IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

<>

ON THE 20

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1909 of 2016

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Versus

UMESH CHAUDHARY

<>

Appearance:

<>

Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate for appellant/State.

<>

Ms. Deeksha Agrawal - Advocate for respondent.

<>

JUDGMENT

<>

This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of

acquittal dated 06.11.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.4696 of 2013 (State

of M.P. vs. Umesh Choudhary) by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Katni (M.P.), whereby the respondent/accused, Umesh Choudhary,

has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 354-ka(1)(i) of the Indian

Penal Code.

2

<>

. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) a

resident of village Bhajiya, Police Station Badwara, had gone to visit her

sister (PW-2) in village Pahrua about ten days prior to 26.09.2013. On

26.09.2013 at around 02:00 PM, the prosecutrix had gone for a walk on the

road along with her sister. At that time, when her sister went aside to ease

herself and the prosecutrix was alone on the road, the respondent/accused

approached her and finding her alone, threatened her by stating that if she did

1 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

not love him, he would inform her in-laws that she was involved in illicit

activities with other persons. It is alleged that the respondent/accused

threatened to defame the prosecutrix with the intention of pressurizing her to

fulfil his unlawful demands. Thereafter, the prosecutrix informed her sister

about the incident and subsequently went to her father (PW-3) at village

Bhajiya. After narrating the incident to him, she approached the concerned

Police Station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1). During the course of

investigation, the spot map of the place of occurrence (Ex.P-2) was prepared

and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of the

investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Charge

was framed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt, pleaded innocence

and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

4.

<>

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as

many as 04 witnesses, namely prosecutrix (PW-1), her sister (PW-2), her

father (PW-3) and Sub Inspector Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-4) and placed

Ex.P/1 to P/3, the documents on record. In defence, the respondent/accused

examined Geetabai Choudhary (DW-1) and placed document Ex.D/1 on

record.

5.

<>

Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties

acquitted the present respondent/accused. Hence, this appeal.

6

<>

. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has

contended that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has fully supported the prosecution

case. The sister of the prosecutrix, to whom the incident was immediately

disclosed has also corroborated the prosecution story. The father of the

2 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

prosecutrix, has further supported the case by deposing that the prosecutrix

narrated the entire incident to him. The testimonies of all three witnesses

have remained intact and unimpeached during their cross-examinations.

According to learned counsel, the prosecution case stood clearly established;

however, the learned trial Court, solely on the ground of delay in lodging the

FIR has erroneously acquitted the present respondent. Therefore, it is prayed

that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside

and the respondent/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with

law.

7.

<>

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent/accused has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that

all the witnesses examined in support of the prosecutrix, namely PW-2 and

PW-3 are related witnesses and that no independent witness has been

examined by the prosecution. It is further contended that there is an

unexplained delay of about four days in lodging the FIR, for which no

plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. Learned counsel

has further submitted that there are material variations and contradictions in

the testimony of the prosecutrix, who is the sole eyewitness to the incident

thereby rendering her evidence unreliable. The remaining witnesses, namely

PW-2 and PW-3, are merely hearsay witnesses. In view of the aforesaid

submissions, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8

<>

. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

meticulously.

9.

<>

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that after returning from her field, she

3 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

reached the house of her elder sister, where she placed certain articles and

was in the process of locking the door, suddenly the respondent/accused

arrived there, caught her hand and threatened her by stating that if she did not

love him he will communicate her in-laws that she was having illicit

relationship with him, as a result of which her in-laws would turn her out of

their house. The prosecutrix further stated that she immediately narrated the

incident to her sister and thereafter she alone went to the Police Station

Kuthla where she lodged FIR (Ex.P/1).

10.

<>

Other witnesses namely sister (PW-2) and father (PW-3) of the

prosecutrix though supported the story of the prosecution but admittedly they

are not the eye witnesses to the incident. The entire incident was intimated to

them by the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions and variations in

the statements of these witnesses. Though being related witnesses, the

evidence of these witnesses cannot be thrown at the threshold, but of course

their statements are to be scrutinized with circumspection as their statements

have not been supported by any independent witness.

11.

<>

As per the story of prosecution, the prosecutrix on the date of incident

had gone towards the road for a walk and when she was alone, the

respondent/accused approached her and told that if she did not love him, he

would inform her in-laws that she was involved in illicit activities with other

persons and respondent/accused has exerted pressure on her to make illicit

relations with him and given threat to defame her. She narrated the story to

her father and thereafter along with her father she has lodged the FIR

(Ex.P/1), which was actually lodged after four days of the incident i.e.

4 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

30.09.2013 whereas the incident alleged to have happened on 26.09.2013.

As against the story of prosecution, the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and

other witnesses is compared then it is found that there are material

contradictions and variations revealed from their statements. The prosecutrix

(PW-1) initially stated that the incident occurred at about 03:00 PM;

however, during cross-examination, she stated that it would be incorrect to

say that the incident took place at 02:00 PM. She exaggerated her statement

in the Court that the respondent/accused has caught hold her hand. She did

not depose that the respondent/accused has also told that she was involved in

sexual relations with others and the respondent/accused has exerted pressure

on her for doing wrongful act and given threat to defame her. In this regard,

material omissions have also been brought on record.

12.

<>

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted that the incident was ensued

when she was in the process of locking the door while as per the story of the

prosecution the incident occurred near the road where the prosecutrix had

gone for a walk. She also stated that she went for treatment of snake biting,

but in this regard the facts are missing in the prosecution story. She also

stated in the cross-examination that she screamed, but no person was there,

as such no one has reached on the spot, but this fact is also missing in the

police statement and FIR. In this aspect the statements of PW-2 and PW-3

also have some variations and omissions. They stated that they deposed the

facts whatever narrated to them by prosecutrix. All these three prosecution

witnesses have stated that on the very date of incident the FIR has been

lodged by them and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. It is

5 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

denied by these witnesses that the FIR has been lodged after four days and

police took their statement thereafter.

13.

<>

The defence witness Geetabai Choudhary (DW-1) has stated in her

statement that the prosecutrix in her house was found with Ramu Kalar,

thereafter, they have been locked by her and other residents of the vicinity,

but at that time the respondent/accused was not there. The prosecutrix after

four days has falsely lodged the report against the respondent/accused.

14.

<>

The evidence of defence assumes importance when the statement of

these three witnesses of prosecution rendered doubtful. Keeping in view the

contradictions, variations and omissions revealed from their statements as

well as no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR has been given by them or

prosecution their statement are not found to be reliable, therefore, the

prosecution has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt

and on the cogent and reliable evidence.

15

<>

. 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

6 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere

with the same.

16.

<>

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."...

17

<>

. 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

respondent/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of

the trial Court. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of present

7 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

respondent by trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby

dismissed.

<>

THK

8 CRA-1909-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5467