Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bacchu Singh@ Rajkumar on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
1 CRA-2843-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2843 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BACCHU SINGH@ RAJKUMAR
Appearance:
Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
02.09.2014 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 56/2014 (State of M.P. vs
Bachhu @ Rajkumar) by learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge under
the POCSO Act, Khandwa (M.P.) whereby respondent – Bacchu Singh @
Rajkumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) has been acquitted of the
offences under Sections 342, 354, 363 of IPC and Section 7 read with
Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act‘).
2. The prosecution story in brief is that 15-year-old victim filed a
First Information Report at Piplod Police Station on March 27, 2014, at 8
p.m., stating that she lives in Bhootni village. Her brother, Atmaram, had
abducted Chunnilal’s daughter, Anita, on Monday. Her parents had gone to
look for her. She and her sister, Pooja, were sleeping in the courtyard at 12 in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
2 CRA-2843-2016
the night on March 26, 2014, when the accused, Bacchu and Rajpal, arrived.
Bacchu reached out and woke her up, telling her to get up or he would slap
her. She and Pooja began screaming, and Bacchu slapped her. Both Bacchu
and Rajpal, with malicious intent, grabbed her hand and told her that her
brother had abducted her sister, and that they would take her away. They
took her by the hand to Goma’s house and locked her in a room. Upon
hearing her screams, her aunt Samotibai and uncles Totaram, Reemubai, and
Bindabai came and released her two hours later. She told the above witnesses
about the incident. In the morning, when her parents arrived, she also told
them about the incident. The villagers convened a Panchayat, but Bachchu
and Rajpal did not attend. At the Panchas’ insistence, she came to file a
report. Based on the victim’s written report, Crime No. 76/14 under Sections
354, 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act
was registered at Piplod Police Station and the investigation was initiated.
During the investigation, a map of the scene was drawn, the school’s
admission and discharge register and certificate regarding the victim’s date of
birth (03.10.1999) were obtained, witnesses’ statements were recorded, the
accused was arrested, and an arrest panchnama was prepared.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the
competent court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Special Court
for trial.
4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made
against the accused in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
3 CRA-2843-2016
Section 342, 354, 363 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The
accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. As per his
defence, he stated that he is innocent and that his sister was forcibly abducted
by the victim’s brother Atmaram, and to escape from this incident, he got the
crime registered by lodging a false report. In the defence evidence, Ramnath
(DW-1) and Mishrilal (DW-2) were also examined.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as
many as 07 witnesses, which are prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix’s sister
(PW-2), maternal under of prosecutrix (PW-3), prosecutrix’s father (PW-4),
Satandra Shakya (PW-5), A.S. Badoriya (PW-6), Shri V.S. Chohan (PW-7)
and placed Ex.P/1 to P/6 and Ex.D/1 the document on record.
6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the
testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and
eventually acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 342, 354, 363
of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, this appeal.
7 . It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant/State that the prosecutrix (PW-1), the prosecutrix’s
sister (PW-2), their maternal uncle (PW-3), and the prosecutrix’s father
(PW-4) have substantially supported the prosecution case. The age of the
victim has also been duly established in light of the testimony of the
prosecutrix’s father (PW-4). Despite the availability of ample evidence on
record with respect to the charges levelled against the accused-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
4 CRA-2843-2016
respondent, the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted him. It is
further submitted that the witnesses have categorically deposed that the
present respondent/accused entered their house, caught hold of the
prosecutrix’s hands, and dragged her to the house of Goma Bai, where she
was confined in a room. Thereafter, Goma Bai and other persons released
her. The evidence of the prosecutrix’s sister (PW-2) has not been considered
by the learned Trial Court at all in the impugned judgment. It is contended
that the prosecution has successfully proved the offences beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and convict
and punish the accused appropriately for the aforesaid offences.
8 . Per contra, learned counsel for the accused, in his turn, supports
the impugned judgment and submits that no interference is called for in the
same. .
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
meticulously.
10. The victim in the present case, PW-1, and her sister, PW-2,
have stated that at about 12:00 midnight, the respondent/accused came to
their house while they were sleeping. The respondent allegedly took the
prosecutrix (PW-1), slapped her, and confined her in a room in Goma’s
house after locking it. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, her maternal
uncle and aunt arrived at the spot and released her. The statements of the
other witnesses, namely the uncle of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and the father of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
5 CRA-2843-2016
the prosecutrix (PW-4), are based on the information provided to them by the
prosecutrix (PW-1).
11. There is no independent corroboration of the prosecution story as
stated by PW-1 to PW-4. In the absence of independent corroboration, the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2, who are respectively the prosecutrix and the
alleged eye-witness to the incident, require close scrutiny. However, a
careful examination of their testimonies reveals that the prosecution story has
been exaggerated. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the accused
Bachhulal came to the spot along with Rajpal, who is the real brother of
Bachhulal. Similarly, the prosecutrix’s sister (PW-2) has stated that accused
Bachhulal came along with Rajpal and Chunnilal and committed the alleged
offence. Thus, the involvement of Rajpal and Chunnilal appears to be an
exaggeration introduced by these two witnesses. It further emerges from the
statements of the aforesaid witnesses that Atmaram, the brother of the
prosecutrix, had eloped with Anita, the sister of accused Bachhulal. The
parents of the prosecutrix were searching for Atmaram and Anita, and the
Panchayat had instructed them to trace both of them within two days.
However, when the parents of the prosecutrix failed to locate Atmaram and
Anita within the stipulated time, the present accused, being the real brother
of Anita, appears to have been falsely implicated in this case due to the said
dispute.
1 2 . The prosecutrix (PW-1), in paragraph 4 of her cross-
examination, has categorically admitted that Bachhulal and Rajpal were
threatening her between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., stating that if she did not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
6 CRA-2843-2016
disclose the place where Atmaram had taken Anita, they would lodge a
report against her family members. Further, in paragraph 5, she categorically
admitted that her maternal uncle had advised her to lodge a report at the
police station before the accused could make any report against them. She
also admitted that if no report had been lodged against her brother, they
would not have lodged any report against the accused. In the last two lines of
paragraph 5, she has further categorically admitted that the accused neither
took her to Goma’s house nor locked her in a room.
13. The maternal uncle of the prosecutrix (PW-3) deposed in his
chief-examination that earlier they had intended to settle the matter in the
Panchayat, but since the accused did not agree, they lodged the FIR. He also
admitted that when the Panchayat was convened with respect to Atmaram
and Anita, the father of Atmaram promised that he would search for Anita
within two days; however, Anita could not be traced during that period.
Tulsiram (PW-4) also admitted in his cross-examination, with reference to
his police statement (Ex. D/1), that Atmaram and Anita were residing in his
house. Some variations were also revealed in his testimony.
14. Both the defence witnesses, Ramnath (DW-1) and Mishrilal
(DW-2), have supported the defence and stated that since the father of the
prosecutrix failed to search for the daughter of Chunnilal, namely Anita, a
false report has been lodged against the accused. According to them, no such
occurrence took place as alleged against the accused. They further stated that
they belong to the same caste and community, and had any such incident
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
7 CRA-2843-2016
taken place within the community, they would certainly have had knowledge
of it.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual scenario, the conclusion
arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be said to be baseless/whimsical.
The statements of PW-1 to PW-4 do not inspire confidence, and the
testimony of the prosecutrix does not appear to be natural or reliable. It is
pertinent to note that Goma, in whose house the prosecutrix (PW-1) was
allegedly kept confined, has not been examined by the prosecution for
reasons best known to it. This assumes significance as Goma was an
important witness for the prosecution. 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.
16. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
8 CRA-2843-2016
with the same.
17. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka,
(2024) 3 SCC 544 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 from 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.”…
18. In the sum and substance, the approach of the learned Trial Court
and conclusion of acquittal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in light of
the foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid down in the
aforementioned cases. This Court is of the considered view that the findings
and conclusion of acquittal of learned Trial Court do not warrant any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25425
9 CRA-2843-2016
interference.
19. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DINESH VERMA
Signing time: 02-04-2026
15:25:03