Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sunil on 10 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
1 CRA-2303-2026
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. 2303 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SUNIL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Shukla - P.P. for appellant/State.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
23.12.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.2671/2010 by the learned JMFC
Betul, District Betul (M.P.), whereby the respondents (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘accused persons’), have been acquitted of the offence under Sections
294, 323/34 (two counts), 323/34, 506 Part-II & 427/34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Jugan Dhurve, the complainant
in the case, lives in village Kailapunji and works as a labourer and cowherd.
On 07.11.2010, at about 12 noon, Jugan was at his home and was talking to
Balori Bengali of Batkidoh, when Sunil, son of former Sarpanch Chhanna
Kakodia, came and Balwant Subhash came with him and started saying that
you have done witchcraft on Balwant’s sister Rajni. When the complainant
claimed he hadn’t done anything, the three accused began abusing him and
his mother and sister, asking, “You motherfucker, will you fix this?” and
began beating him. Balram Nathu then arrived, abusing and assaulting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
2 CRA-2303-2026
complainant. Sunil and Balwant hit him with sticks and began dragging him.
Meanwhile, the complainant’s son, Siyaram, and his brother-in-law, Dharmu,
arrived. When they tried to intervene, they attacked them as well, breaking
the tiles of the house and damaging it. They threatened to kill the
complainant. The assault by the accused resulted in injuries to the
complainant’s head, arms, legs, and body. A report regarding the incident was
filed by the complainant at Chopna police station. On the complaint’s report,
a case was registered against the accused under Sections 294, 323, 506 (Part-
2), 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Chopna police station and the matter
was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, a spot map of the
incident was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. After the
complete investigation, as the accused were found to have committed the
crime and to have caused injuries on the head of the injured Jugan, a charge
sheet was presented in the court against the accused under Sections 294,
323/34, 324/34, 427/34, 506 (Part-2) of the Indian Penal Code.
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, they denied
committing the crime and sought a trial. During their examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 09 witnesses, namely, Siyaram (PW-1), Rampyari (PW-2), Jugan
(PW-3), Sanoti (PW-4), Dharamsingh (PW-5), K.S. Narvariya (PW-6),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
3 CRA-2303-2026
Balhori Das (PW-7), Laxman Singh (PW-8) and Suraj (PW-9) and placed
Ex.P/1 to P/11 and Ex.D/1 and D/2 the documents on record.
5. The learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties
acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. Hence, this
appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for present appellant/State that the
prosecution has adduced ample evidence against the accused in respect of the
offence for which they had been charged but the learned trial Court by way
of impugned judgment has erroneously acquitted the accused persons. Jugan
Dhurve (PW-3) is the star witness who is also injured. Rampyari (PW-2) and
Sanoti (PW-4) are the witnesses who have sustained injuries in the
incidence. They categorically supported the prosecution’s case. Siyaram
(PW-1) has also supported the story of prosecution. Though the concerned
doctor who has issued the MLC in respect of victim persons has not been
examined before the learned trial Court and despite that, at least, offence
under Section 323 of IPC is established against the accused persons so also
other offences under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II and 427 of IPC are also
proved from the evidence on record. Therefore, he prayed to allow the
appeal, set aside the acquittal and to convict the accused persons and
sentence them in accordance with law.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the
record meticulously.
8. The victim- Jugan (PW-3) though has stated that the accused persons
were armed with lathi and started committing marpeet with him. They
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
4 CRA-2303-2026
uttered filthy abuses and given threat to kill him. Victim-Jugau (PW-3), his
wife-Rampyari (PW-2) and daughter-Sanoti (PW-4) have sustained injuries.
9. Siyaram (PW-1) is the son of victim/Jugan. Rampyari (PW-2) and
Sanoti (PW-4) have supported the story of prosecution but the independent
witnesses Dharamsingh (PW-5) and Balohari (PW-7) did not support the
story of prosecution at all. They turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence of
Jugan and his family members are on record. They cannot be disbelieved on
the ground that no independent witnesses has supported their statements, but
in absence of any independent support or corroboration, their testimonies are
required to be scrutinized with circumspection.
10. Jugan (PW-3), in his cross-examination has stated that after the
incident he remained unconscious and after one and a half or two days, he
became conscious and since he was unconscious, therefore, report has been
lodged in the police station by his son Siyaram (PW-1). He remained
admitted in the hospital for 12 days and after discharge from hospital, he
visited the police station and signed the FIR Ex.P/3. He also categorically
stated that what is stated by Siyaram (PW-1) in the FIR, he did no know. He
has not given any statement to the police.
11. Rampyari (PW-2) has also admitted in her cross-examination that her
husband-Jugan fell unconscious after the incident and he became conscious
for one and a half days. In light of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses,
the veracity of FIR Ex.P/3 becomes suspicious.
12. K.S. Narviariya (PW-6) has stated that at the instance of complainant-
Jugan (PW-1), he has lodged the FIR Ex.P/3 but his statement is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
5 CRA-2303-2026
contradictory to the statements of Rampyari (PW-2) and Jugan (PW-3).
Therefore, the veracity of FIR Ex.P/3 renders suspicion.
13. It is revealed from the statements of Siyaram (PW-1), Rampyari (PW-
2), Jugan (PW-3), Sanoti (PW-4) that there was a dispute with the villagers
of Jugan in respect of witchcraft. It is also revealed from the statement of
these witnesses that since the victim-Jugan has stopped grazing of cattle of
the villagers, therefore, a dispute arose between the villagers and Jugan. At
the time of incident, 40-50 villagers reached at the house of Jugan and some
of them have started committing marpeet with Jugan. Siyaram (PW-1) has
stated that out of 40-50, who has committed marpeet with his father, he
could not see and he also could not see that how the tiles (kavelu) of their
house have been destroyed. It is pertinent to mention that in his chief-
examination, this witness has stated that the accused persons have
demolished their house while as per the story of prosecution, the loss was
caused due to destruction of tiles (kavelu).
14. Similar is the statement of Rampyari (PW-2) and Sanoti (PW-4).
Even Jugan (PW-3) has admitted in his cross-examination that 40-50 persons
have committed marpeet with him. He could not see that who has committed
marpeet with him because he entered into the house. He in paragraph-5 has
categorically stated that when 6-7 villagers reached to his house, he entered
into the house and locked the door from inside. How many persons were
present outside the door, he cannot say. After closing the door, he did not
come out and what occurred outside, he had no knowledge. Though he has
stated that 2 or 3 persons have broken the door and entered into his house,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
6 CRA-2303-2026
but he has not named that persons. That apart, this is not the story of
prosecution.
15. Having regard to the various contradictions, omissions and
contradictions revealed from the statements of the witnesses, namely,
Siyaram (PW-1), Rampyari (PW-2), Jugan (PW-3), Sanoti (PW-4), their
statements in respect of prosecution story become highly doubtful.
Contradictions, omissions and variations also revealed qua the police
statements and FIR, which is reflected from paragraphs-4, 5, and 6 of the
statement of Siyaram (PW-1), paragraph-6 of Jugan (PW-3) and paragraph-4
of Sanoti (PW-4), in regard to which, no plausible explanation has been
given.
16. As far as the seizure from the other accused persons is concerned,
both the witnesses, namely, Laxman (PW-8) and Suraj (PW-9), did not
support the arrest and seizure from the accused persons. They turned hostile.
17. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined in this
case. Therefore, such seizure has also not been found to be proved. No
medical officer has been examined to corroborated the MLC or other
medical evidence, therefore, those evidence are also not found to be proved.
18. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
7 CRA-2303-2026
19. 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.
20. 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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19123
8 CRA-2303-2026
(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.”…
21. 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.
22. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present
accused/respondent by trial Court, the appeal being sans merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra & ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 3/12/2026
7:26:23 PM