Madhya Pradesh High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Appellate courts must not disturb a plausible acquittal absent perversity or illegality.

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramesh Kumar Gour

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Appellate courts must not disturb a plausible acquittal absent perversity or illegality.. The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramesh Kumar Gour. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The State sought leave under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal the respondent’s acquittal of an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Source reference: para. 1

The prosecution alleged that, on 5 March 2015, an Innova car driven by the respondent collided with a truck near Aashirwad Dhaba, causing the death of Dr. Ajay Khare.

Source reference: para. 2

After trial, the JMFC, Sehore acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Source reference: para. 2

The State challenged the acquittal, alleging that the trial court had disregarded the prosecution evidence.

Source reference: para. 3
02

Issues

Whether the trial court’s acquittal disclosed perversity, manifest illegality, or misappreciation of evidence warranting appellate interference

Source reference: para. 5, 7

Whether the State had made out a case for leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC

Source reference: para. 1, 7
03

Law Applied

Section 378(3) CrPC requires leave of the High Court to appeal an acquittal.

Source reference: para. 1

In an appeal against acquittal, the accused’s presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal; where the trial court has adopted a possible and plausible view supported by the evidence, an appellate court should not interfere merely because another view is possible.

Source reference: para. 6

Interference requires a compelling circumstance or substantial infirmity in the trial court’s findings.

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

The High Court independently considered the record and the trial court’s findings, particularly those in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the trial judgment.

Source reference: para. 5

It concluded that the trial court had considered the prosecution evidence and given cogent and plausible reasons for acquittal.

Source reference: para. 5

The findings were supported by the record and disclosed no manifest illegality, perversity, or misreading of material evidence.

Source reference: para. 5

Applying the reinforced-presumption principle, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a possible and legally sustainable one, and that no sufficient basis for appellate interference had been shown.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The Court held that the acquittal did not warrant interference and that the State had not established a case for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC.

The application was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Source reference: para. 8
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Indian Penal Code, 18602

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

The State Of Madhya PradeshvsRamesh Kumar Gour

Madhya Pradesh High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment