The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay Sen

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86028
1 MCRC-24940-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24940 of 2017
CNR No.: MPHC010607822017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SANJAY SEN
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Yadav - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2017 passed in ST.
No.781/2016 by XI Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal (M.P.),
whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 354-A/354-D of IPC and Section 10/12 of POCSO Act, the
petitioner/State has preferred the present petition under Section 378(III) r/w
378(1) of the Cr.P.C. along with an application seeking leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the victim was
minor at the time of the incident. In her court statement, the victim has
deposed that the respondent/accused used to harass her whenever she went to
attend coaching classes. On the date of incident, he caught hold of her hand
with bad intention. Her statement is corroborated by evidence of other
witnesses. There is ample evidence on record against the
respondents/accused persons. However, the learned Trial Court has failed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
11:08:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86028
2 MCRC-24940-2017
properly appreciate the material aspects of the evidence on record and has

erroneously passed the impugned judgment, thereby acquitting the
respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Section 354-A/354-D
of IPC and Section 10/12 of POCSO Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/State and meticulously
examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the victim (PW-1), in her
court statement, has deposed that the respondent/accused caught hold of her
hand with bad intention and passed comments on her while she was going to
attend coaching classes along with her friend. However, her friend, Monika
Sharma (PW-2) has stated that the respondent/accused had passed comments
on her and not on the victim. Thus, there are material omissions and
contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses. It is also borne out
from the record that there was enmity between the family of the victim and
the respondent/accused and that a case had been registered against the family
members of the victim and her brother. It is further found that the FIR was
lodged two days after the incident. Learned Trial Court has discussed the
prosecution evidence in detail and, upon due appreciation thereof, found that
the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the learned Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the
respondent/accused and acquitted him of the offences punishable under
Sections 354-A and 354-D of the IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO
Act.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
11:08:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86028
3 MCRC-24940-2017
Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 spoke about the approach of the appellate court

while considering an appeal against an order acquitting the accused and
stated as follows:
“7. … While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the
question whether the findings of the trial court are
palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above
question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to
be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds,
for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal
cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above
infirmities it can then — and then only — reappraise the
evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.”
The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is
to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In
another words, there should not be an acquittal of the
guilty or a conviction of an innocent person."
12. In Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court set out the following principles that would
regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an
order of acquittal passed by the trial court:
“16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down
the principles which would govern and regulate the
hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of
acquittal passed by the trial court. These principles have
been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated
as under:
(1) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High
Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than
the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against
an order of conviction.
(2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the
whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its
own conclusion and findings in place of the findings
recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are
against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other
words, perverse.
(3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High
Court has to consider each ground on which the order
of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for
not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the
view expressed by the trial court that the accused is
entitled to acquittal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
11:08:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86028
4 MCRC-24940-2017
(4) In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court
has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of
innocence is still available in favour of the accused and
the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order
of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court.
(5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal
of the evidence and other material on record, is of the
opinion that there is another view which can be
reasonably taken, then the view which favours the
accused should be adopted.
(6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the
trial court had the advantage of looking at the
demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in
the Court especially in the witness box.
(7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at
that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.
The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would
honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of
the accused.”
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal

v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 has held as under:
"21. The scope of interference in an appeal against
acquittal is very well crystallised. Unless such a finding
is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not
permissible for the appellate court to interfere with the
same.
22. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471 has
considered various earlier judgments on the scope of
interference in a case of acquittal. It held that there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence that 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 court. It
has been further held that 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."
14. It is a well settled proposition of law that this Court should not
interfere in the well-reasoned acquittal order which has been arrived at after
proper appreciation of the evidence. The Trial Court has rightly given the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
11:08:04

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86028
5 MCRC-24940-2017
benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused. There is no illegality or

perversity visible in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
15. Therefore, this petition preferred by the petitioner/State against the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court does not appear
worth acceptance. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-10-2026
11:08:04