The State Of M.P. vs Ratiram

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86385
1 MCRC-10886-2008
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. 10886 of 2008
CNR No.: MPHC010421342008
THE STATE OF M.P.
Versus
RATIRAM AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni - Advocate for the respondents.
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 10.04.2008 passed in Special Case No.16/2006, by
Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.) Bhopal District Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the
accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 8(C) read with section 20(2)(B) of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that in the present
case, contraband ganja was seized from the accused persons and the seizure
has also been duly proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that no
personal search was required in the case. The learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents/accused on the basis of alleged procedural
irregularities and technicalities, despite the prosecution having proved its
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86385
2 MCRC-10886-2008
case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the learned Trial

Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence available on
record and has erroneously passed the impugned judgment of acquittal in
respect of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(2)
(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused has submitted that
there are two witnesses namely Rajendra (PW-3) and Saurabh Shukla (PW-
4) and there are contradictions in the statements of both these witnesses.
There are also contradictions between these two witnesses and the
Investigating Officer, C.B. Singh (PW-6). It is further submitted that there
are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of I.O. C.B. Singh
(PW-6) and his statement is not reliable. It is also submitted that documents
were not prepared on the spot and the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that learned trial court has
appreciated the evidence in detail. It is also submitted that in the statements
of both witnesses are contradictory to each other and their statements are
also contradictory to the Investigating Officer, showing material omissions
and contradictions. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence of all
witnesses in detail, and upon consideration, it found that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prays for
dismissal of this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Trial
Court has duly appreciated the evidence available on record and has assigned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86385
3 MCRC-10886-2008
cogent reasons for acquitting the respondents/accused. The material

contradictions and omissions appearing in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. It is also found that there is no perversity, illegality or material
error in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court warranting
interference by this Court.
6. 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
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."
7. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86385
4 MCRC-10886-2008
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.
(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.”


8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 29-10-2026
11:17:30

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86385
5 MCRC-10886-2008
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."
9. 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.
10. 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
vai

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