Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhatasa on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22970
1 MCRC-18784-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18784 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BHATASA
Appearance:
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - Govt. Advocate for petitioner/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under the provisions of section 378
(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal under
section 378(1) against acquittal. The present petition has been preferred
taking exception to the order dated 25/07/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate
Class – I, District Sehore, in Criminal Case No. 1155 of 2012 whereby the
respondent / accused has been acquitted from the charges under section 51 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
3. The facts are in nutshell. On date of incidence i.e. 12/03/2012 at around
1 ‘O’ Clock the Forest Range Officer has received information that behind in
the fencing of the farm house a person was caught in the presence of
agriculturist and during his search a dead peacock (Male) was found in his
bag alongwith one wooden stick, net and a knife. The investigation Officer
reached the spot and prepare a spot memo, seizure memo and offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22970
2 MCRC-18784-2016
section 9, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act, 1972 was registered
at P.O.R. No. 21105 of 2017.
4. The fact of the case revel that hunting of peacock, a wild animal is
figuring in Scheduled I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is an offence.
The Forest Rang Officer, Sehore invoking the provisions of section 55 of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 submitted a complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate Class – I, Sehore against the present respondent. During trial the
respondent has denied all the charges levelled against him. The trial was set
into motion and testimony of prosecution witnesses were recorded followed
by the accused statement. After conclusion of the trial,the learned trial court
has acquitted the respondent vide impugned order dated 25/07/2013.
5. The learned government advocate has critized the order of acquittal by
submitting that the order is perverse both on the facts and law. The trial court
has erred in appreciating the evidence in its correct prospective and wrong
conclusion has been drawn in favor of the respondent. The attention of the
court has been drawn towards schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection ) Acct,
1972 wherein Peacock has been mentioned. Further, it is argued that the
recovery of a dead male peacock has been seized from the possession of the
respondent has found proved vide seizer memo, bearing signature of the
respondent/ accused. Attention was also drawn toward statement of doctor
PW-7 Dr. Tanveer Sidduqui and post mortem report Exhibit P/6 and argued
that the death occurred within 20 hours of the incidence. It is also argued that
the independent witness and well as prosecution witnesses have supported
the prosecution story. A prayer has been made for convection of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22970
3 MCRC-18784-2016
respondent.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial
court has passed the order after appreciating the evidence on record. There
are contradictions and omissions in the testimony of witnesses. It is also
submitted that the respondent has been falsely arrear as an accused.
7. The record of the case revels that to bring home the charges, the
prosecution has examined two independent witnesses and four witnesses
belongs to department. The independent witnesses were turned hostile and
not supported the prosecution story. The trial court has also come to
conclusion that there is no witness examined who has seen the respondent
thumper or killing the peacock.
8. Now, a close examination of witnesses revel that there are contradictions
in the testimony of witnesses. PW-5 Bhagawan Singh , an independent
witness has turned hostile. As per PW-6 Balmukund Shakya, PW-5
Bhagawan Singh has informed him that a peacock has been hunted, whereas
Bhagawansingh denied supply of any such information. This court also
found contradiction in statements of PW -2 Narayan Singh and PW-3
Lalaram. As per PW-2 Narayan and PW-4 Mamur Khan they reached spot
on two wheeler whereas the independent witness stated some thing else. The
story of seizer of dead peacock is also different by different witnesses. The
learned counsel for the appellant has drawn more emphasis of the fact that
the respondent himself has signed sezier memo Exhibit P/1 and Exhibit P/2.
This argument has no force because, the respondent being villager can be
easily pressurize.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22970
4 MCRC-18784-2016
9. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalkrishna, (2005) 9 SCC 291 , while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Court observed:
“In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the
findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the
same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view
favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is
sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the
Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on
the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including
ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate
Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal.”
10. In The State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 , this Court relied on the
judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 and observed as under:
“15. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through
the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence,
the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. …
The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when
there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the
impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling
reason for interference.”
The Court further held as follows:
“16. it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal
against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach
of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the
conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable
person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as
perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of
appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment
delivered by the court below.”
11. In Chandrappa& Others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , this Court held:
“(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:229705 MCRC-18784-2016
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both
on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
16. This court is of the clear view that the respondent/accused possessed
this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. Due or proper weight and
consideration must be given to the trial court’s decision. This is especially
true when a witness’ credibility is at issue. The prosecution, has relied upon
independent witnesses and also in-house witnesses. It is not enough for the
appellate Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be
substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22970
6 MCRC-18784-2016
The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to
the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached – one
that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction – the appellate courts must rule
in favour of the accused.
12. I have considered the entire evidence and documents on record and the
reasoning given by the trial court for acquitting the accused and also review
the testimony of witnesses. In my considered opinion, the trial court
carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and arrived
at the correct conclusion. As such, this court does not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment dated 25/07/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate
Class – I, District Sehore, in Criminal Case No. 1155 of 2012 whereby the
respondent / accused has been acquitted from the charges under section 51 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
13. Thus, the present leave to appeal fails with no orders as to costs. The
leave to appeal is dismissed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
18:13:48