Madhya Pradesh High Court
Budhsen Prajapati vs Ram Sakha Gautam on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
1 CRA-2422-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2422 of 2016
BUDHSEN PRAJAPATI
Versus
RAM SAKHA GAUTAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Khare - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
JUDGMENT
Heard on admission.
This appeal under Section 372(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.07.2015
passed in Special Case No.30/1999 (State of M.P. vs. Ram Sakha Gautam )
by Special Judge, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi (M.P.) whereby respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘accused’) has been acquitted of the offences under
Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. As per the prosecution story, on January 31, 2009, the
complainant, B.S. Prajapati, submitted a written application (Ex.P-1) to the
Sidhi Kotwali Police Station and the Chief Executive Officer, District
Panchayat, Sidhi, stating that on January 31, 2009, at approximately 2 p.m.,
while he was going out for tea during lunch, R.S. Gautam called him to the
platform outside and began abusing him, saying it’s because of you that his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
2 CRA-2422-2016
promotion was canceled. He abused him naming his caste. Accused
threatened to kill him. He also filed a petition in the High Court to have his
promotion canceled. He would then beat him with shoes in the middle of the
intersection and make him wear a garland of shoes. Several complaints
regarding his promotion were filed against him in the office, which are
worthy of investigation. He immediately complained about this to
A.K.Mahobiya and G.S. Patel, who asked them to inform the Chief
Executive Officer. He then informed the Executive Officer. When he told
him, he said to give it in writing. Shri R.S. Gautam is a rude, quarrelsome
and criminal type employee. It has become his habit to abuse and behave
rudely with him because he is a Harijan. If an investigation is conducted, he
will reveal the names of the witnesses because there is a threat to his life and
property. He has been subjected to biased and discriminatory behavior on the
basis of caste by Shri R.S. Gautam for many years. Ignoring his seniority
because he belongs to the Harijan community, Shri R.S. Gautam took illegal
promotion benefits, which the government cancelled after 15-18 years on the
basis of the CEO’s inquiry report. After this, Shri R.S. Gautam whenever
gets upset and comes forward, he often uses abusive words based on caste.
Upon receipt of the said application, the Police Station, Ajak, Sidhi,
conducted an investigation into the application and prima facie registered a
First Information Report (FIR) against the accused under Sections 294, 506
of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, registering crime number 05/2009 as Ex.P-7. The case
was taken up for investigation and a spot map of the incident was prepared as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
3 CRA-2422-2016
Ex P-2. The complainant’s identity certificate was obtained as Ex. P-3.
Witness statements were recorded. The accused was arrested.
3. After completing other necessary investigations, a charge sheet
was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sidhi, from
where the case was received by the Special Court.
4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made
against the accused in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under
Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The
accused abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. The accused stated in his
defense that Nishar Ahmed had fabricated a false case against him. He was
innocent. In his defense, he got examined Mahesh Prasad Chaturvedi (DW-
1), Shyamkali Gautam (DW-2), and himself (DW-3).
5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined
as many as 08 witnesses, namely, Buddhsen Prajapati (PW-1), Durga Prasad
Verma (PW-2), Shanti (PW-3), Ramesh Prasad Soni (PW-4), Anand Kumar
Mahobiya (PW-5), Ghanshyam Patel (PW-6), Nisar Ahmad (PW-7), R.S.
Athya (PW-8) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/8 and Ex.D/1 to D/5 the documents
on record.
6 . The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the
evidence came to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused are
not found to be proved and eventually acquitted him of the charges under
Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Hence,
this appeal.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/victim that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
4 CRA-2422-2016
the victim himself, along with Durga Prasad Verma (PW-2), Anand Kumar
Mahobiya (PW-5), and Nisar Ahmad (PW-7), has fully supported the
prosecution case in its entirety. Although Ramesh Prasad Soni (PW-4),
Anand Kumar Mahobiya (PW-5), and Ghanshyam Patel (PW-6) were
declared hostile, Anand Kumar Mahobiya (PW-5) has nevertheless
supported the prosecution version on material aspects. From the testimonies
of the aforesaid witnesses, it is evident that the respondent/accused insulted
the appellant/victim by referring to his caste, issued threats to kill him, and
subjected him to verbal abuse. Therefore, the offences alleged against the
accused stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned Trial
Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused on untenable and
flimsy grounds. Although the FIR was lodged with some delay, however the
same has been satisfactorily explained by the victim and the prosecution.
Hence, the prosecution has successfully established the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. 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 appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that there is no error or illegality in the judgment of the trial court.
He supports the judgment of the trial court and prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
meticulously.
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the caste of the
complainant has not been proved in the present case, as he has neither stated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
5 CRA-2422-2016
his caste in the complaint (Ex. P/1) nor has any certificate issued by the Sub-
Divisional Officer been filed and exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The
prosecution has relied only upon a certificate issued by an Councilor, cited
as Ex. P/3. However, in this regard, the said Councilor, Shanti (PW-3), has
categorically admitted in her testimony that she is illiterate and does not
know the contents of Ex. P/3, and that she merely signed the document. She
further stated that the document was prepared by her husband. In these
circumstances, no cogent and reliable evidence has been brought on record to
establish the caste of the complainant as belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to attract
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
are not made out from the evidence on record.
11. As regards the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC,
although the complainant, Buddhsen Prajapati (PW-1), and Durga Prasad
Verma (PW-2), have supported the prosecution’s case, but both witnesses
are interested witnesses. Durga Prasad Verma (PW-2), in his cross-
examination, has admitted that he is a neighbour of the complainant and
shares close relations and friendship with him; therefore, he cannot be
regarded as an independent witness. The independent witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution, namely Anand Kumar Mahobiya (PW-5) and
Ghanshyam Patel (PW-6), did not support the prosecution’s case and were
declared hostile. Accordingly, the testimonies of Buddhsen Prajapati (PW-1),
and Durga Prasad Verma (PW-2) require careful and close scrutiny.
12. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR (Ex.P/1) does not disclose
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
6 CRA-2422-2016
the presence of any eye-witness, nor does it mention the name of any such
witness. Therefore, the testimony of Durga Prasad (PW-2), who claims to be
an eye-witness, rendered doubtful on this count. The statements of both
witnesses, namely Buddhsen Prajapati (PW-1) and Durga Prasad Verma
(PW-2), suffer from various contradictions and omissions, and the FIR itself
is belated. The alleged incident occurred on 31.01.2009. The complaint was
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Sidhi, who has
been examined in this case as Nisar Ahmad (PW-7). However, no
satisfactory explanation has been provided as to why the said report was
forwarded belatedly to the Police Station, where the FIR came to be
registered only on 09.03.2009. The FIR (Ex. P/7) further reveals that the
information was received not earlier than 28.02.2009. The substantial delay
in forwarding the FIR (Ex. P/1) to the police has not been satisfactorily
explained by the complainant, Buddhsen Prajapati (PW-1), or by Nisar
Ahmad (PW-7).
13. It is also evident from the testimonies of both the prosecution
witnesses and the defence witnesses, namely Mahesh Prasad Chaturvedi
(DW-1), Shyamkali Gautam (DW-2), and Ramsakhar Gautam (DW-3), that a
complaint had been lodged by the accused against the complainant prior to
the incident in question. The defence has further alleged that the FIR was
registered as a consequence of the said complaint made by the accused. It is
also pertinent to note that the statements of these witnesses were recorded on
09.03.2009, which appears to be belated. In view of these circumstances, the
conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused does
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
7 CRA-2422-2016
not appear to be erroneous or legally unsustainable. It is well settled that in
appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible from the evidence and
when the learned Trial Court has adopted the view favourable to the accused
then in appeal it cannot be set aside on the ground that other view is also
possible.
14. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016)
14 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.
15. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka , 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 fromSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:198198 CRA-2422-2016
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
court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the
decision of the trial court.”…
16. Ex consequenti, 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 accused/respondents. There is no ground for interference with the
findings of the trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of
acquittal of respondent/accused by trial court, the appeal being bereft of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19819
9 CRA-2422-2016
merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03