The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajkumar

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86566
1 MCRC-26198-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26198 of 2017
CNR No.: MPHC010625272017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAJKUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.
ORDER
The petitioner/State has preferred the present petition under Section
378(III) r/w 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 26.08.2017 passed by J.M.F.C. District Harda (M.P.),
whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the
complainant, Ajay, has stated in his deposition that accused, Rajkumar, on
his mobile No. 9425044250 used abusive language and threaten to kill the
complainant’s family members. It is further submitted that the call detail
records (CDRs) furnished by the Cyber Cell, Harda, corroborate the
statement of the complainant. Yogesh (PW-2) has also supported the
statement of Ajay Kumar, and the other prosecution witnesses have likewise
supported the prosecution case. However, the learned Trial Court has failed
to properly appreciate the material evidence available on record and has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86566
2 MCRC-26198-2017
erroneously passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, thereby acquitting

the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and
507 of the Indian Penal Codes.
3. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
4. On perusal of the record, it is found that although there is an
allegation that accused used abusive language to complainant over a mobile
phone, neither the written complaint nor the FIR specifies the words
allegedly used by the accused. It is further alleged by the prosecution that
accused forwarded indecent messages to the complainant through
WhatsApp; however, no such messages or documentary evidence in support
of this allegation have been adduced by the prosecution. It is also evident
from the prosecution case that accused allegedly called the complainant on
his mobile phone at 8:52 p.m.; however, this allegation is not corroborated
by the Call Detail Records (Exhibits P/4 to P/7 and P/9 to P/13).
Furthermore, there appears to be enmity between the parties. Learned Trial
Court has duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on
record and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86566
3 MCRC-26198-2017
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."
6. 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.
(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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86566
4 MCRC-26198-2017
(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.”
7. 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."
8. 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
benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused. There is no illegality or
perversity visible in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
9. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86566
5 MCRC-26198-2017

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
vai

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30