Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim X Through Father vs Sarvan @ Rajesh on 26 March, 2026
1 CRA-8902-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8902 of 2023
(VICTIM X THROUGH FATHER Vs SARVAN @ RAJESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-03-2026
Mr. Prasanna R. Bhatnagar - learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sooraj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Heard on I.A. No.10364/2023 , which is an application seeking leave to
appeal.
02. This appeal has been filed under proviso to Section 378 of Cr.P.C
against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Second Additional
Session Judge, Narsingarh, District Rajgarh in Sessions Trial Case
No.39/2022 dated 11.05.2023 whereby the respondents No.1 has been
acquitted from the charges under Section 8/12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences, 2012 and Section 294, 323, 506 of the IPC in Crime
No.300 of 2021 registered at police station Boda, District Rajgarh.
0 3 . Respondents No.1 was prosecuted regarding incident dated
30.12.2021 near Ram Mandir, vilage Piplya regarding which Crime
No.300/2021 was registered.
0 4 . The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.12.2021, the
complainant (PW-1) submitted a written application (Exhibit-2) at Police
Station Boda stating that on the previous day, 30.12.2021, at about 07:00
PM, while she was returning home after attending tuition and reached near
the accused’s house, she saw a boy standing there. When she switched on her
torch and looked, it was the accused, Rajesh Chourasiya. The accused caught
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 26-Mar-26
5:52:04 PM
2 CRA-8902-2023
hold of her hand in an indecent manner and pressed her chest. When she
screamed, the accused snatched the torch from her hand. She managed to free
herself and ran home. After reaching home, she informed her brother and
mother about the incident. When they questioned the accused, he assaulted
her brother with shoes and used abusive language, and threatened that if a
report was made, he would kill them. On the basis of the said application
(Exhibit-2), Seeta Yadav (PW-8) registered a First Information Report
(Exhibit-3) at Police Station Boda as Crime No. 300/2021 under Sections
354, 294, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
05. Challenging the order of acquittal, this appeal has been preferred
and permission has been sought under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
Heard
06. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment of
acquittal and prayed for rejection of this appeal.
07. The parameters for grant of leave to appeal have been reiterated by
the Apex Court in Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja &
Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 282 , wherein the Apex Court, in paragraphs 7
and 8, has laid down the principles, which are reproduced below:-
“7. The question as to how the application for grant of leave to
appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided
by the High Court and what are the parameters which the High
Court should keep in mind remains no longer res integra. This
issue was examined by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay
Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475. C.K. Thakker,
J. speaking for the Bench held in paras 19, 20, 21 and 24
respectively as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 26-Mar-26
5:52:04 PM
3 CRA-8902-2023
“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the
State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal “shall
be entertained except with the leave of the High Court”. It is, therefore,
necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal
recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal
as required by sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also
true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High
Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the
application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite
leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its
mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or
arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal
would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal
application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an
appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be
allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and
decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage,
the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution
evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the trial court could not be said to be “perverse” and,
hence, no leave should be granted.
xxx xxx
xxx
24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have
laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the
appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the
relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted
and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be
disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court
and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the
order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the
same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material
on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or
reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as
sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High
Court, with respect, did neither.
In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of
leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave.”
8. In Sita Ram v. State of U.P. reported in
(1979) 2 SCC 656, this Court held that:
“31. … A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement
of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the [concept] that men are
fallible, that Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 26-Mar-26
5:52:04 PM
4 CRA-8902-2023
before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass, a full-
scale re- examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part
of fundamental fairness or procedure.”
08. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and
presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, this Court is
satisfied that the prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have
been raised regarding the criminal liability of the respondent/accused. Hence,
the case falls within the permissible parameters for grant of leave to appeal
against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
09. Accordingly, I.A. No.10364/2023 is hereby allowed. Leave to
appeal is granted and the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
10. The respondent is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.
5,000/- before the concerned court, on or before 29.04.2026, to secure his
appearance, and thereafter on such dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court shall subsequently intimate this Court as to whether the
respondent has furnished the bail bond or not.
11. List the case for final hearing in due course.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 26-Mar-26
5:52:04 PM
