MP HC Leaves Acquittal Intact In Alleged Phone Threat To Family, Citing Unspecified Abuse And CDRs That Did Not Corroborate The Call

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State had grounds for leave to appeal against the acquittal under Sections 504 and 507 IPC.

The court held

The Court held that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and that its acquittal was not shown to be illegal or perverse.

It also directed

The State’s petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed.

01Facts

The State sought leave to appeal under Section 378(III) read with Section 378(1) of the CrPC against the JMFC, Harda’s judgment dated 26 August 2017 acquitting Rajkumar of offences under Sections 504 and 507 IPC.

¶ 1–4

The prosecution alleged that Rajkumar used abusive language and threatened the complainant’s family by telephone, and also sent indecent WhatsApp messages.

¶ 1–4

The High Court noted that the complaint and FIR did not specify the allegedly abusive words, no WhatsApp messages or supporting documentary evidence were produced, and the alleged call was not corroborated by the call detail records.

¶ 1–4

It also noted enmity between the parties.

¶ 1–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State had grounds for leave to appeal against the acquittal under Sections 504 and 507 IPC.

¶ 1–2, 9

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was so illegal, perverse, or unsustainable as to warrant interference.

¶ 4–8

03Law Applied

Section 378(1) read with Section 378(III) CrPC provides for an appeal against acquittal subject to the requisite leave. The offences alleged were under Sections 504 and 507 IPC.

¶ 5–7

Under Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225, an appellate court should first determine whether the acquittal is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable; only then should it reappraise the evidence.

¶ 5–7

Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110, recognises the appellate court’s power to review the evidence while requiring due regard to the reinforced presumption of innocence and the benefit of a reasonable view favouring the accused.

¶ 5–7

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605, reiterates that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless perverse, illegal, or impossible, and that where two reasonable views are available, the acquittal should stand.

¶ 5–7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 504 Section 507

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish the alleged abusive words, produced no documentary proof of the WhatsApp messages, and lacked call-detail-record corroboration for the alleged call.

¶ 4, 8

Given these evidentiary deficiencies and the apparent enmity between the parties, the Trial Court was entitled to conclude that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 4, 8

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in that conclusion and declined to interfere.

¶ 4, 8