The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Aakash

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83985
1 MCRC-9331-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9331 of 2019
CNR No.: MPHC010112902019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
AAKASH
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Yadav - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.
ORDER
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.01.2019 passed by learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Khandwa in SC/97/2018, whereby the
accused/respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections
354- D (i) read with Section 354-D(2) and Section 509 of IPC and Section 11
(i)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, 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
prosecutrix/victim has deposed against the accused/non-respondent. It is further
submitted that the FIR was lodged without any delay and that the testimony of the
prosecutrix/victim is corroborated by the statements of her parents. It is also
submitted that the accused used to sexually harass the prosecutrix and engage in
obscene acts. It is further submits that the learned Trial Court has held that the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial
Court has also observed that the parents of the victim are hearsay witnesses and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:48:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83985
2 MCRC-9331-2019
that there are material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence.

Learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on
record and has erroneously acquitted the accused on the basis of minor omissions
and contradictions in the prosecution evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the
learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable
under Sections 354-D(1) read with Section 354-D(2) and 509 of the Indian Penal
Code, as well as Sections 11(i)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned
judgment dated 12.01.2019 be set aside.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. After perusal of record, it is found that the learned Trial Court has
examined and appreciated the testimonies of the prosecutrix and other witnesses in
detail. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court appear to be proper and
justified.
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 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."

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:48:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83985
3 MCRC-9331-2019
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.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:48:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:83985
4 MCRC-9331-2019
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 acquitted the
accused/respondent. 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.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
vai

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:48:43