Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pradeep Sahu @ Pappu on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268
1 CRA-1436-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1436 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PRADEEP SAHU @ PAPPU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri Saket Sharma - Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
Shri S.C. Chatruvedi - Advocate for respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.04.2015 passed in Session Trial No.10/2014 (Pradeep Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P.) by learned Sessions Judge, District Sidhi (M.P.), whereby respondents - Pradeep Sahu @ Pappu, Jairam Sahu and Ramprabhav Yadav (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 456, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.06.2013 in the night, when complainant Ramakant Sahu and his wife were at hospital and their daughter (prosecurtix) was at home along with her younger brother, at that time respondents forcefully entered into their home from the roof, caught Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 2 CRA-1436-2026 hold the prosecutrix, torn her undergarments and tried to outrage her modesty, but when she screamed and called her brother, respondents fled from the spot. Upon receipt of the report, the matter was taken up for investigation by the police. The case was duly registered, and the spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared. The respondents were arrested during the course of investigation. Statements of the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer collected the necessary evidence and prepared the panchnama in accordance with law.
3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of sessions, from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial.
4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused persons in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 456, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed false implication. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution allegations.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, prosecutrix (PW1), Chhotelal Sahu (PW-2), Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Deenbandhu (PW-4), Ramdayal Sahu (PW-
5), S.I. Smt. Manju Sharma (PW-6), Jaimanti Sahu (PW-7), Tersi Sahu (PW-
8), Sub Inspector R.K. Mishra (PW-9), Dr. Pushpa Bhagat (PW-10) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/11, the documents on record.
6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 3 CRA-1436-2026 testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 456 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that ample evidence is available on record to substantiate the prosecution case. The prosecutrix (PW-1), along with her brother (PW-2), and prosecution witnesses Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Ramdayal Sahu (PW-5), Jaimanti Sahu (PW-7) and Tersi Sahu (PW-8) have materially supported the prosecution story. Their testimonies are further corroborated by the First Information Report and the medical report, which have been duly proved through the depositions of S.I. Smt. Manju Sharma (PW-6) and Dr. Pushpa Bhagat (PW-10) before the Court. It is argued that despite such cogent and reliable evidence, the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused persons. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix sustained injuries and has consistently and categorically supported the prosecution case. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the appeal be allowed and the accused persons be convicted and sentenced appropriately.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons has opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned trial Court has duly considered the statements of all prosecution witnesses and meticulously it was found that the prosecutrix, her brother and other witnesses did not present the true facts before the Court regarding the alleged entry of accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 4 CRA-1436-2026 persons in the house of the prosecutrix. Moreover, the learned trial Court has not found proved that the prosecutrix was under the age of 18 years at the time of incident. The learned trial Court in para 26 to 34 has categorically analyzed the entire evidence on record and it was found that the offence is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record.
10. As far as the age of prosecutrix is concerned, learned trial Court in para 6 to 10 of the judgment has considered the evidence in this regard and rightly concluded in the light of various citations that there was no scholar register or mark-sheet or birth certificate filed on behalf of the prosecution. only the oral evidence of prosecutrix, which has not been supported by the statements of her parents, is not sufficient to establish the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in paragraph 10, that it was not proved that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, does not warrant any interference.
11. As far as the other aspects are concerned, though it is stated by the prosecutrix (PW1) that in the intervening night of 15-16th of June, 2013 she was at home alongwith her elder brother, at 11:30 PM all three accused persons entered in her house with the help of ladder; They entered the house by climbing onto the roof and thereafter descended into the courtyard, at that Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 5 CRA-1436-2026 time she was sleeping. All the three accused persons held her hand, torn her undergarments and tried to rape her. Accused Jairam held her mouth, in the meantime, her younger brother woke up and raised a voice, then the accused persons fled away by opening the door. She filed a written report (Ex.P/1) and also submitted a report (Ex.P/2) to the Mahila Cell. Her medical examination was conducted, and a spot map (Ex.P/3) was prepared by the Police. Her version of the incident has been supported by her brother (PW-
3); however, other witnesses, including Chhotelal (PW-2) and Deenbandhu (PW-4), did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. The remaining witnesses, namely Ramdayal (PW-5), Jaimanti (PW-7), and Tersi Sahu (PW-8), are hearsay witnesses, as they were informed about the incident by the prosecutrix and her brother.
12. Dr. Pushpa (PW10) has medically examined the prosecutrix and found the following injury on her person:-
"(a) Two abrasions (size of each 1/4 x 1/4 cm) present over external aspect of left forearm.
(b) Two abrasions (size of each 1/4 x 1/4 cm) present over external aspect of left forearm."
She opined that the injuries caused by hard and blunt object, which were simple in nature, within 24 hours of examination and no sign of sexual assault has been found. She has given report as Ex.P/11. During cross- examination, she admitted that no other visible injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix and the injuries were not classified as grievous, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 6 CRA-1436-2026 were simple in nature. Other witnesses include R.R. Mishra, the Investigating Officer (PW-9), and Manju Sharma (PW-6), the police officer to whom the applications (Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2) were submitted and she registered the offence and ensured that the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted, for which she issued application Ex.P/4.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the statement of prosecutrix, her undergarments were torn by the accused persons, however, no such undergarments have been seized by the police nor have been shown to the concerned doctor by the prosecutrix, nor any statement in this regard has been given by the concerned doctor, which shows that the important piece of evidence has been suppressed in this case. The defence witnesses, Amrata (DW-1) and Jairam (DW-2), have denied the occurrence of the incident as alleged against the present respondents/accused persons. Amrata (DW-1) stated that she had filed an application against Ramesh and Brajesh, alleging that they had intruded upon her privacy; however, her report was not registered by the police. Consequently, she lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi. The prosecutrix is the sister of Brajesh, and Ramesh is a friend of Brajesh. Supporting these facts Jairam (DW-2), one of the accused in this case, has stated that the charge-sheet of the case registered against Brajesh and Ramesh is Ex.D/4, in which he and his wife, Amrata, are included in the list of witnesses.
14. The learned trial Court, in paragraphs 26 to 28, has elaborately discussed the evidence and observed that there was no other way to enter into the house of prosecutrix except through the main door, which opens into the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 7 CRA-1436-2026 room where the younger brother of the prosecutrix was sleeping. However, the Court noted that he reached the spot only after the prosecutrix screamed, which is not found to be natural. The door of the house was not found to be opened forcefully and the prosecutrix did not intimate her parents about the incident. The overall conduct of the prosecutrix is not found to be normal or natural. The FIR was also lodged with delay, for which the prosecution has not provided any plausible explanation. The learned trial Court, in paragraphs 32 to 34, has further reiterated the various infirmities apparent from the evidence and concluded that the statements of the prosecutrix and her brother are not reliable.
15. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same.
16. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 8 CRA-1436-2026 principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as under :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14268 9 CRA-1436-2026
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."...
17. In the sum and substance, the approach of the learned Trial Court and conclusion of acquittal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in light of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid down in the aforementioned cases. This Court is of the considered view that the findings and conclusion of acquittal of learned Trial Court do not warrant any interference.
18. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE rv Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 25-02-2026 17:29:40