Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Durgaram on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
1 CRA-1660-2026
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. 1660 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
DURGARAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Shukla - P.P. for State.
Shri Ashotosh Joshi - Advocate for respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 501 of 2015
SMT. REKHA KAMDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for appellant.
Shri Mukesh Shukla - P.P. for respondent No.1/State.
JUDGMENT
Since both these criminal appeals are arising out of one and the same
judgment whereby the respondents have been acquitted, therefore, they are
being heard and decided concomitantly by this common judgment.
These appeals under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. have been filed by
the appellants (State and complainant) assailing the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 06.08.2014 passed in Special Criminal Case No.09/2011 by
the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Khandwa (M.P.), whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
2 CRA-1660-2026
respondents, namely, Durgaram, Ramkishan and Govind (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘accused persons’), have been acquitted of the offences under
Sections 294, 353 and 452 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act.
2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the prosecution case, in brief, is
that the complainant, Rekha Kamdar, was posted as Principal at Government
High School, Bhogawa, on 01.11.2010. On the said date, when she reached
the school at about 10:25 AM, she found a crowd gathered near the
Panchayat building within the school premises. Upon inquiry, the Panchayat
Secretary, Tarachand, informed her that a program for celebration of Madhya
Pradesh Foundation Day was being organized. When the complainant
expressed that she had not been informed about the program, the accused
Durgaram, along with Deputy Sarpanch Ramkishan and Govind Patel
(husband of the Sarpanch), became agitated and started taunting her. They
allegedly passed caste-based remarks, insulting her by referring to her as a
Dalit and “Balai,” and humiliated her in public, causing others present to
laugh.Thereafter, at about 11:00 AM, accused Durgaram, along with 40-50
villagers, entered the complainant’s office, abused her in filthy language,
reiterated caste-based insults, and created a ruckus, thereby causing fear and
panic among the complainant and the students. On hearing the commotion,
Pratap Singh and Jagannath intervened and advised the complainant to
inform the police. Accordingly, she telephonically reported the incident to
the Police Station Omkareshwar. Later, after school hours, the complainant
informed her husband and subsequently reported the matter to the District
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
3 CRA-1660-2026
Education Officer. Thereafter, she submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/1) to
the Special Police Station (SC/ST), Khandwa, on the basis of which FIR
(Ex.P/13) was registered against the accused persons and investigation was
triggered.
3. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against
the accused persons before the competent Court. Statement of the witnesses
got recorded. Charges were framed; read out and explained to the accused
persons. They denied committing the crime and sought a trial. During their
examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused persons stated
that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 10 witnesses, namely, Rekha Kamdar (PW-1), Nirmal Kamdar
(PW-2), V.S. Gurjar (PW-3), Radhabai (PW-4), Jagannath (PW-5), Pratap
Singh (PW-6), Ku. Narmada Golkar (PW-7), Ku. Bhavna Solanki (PW-8),
Yashwant (PW-9) and Rajeshwari Mahobia (PW-10) and placed Exs.P/1 to
P/14 whereas in defence, the accused persons have placed Exs.D/1 to D/47
the documents on record.
5. The learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties
acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. Hence,
these appeals.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for present appellant/State that the
complainant-Rekha Kamdar (PW-1) has supported the story of prosecution.
She has promptly lodged the FIR. She also submitted her caste certificate but
the learned trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the caste certificate and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
4 CRA-1660-2026
given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The trial Court has
erroneously assumed that the FIR is belated while the FIR has been lodged
without any delay. Though independent witnesses did not support the story
of prosecution and turned hostile but the complainant remained unshaken in
her cross-examination. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned trial Court of
acquittal of the accused persons is liable to be set aside. Thus, he prayed to
allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal and to convict the accused persons
and sentence them in accordance with law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused persons has submitted that the statement of the
complainant is not supported by the independent witnesses, namely,
Jagannath (PW-5), Pratap (PW-6), Narmada (PW-7) and Bhavna (PW-8),
and, thus, the statement of the complainant only is on record. The learned
trial Court has rightly pointed out that the caste certificate submitted by the
complainant is highly doubtful and her statement is not found to be
believable. The FIR is also delayed. Under such circumstances, the judgment
of acquittal does not warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, he prays
for rejection of appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
meticulously.
9. At the outset, the caste certificate Ex.P/12 has not been found not
reliable by the learned trial Court, which is not found to be faulty as the
complainant- Rekha Kamdar (PW-1), has been first time examined on
05.11.2012 and she has sated that her caste certificate has been misplaced
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
5 CRA-1660-2026
and she could not file it before the Court. Thereafter when she has been
called for proving her caste certificate on 09.04.2014 then she submitted the
caste certificate Ex.P/12 but she has stated in her cross-examination that she
herself has submitted the application for obtaining the caste certificate
Ex.P/12. She has not filed any application through her father for obtaining
such certificate. She admitted that her father’s death occurred in the year
2010 and his name was Gangaram S/o Shankar Moye but when the
application Ex.D/27C for obtaining such certificate has been shown to this
witness and asked whether it bears the signature of Gangaram or not, she
stated that she had no knowledge about it but she admitted that this
application has not been given by her. She also admitted that the affidavit
along with the application Ex.D/5 is in the name of Gangaram S/o Shankar
but on 08.01.2013 his father was not alive. All these facts and the documents
in this respect Ex.D/25C to C-28 show that the application for obtaining the
caste certificate Ex.P/12 are fictitiously prepared. The application and the
affidavit in the name of Gangaram S/o Shankar Moye filed for obtaining
caste certificate are fictitious as Gangaram Moye was not alive at that time.
He had already been died in the year 2010.
10. Yashwant (PW-9), who is the reader of Sub Divisional Officer
Sendhwa has also admitted this position on record. He also admitted that
Ex.D/25 contains overwriting but there is no countersignature or initial on
that part to establish the authenticity of such overwriting. He admitted that
Ex.D/26C is in the name of Rajesh. The name was cut and the name of
Gangaran S/o Shankar has been inserted thereat. This document also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
6 CRA-1660-2026
contains overwriting which has not been authenticated by countersignature.
He also admitted that the application Ex.D/27 was filed by the applicant
Gangaram S/o Shankar Moye not by Rekha Kamdar wife of Nirmal Kamdar.
11. In these circumstances, as revealed from the documents and the
statement of the complainant as PW-1, the learned trial Court has rightly
disbelieved the caste certificate Ex.P/12.
12. As far as the alleged incident is concerned, Rekha Kamdar (PW-1) is
the complainant herself. She admitted in paragraph-10 of her cross-
examination that on the date of the offence when she called, ASI Patidar and
two other policemen of Police Station Mandhata reached on the spot but she
has not given any application to the police. The complaint Ex.P/1, which is
said to be the First Information Report though contained the date 01.11.2010
but the same has not been submitted on the same day at the police station.
Such complaint bears the seal of S.P. Khandwa, dated 04.11.2010 and the
FIR has been lodged on such report on 10.11.2010 as Ex.P/13, which also
contains that the information received at Police Station AJK Khandwa on
04.11.2010. Therefore, apparently the FIR is delayed by four days but delay
has not been properly explained by the prosecution or the complainant in her
deposition.
13. It is also revealed from the cross-examination of the complainant PW-
1 that various complaints have been filed against her. Some of which are of
serious nature and inquiry has also been conducted in this respect which has
been admitted by the complainant (PW-1). These complaints are Exs.D/1 to
D/44 including other documents and this shows that as a Principal of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
7 CRA-1660-2026
High School, there were various complaints filed against the complainant
(PW-1) and the inquiry has also been conducted in regard to the complaints.
She also admitted that she has been transferred thrice and after getting stay
from the High Court, she remained posted in this school. She also admitted
that at the time of the incident 40-50 persons were gathered. In cross-
examination she also admitted that at the time of incident entire staff was
present thereat but none of such independent witnesses has been listed in this
case as witness nor they have been examined.
14. The independent witnesses examined in this case are; Radha Bai (PW-
4), Jagannath (PW-5), Pratap Singh (PW-6), and Bhavna (PW-8). They did
not support the story of prosecution at all. They turned hostile. Though
Radha Bai (PW-4) after declaring her hostile has tried to support the
prosecution’s case but in cross-examination she categorically admitted that
the complainant and her counsel has tutored her and she cannot say that out
of the mob who were abusing or insulting the complainant in the name of her
caste.
15. Only one witness, namely, Narmada (PW-7) has tried to support the
story of prosecution but whatever she deposed in her chief-examination is
entirely different from what the story of prosecution is. In this respect
variations and contradictions have been revealed in her statement qua police
statement. The statement of complainant (PW-1) is also suffered from
various contradictions and omissions which are contained in paragraph-13 of
her statement, which in the attending facts and circumstances of the case
assume importance. This witness has also not been named in the FIR as an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
8 CRA-1660-2026
eye witness and she has been introduced on behalf of the prosecution by an
application under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution.
Therefore, the veracity of her statement renders doubtful.
16. Having considered the entire evidence on record, the statement of the
complainant (PW-1) alone without any independent support is not found to
be reliable and in this regard the observations of the learned trial Court by
the impugned judgment is not found to be faulty. The view taken by the
learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.
17. The learned trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on
record has rightly given finding of acquittal of the accused/respondent. The
prosecution has failed to establish its case with cogent and reliable evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused/respondent in light of aforesaid
discussions is certainly entitled to get the benefit of doubt in this case.
18. 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: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
9 CRA-1660-2026
with the same.
19. 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.”…
20. 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/respondent. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20370
10 CRA-1660-2026
21. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
accused/respondents by trial Court, the appeals being sans merit, are hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 4/2/2026
2:15:32 PM
