosecutrix (PW-01), aged about 08 years, was
studying in Class II during the academic session 2019-2020 in a public
school. She used to commute to and from the school in a Tata Magic van
arranged by the school. The said vehicle was being driven by accused
Raheesh Mansoori, resident of Galla Mandi, Chhatarpur, below the old
Allahabad Bank, who used to pick up and drop the school children. It was
further alleged that after dropping the other children at their respective
homes, the prosecutrix (PW-01) would often remain alone in the vehicle with
the accused. It was further alleged that whenever the prosecutrix (PW-01)
remained alone in the vehicle, the accused used commit a wrong with her.
The accused also allegedly threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the
incidents to anyone. Owing to fear and intimidation, the prosecutrix (PW-01)
remained silent and would often return home weeping, though her family
members could not understand the reason for her distress at that time. It was
further stated that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, schools remained closed
during the academic session of 2020. Thereafter, on 20.07.2021, when the
complainant informed the prosecutrix (PW-01) that the schools were likely
to reopen and advised her to prepare her school uniform and other articles,
the prosecutrix started crying and expressed her unwillingness to attend the
said school. She further stated that the driver of the school vehicle, referred
to by her as "Khan Uncle," used to behave obscenely with her. Upon being
consoled and reassured by the complainant and his wife (PW-03), the
prosecutrix disclosed the acts allegedly committed by the accused.
Thereafter, she also narrated the incident to her brother and sister-in-law
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
3 CRA-8955-2022
(PW-04). The prosecutrix (PW-01) further disclosed that the last such
incident had occurred in February-March, 2020, when the accused had again
subjected her to obscene acts while she was returning towards her home.
However, due to fear and intimidation, she did not disclose the said incident
to anyone at the relevant point of time. Upon learning about the aforesaid
incidents from his daughter, the complainant approached Police Station
Kotwali, Chhatarpur, and lodged the report. On the basis of the said
complaint, FIR bearing Crime No.465/2021 was registered at Police Station
Kotwali, Chhatarpur vide Ex.P/5 against the accused, and thereafter the
investigation was set into motion.
3. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against
the accused before the Court. Statement of the witnesses got recorded.
Charges were framed; read out and explained to the accused. He denied to
committing the crime and sought a trial. During his examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 05 witnesses, namely, prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix's father (PW-
2), prosecutrix's mother (PW-3), Investigating Officer, R.P. Pandey (PW-4),
and S.I., Janak Nandini (PW-5) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/12, the documents on
record whereas in defence, the accused has examined Ashok Kushwaha
(DW-1).
5. The learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties
acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. Hence, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
4 CRA-8955-2022
appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant/State that
despite ample evidence on record, the learned trial Court has erroneously
acquitted the respondent/accused. It is found proved by the learned trial
Court that the prosecutrix was 8 years old child as per the paragraph-11 of
the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court in paragraph-32 onwards has
discussed why the Court disbelieved the story of the prosecution but has
given undue advantage to the omissions, variations and contradictions
revealed in the statements of the prosecutions witnesses which were of trivial
nature and ought to have been overlooked. It is further submitted that the
statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3)
have supported the story of prosecution in toto. The prosecutrix's Aunt (PW-
4) has also substantiated the story of the prosecution. Therefore, the
prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused. Therefore,
he prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal and to convict the
accused and sentence him in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant/State
and perused the record meticulously.
8. The prosecutrix (PW-1) though has supported the story of prosecution
which is further substantiated by her father (PW-2), mother (PW-3) and her
Aunt (PW-4), but no independent witness has been examined in this behalf
by the prosecution. Moreover, the statement of prosecutrix's father (PW-2),
prosecutrix's mother (PW-3) and her Aunt (PW-4) are based on the
information given to them by the prosecutrix. therefore, their statements are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
5 CRA-8955-2022
hearsay. The uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) by the
independent witness is subject to close and careful scrutiny.
9. It is revealed from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) that
whenever she was going by a vehicle in which the accused was driver, other
children were also sitting in that vehicle. She categorically stated that the
accused used to harass other children also and did wrong with them but none
of the children has been adduced in evidence on behalf of the prosecution to
substantiate the story as deposed by the prosecutrix.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the prosecution story, the
incident was related to period 01.02.2020 to 22.03.2020 which is period of
almost 1.75 months but the FIR has been lodged not before 21.07.2021. If
the prosecutrix (PW-1) was feeling humiliation then she must have intimated
to her teachers and her parents immediately after commission of such
offence but admittedly she has not intimated at that time to anyone about the
actus reus of the accused. As per the story of prosecution, when the school
have been started again in July, 2021 and when the prosecutrix has been told
by her parents to get ready for going to school then she denied to go to
school on the ground that the accused used to commit a wrong with her.
11. Had the accused committed wrong act with the prosecutrix, then the
prosecutrix being humiliated and harassed could be well found in that
condition by her parents and staff of the school, but her mother and father in
their cross-examinations have categorically stated that during the school time
no complaints have been received to them about the prosecutrix's demeanour
and behavior as her being sad and not concentrating her study rather she has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
6 CRA-8955-2022
been admired every time. This statement of the parents of the prosecutrix
shows that the prosecutrix was quite normal even after the incidence during
the school time which raises suspicion over the genuineness of the
prosecution story. It is of common experience that sometimes, the students of
tender age in order to avoid the school, hatch some story. In this case also as
per the story of prosecution when the prosecutrix has been told by their
parents to be ready for going to school then she told them about the
incident.
12. As far as the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, is
concerned, the initially burden is on the prosecution to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt and once it has been established then presumption
applies. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment in paragraph-32
onwards has discussed the evidence in detail and highlighting the points as
discussed above has rightly acquitted the accused. The view taken by the
learned trial Court cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or faulty rather it is
lawful. There is no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
Court.
13. The learned trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on
record has rightly given finding of acquittal of the respondent/accused. The
prosecution has failed to establish its case with cogent and reliable evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused in light of aforesaid discussions is
certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt in this case. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
7 CRA-8955-2022
14. In case of 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)
15. In case of 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
8 CRA-8955-2022
16. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 397 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been
altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against
conviction. 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. This Court, while enunciating the
principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala
[Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1320] has held : (SCC p. 415, para 7)
"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the
powers of the appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in
an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis
of evidence on record two views are reasonably
possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view
in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when
the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused
is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of
evidence on record and in deducing conclusions
therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal."
21. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that
the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal,
has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the
appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court
below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of
law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order
is imperative."
17. Similar, in case of Harijan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat , (2016) 12
SCC 665, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"12. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:34808
9 CRA-8955-2022
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
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."
18. In the light of the aforesaid discussions 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 from the charges levelled against him. There is no
ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
19. Ex consequenti, while affirming the findings of acquittal of the
respondent/accused by learned trial Court, the appeal being sans merit, is
hereby dismissed.
20. I.A. No.18838/2022, is also dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
