Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344
1 CRA-2990-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2990 of 2019
ASHOK KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nand Kishore Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.03.2019 passed in S.T. No.203/2015 (State of M.P. vs. Mithleshpuri and others) by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Katni (M.P.) whereby respondent No.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 367, 368, 325 and 506 Part II/34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution story in short is that on 24.11.2012 at 23.15 P.M., the respondents / accused entered the house of the complainant and committed (P.W.3) marpeet with him. Injured was admitted in Government Hospital, Katni stating that injuries had been caused owing to fight. Intimation to police along with accompanying MLC was sent by the Hospital (Exhibit P/14). On this information, in rojnamcha sanha at Srl. No.450 dated 24.11.2012 (Exhibit P/20) inquiry was made and FIR (Exhibit P/18) Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 2 CRA-2990-2019 under Sections 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC was registered against unknown persons.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons in the competent court for the offences under Sections 326, 367, 368 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
4. The respondents/accused abjured their guilt. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter and they claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges has examined as many as 09 witnesses, which are Duli Chand (father of injured) (PW-1), Kiran Bai (PW-2), Ashok Vishwakarma (PW-3), Mamoo Singh (PW-4), Santosh Puri (PW-5), Dr. P. D. Soni (PW-6), Dr. B. R. Paijwani (PW-
7), M.I. Thakur(PW-8), S. K. Tiwari(PW-9) , and placed Ex.P/1 to P/20 and Ex.D/1 to D-3 the documents on record. The accused persons have not chosen to examine any witness in their defence.
6. The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused persons are not found to be proved and eventually acquitted them of the charges under Sections 367, 368, 325 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel of present appellant/complainant that the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 3 CRA-2990-2019 the accused/ respondents No.2 to 5. It is submitted that the accused persons have committed marpeet with the injured. They have taken the victim from his house and committed brutal marpeet with him. Therefore, he sustain grievous injuries and when his father Dulli Chand taken him to the hospital, he remain unconscious and later, he was admitted in the hospital for 23 days. Police has registered information on the basis of Exhibit P/14, information given by the hospital and registered an offence (Exhibit P/18). Thereafter, police has taken the statement of victim Ashok Vishwakarma (P.W.3) as Exhibit P/7. The parents of the victim, Dulli Chand (P.W.1) and Kiran Bai (P.W.2) and Victim Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma (P.W.3) have supported the story of prosecution in toto but the learned trial Court on the ground that there is no FIR, has acquitted the accused respondents, which is erroneous and illegal. Keeping in view the statement of victim and his parents along with the statement of concerned Doctor, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal respondents/accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the offences for which they have been charged.
8 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
9 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The victim Ashok Kumar (P.W.3) has stated in his statement that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 4 CRA-2990-2019 on the intervening night of 23-24.11.2012 at 1 a.m. in night some person in Bolero vehicle have reached at his house and called him. When he came out of his house, Mithilesh Puri, Mukesh and his companions entered into his house. He identified the accused persons. They abused him and told that they are police man of Badwara Police Station. They forcibly taken him in the vehicle and beaten him brutally. Therefore, he sustained various injuries. Mithilesh Puri by means of rod has committed marpeet with him. He was telling his companions that he is to be encountered to death. Thereafter, he became unconscious. At 4.30 A.M. when he became conscious, he reached to his home. His father taken him to the hospital. Accused Mukesh has taken him in the vehicle. There was a dispute between him and Mithilesh Puri about Rs.20,000/- dues of sundries item and because of that he has rivalry. Accused Mithilesh with his companions has committed the crime. The parents of this witness Dulli Chand (P.W.1) and Kiran Bai (P.W.2) have supported his statement but as far as the other witnesses are concerned, Mamoo Singh (P.W.4) and Santosh Puri (P.W.5) have turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution.
11. Dr. P. D. Soni (P.W.6) has primarily examined the victim when he has been taken to the hospital by his father. He deposed that there were lacerated wounds and multiple bruises on the person of victim. He has been discharged on 17.12.2012. Bed Head Ticket is Exhibit P/19. Dr. B. R. Paijwani (P.W.7) has medically examined the victim. He also stated that there was lacerated wound over the left side of ear and there were multiple redness on the back. He has been admitted for treatment and X-ray has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 5 CRA-2990-2019 advised of head. MLC report is Exhibit P/15 and admission report is Exhibit P/16 and first aid treatment is Exhibit P/17. But no report of X-ray examination etc. nor any witness in that regard has been examined by the prosecution.
12. S.K. Tiwari (P.W.9) has received Exhibit P/14 and prepared rojnamcha sanha (Exhibit P/20). He admitted that rojnamcha sanha didn't contain the fact that marpeet has been caused by whom, their names are not reflected from it. While M.L. Thakur (P.W.8) has stated that upon receiving information (Exhibit P/14), the information from the concerned hospital on 24.11.2012, he has registered a Crime No.407/2012 under Section 342, 323, 506 Part II r/w 34 of IPC against Mithilesh and others. FIR of which is Exhibit P/18 and he conducted further investigation. He admitted in cross examination that the letter / information (Exhibit P/14) only contained that marpeet has been caused with the victim but no names have been reflected from it. While by Exhibit P/18 he has registered offence against Mithilesh Puri and others under specific penal sections of IPC. On what ground he has registered FIR under specific offences against Mithilesh Puri etc., no satisfactory explanation in this regard has been given by this witness. He stated that during investigation he has recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar (P.W.3), who has intimated him that Mithilesh Puri and one or two persons have committed marpeet with him. He also admitted that Ashok (P.W.3) kept changing his statements every time. At one time, he has stated that 06 to 07 persons have caused marpeet but intimated that only 02 to 03 persons have taken him in the vehicle.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 6 CRA-2990-2019
13. Though the statement of victim and his parents cannot be discarded on the ground that independent witnesses did not corroborated their statement and prosecution story but in absence of independent corroboration, the statement of these witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 are to be scrutinized with circumspection.
14. In this regard, when we travel through the statements of Dulli Chand (P.W.1), Kiran Bai (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.3), it is found that material variations, contradictions and omissions have been found in their statement. Ashok Kumar (P.W.3) in para 1 and 2 has stated that he knew accused Mithilesh, Mukesh and Ram Singh but in para 2 has stated that he did not know the accused persons prior to the incident. He again reiterated the name of Mithilesh and Mukesh but not stated any particular act of other accused persons. In para 9 he has stated that as many as 07 persons were there, who were calling him. In para 10 he stated that three other persons were not known to him. He denied the suggestions that only four persons were on the spot. Various contradictions, omissions have been revealed from the statement of this witness for which no plausible explanation has been given by this witness. He admitted in the cross examination that there was previous rivalry with the accused Mithilesh Puri.
15. Similarly the father of victim Ashok Kumar, namely Dulli Chand (P.W.1) has stated that only three persons Mithilesh, Mukesh and Ram Singh have entered in the house and taken the victim, his son in the vehicle. He admitted that Ram Lal, Bharosa Vishwakarma and Mithai Lal were residing Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 7 CRA-2990-2019 near by his house but he had not intimated them after the incident. He further stated in para 6 that one or two persons were standing in the vehicle, to whom he did not know and in the rare side of the vehicle 03 to 04 persons were standing. He cannot say that the persons came to his house were police persons or other persons. During the four hours his son was taken by unknown persons, he has not sought any help from anyone and nor lodged any report in Police Station Balwara which was only 10 Kms away from his house.
16. Kiran Bai (P.W.2), mother of victim, has stated that four persons came from Bolero vehicle and Mithilesh Puri has caused injury to her in her eyes by means of torch and Mukesh pushed her but as per story of prosecution, this witness did not sustain any injury. She in cross examination has stated that she or her husband has not intimated to and sought help from neighbor Ramlal, Bharosa and Mithai Lal or any other person. She said that only four persons came in the vehicle. She only know Mithilesh and Mukesh. They wore black cloths and muffled their mouth. The statement of this witness that the persons reached on the spot were muffled their face render the identity of accused persons doubtful qua identification of accused persons. It is relevant to mention here that as per story of prosecution, the incident happened at mid night and how the accused persons have been identified by the victim and his parents in aforesaid circumstances has not been established by cogent and believable evidence on record.
17. One more fact reflected from the record that after receiving Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 8 CRA-2990-2019 Exhibit P/14, the information from the concerned hospital, police has lodged FIR (Exhibit P/18) but Exhibit P/14 only contained the fact that the person taken Ashok to the hospital i.e. Dulli Chand has intimated that Ashok (P.W.3) has sustained injuries in marpeet. No name has been mentioned in this information Ex. P/14. Rather it revealed that the father of victim, namely Dulli Chand (P.W.1) has not apprise about the names of the miscreants who committed the crime with the victim. The police upon Exhibit P/14 has registered an offence under Sections 342, 325, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Mithilesh Puri and others but the recital of this document shows that the information of Exhibit P/14 has been reiterated in that nothing else has been mentioned which might be a ground to register a crime under specific penal sections and against specific persons. This registration of FIR was done on the next date i.e. 25.11.2012 but police has not taken any steps immediately after the incident to record the statement of victim. Statement of victim has been recorded not before 09.12.2012 (Exhibit P/7). It also shows that neither victim who remained conscious after two days nor the parents of victim who might be in position to lodge an FIR immediately after the incident have not lodged any FIR or given any information to the police, not even let recorded their statement by the police immediately after the incident which also raises reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is also revealed from the prosecution case that only Bolero vehicle has been seized but that too has not been seized from the possession of accused persons. It is also not established beyond doubt that this particular vehicle was used in the incident. No iron rod has been seized Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 9 CRA-2990-2019 from the accused persons which might have been important peace of evidence.
18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the prosecution is not found to be proved on the touchstone of the settled principles of criminal law.
19. 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.
20. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 10 CRA-2990-2019 justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as :
(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;
(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."...
21. In light of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, the acquittal of the present respondents No.2 to 5 rests on cogent and well-reasoned grounds, warranting no interference. This Court is of the considered view that the acquittal of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2344 11 CRA-2990-2019 respondents No.2 to 5 from the charges under under Sections 367, 368, 325, 506 Part II r/w Section 34 of IPC is based on sound legal reasonings, and no perversity or illegality is apparent in the impugned judgment.
22. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
23. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the property is affirmed.
24. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to the court concerned.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE mrs. mishra Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA Signing time: 13-01-2026 10:22:56