Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akeela Verma vs Santosh Verma on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644
1 CRA-2639-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639 of 2017
AKEELA VERMA
Versus
SANTOSH VERMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri T.K. Modh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/complainant/prosecutrix being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned 1 st Upper Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer), Ashta, District Sehore, in Criminal Appeal No.317/2016 reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2016 passed in Criminal Case No.639/2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, Sehore whereby the respondent No.1-Santosh Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had been convicted under Sections 456 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 10-11/06/2015 at 01:00 am, the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law (Jethni) were sleeping on a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 2 CRA-2639-2017 cot on the rooftop. The accused Santosh came from his rooftop to their rooftop and stood near the prosecutrix's cot. When the prosecutrix woke up, the accused held her hand with bad intentions. When the the prosecutrix screamed, her sister-in-law, father-in-law, and the people of the neighborhood woke up. Then the accused jumped from the rooftop and ran away. The prosecutrix filed a First Information Report (Exhibit.P/1) regarding the above incident. During the investigation, a spot map (Exhibit P/2) was prepared. The accused was arrested and an arrest warrant (Exhibit P/3) was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the investigation, the charge sheet was presented in the court.
3. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 456, 354 and 506 Part-II of IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated 24.11.2016, the learned trial Court although acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 506 Party-II of IPC but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment.
4. An appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, District Sehore, has been filed before the learned lower appellate Court, which in turn, vide the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2017 reversed the finding of the learned trial Court/JMFC by acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix's sister-in-law/Nanad (PW-2) and prosecutrix's brother-in-law/Jeth (PW-3), remained unshaken in their testimonies. They supported the story of prosecution in toto and since their Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 3 CRA-2639-2017 testimony has been found to be cogent and reliable by the learned trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC but the learned lower appellate Court has erroneously acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. The FIR in this case categorically established in light of the statement of the prosecutrix and there is no ground doubt it. The fact of previous rivalry does not belie the statement of these witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set aside and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court be restored.
6. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused has vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that the learned lower appellate Court has considered the validity of FIR in paragraphs-17 to 19 and it is found that the prosecutrix is literate lady. She used to sign the documents but there is a thumb impression in the FIR. Why she has affixed the thumb impression has not been clarified by her. The FIR (Ex.P/1) does not reveal that the thumb impression is of which person. Moreover, it is not stated in the FIR that the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the prosecutrix was not with her at time of lodging of FIR. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and other two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 seems to be unbelievable as discussed by the learned lower appellate Court in paragraphs-13, 14 and 15. There is no independent corroboration to the story which is also discussed by the learned lower appellate Court. In light factual scenario, the previous rivalry between the parties assumes importance as discussed by the learned lower appellate Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 4 CRA-2639-2017 Court in paragraph-22 of the impugned judgment. The learned lower appellate Court considering the material facts and evidence available on record has rightly concluded that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not tenable and, therefore, has rightly set aside the order of learned trial Court and acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges levelled against them. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned lower appellate Court. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer is made to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.
7. Heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.
8. The learned trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC but the learned lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment reversed the finding and acquitted the accused from the said offences on the ground that the FIR in this case is suspicious. Moreover, there is no independent corroboration to the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Keeping in view the factum of previous rivalry between the parties after analyzing the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, they are not found to be cogent and reliable. Though all these three witnesses have supported the story of prosecution in their chief-examinations but there are material contradictions and variations qua the story of prosecution in their statements.
9. First of all, as regards the FIR Ex.P/1, it reveals that it contains a thumb impression but it has not been clarified by the inscriber that the thumb impression is of which person. There is no name mentioned below that by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 5 CRA-2639-2017 whom that thumb impression has been affixed. Moreover, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has signed her testimony before the learned trial Court. She admitted that she used to sign the documents. Why she affixed thumb impression over the FIR has not been clarified by this witness. She also admitted in her cross- examination that she engaged a private advocate in this case and she has submitted an application through her counsel in the police station. Her counsel has read over the police statement to her and thereafter she deposed before the Court. Her counsel has advised her that how to give statement in the Court and how to reply to the questions of the counsel of other party. Therefore, the veracity of her statement becomes doubtful.
10. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in her cross-examination that on the next day morning, she along with her brother-in-laws (Jeths) went to lodge a report. Her both brother-in-laws had a talk with T.I. and thereafter report has been lodged. Though she stated that due to nervousness she affixed the thumb impression but why she was nervous at that time has not been clarified by this witness. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the statement of this witnesses, the FIR has been lodged on the next day morning. Therefore, there might not be any nervousness remained there due to the incident. As per the FIR Ex.P/1, it has been lodged after almost nine hours in the concerned police station. That also gives an inference that after nine hours there might not be any nervousness to the prosecutrix due the incident.
11. As per FIR Ex.P/1 when in night at 01:00 am, the prosecutrix was sleeping on a cot, the accused reached on the rooftop near her bed and when Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 6 CRA-2639-2017 she woke up then the accused with an ill intention has caught her hands. In this regard it is rightly pointed out by the learned lower appellate Court that it seems to be unnatural that the accused remained present near the bed of the prosecutrix till she woke up and thereafter he caught her hands. There was no conversation between the prosecutrix and the accused. There was no source of light there at the time of incident while the incident was of night at 01:00 am. Therefore, how the prosecutrix has identified the accused has not been satisfactorily clarified by the prosecutrix.
12. The proseuctrix has admitted in her statement that when she raised her voice then her other family members came on spot. As per this statement of the prosecutrix, the statement of PW-2 and PW-3, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident becomes doubtful because they reached at the spot after hearing the voice raised by the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has categorically stated that till then the accused had fled away.
13. It is also revealed from the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 that the accused has been followed by the father-in-law and brother-in-laws of the prosecutrix but he could not be caught by these witnesses while PW-3 has stated that he caught the accused but he fled away releasing his hands.
14. Had the accused has been followed by the eye witnesses, the persons residing the vicinity would certainly have information of it and the independent witnesses might be introduced or produced by the prosecution to substantiate the story but no independent witness has been introduced in this case by the prosecution.
15. It is pertinent to be noted that the FIR Ex.P/1 did not contain any fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 7 CRA-2639-2017 that the prosecutrix had reached the police station with her two elder brother- in-laws and this statement of the prosecutrix is also not substantiated by Uttam Singh who reportedly lodged the FIR at the instant of the prosecutrix. It is also revealed from the testimony of the prosecutrix that the police has been informed about the incident prior to lodging of FIR as the elder brother- in-law of the prosecutrix has intimated the police on phone in night just after the incident and the police prepared the spot map at night. In the night itself her elder brother-in-law went for lodging the report in the police station but such statement of the prosecutrix is not substantiated by the documents and evidence on record. Moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR has also not been clarified by the prosecution.
16. Certainly in the aforesaid factual scenario the previous rivalry between the parties assumes importance which revealed in their cross-examinations. Therefore, the view taken by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Rather, it is quite legal and based on the proper appreciation and marshalling of the evidence and does not warrant any interference of this Court in this appeal against acquittal.
17. In case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8 . 3 . The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 8 CRA-2639-2017 whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. In case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to relevant precedents, has observed as follows:-
"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 397 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Curt, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32644 9 CRA-2639-2017 Court in an appeal against acquittal, has not absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded."
20. Similar, in case of Harijan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat , (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open for the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re-appreciating the evidence if the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused."
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis of the evidence, the observations made by the learned lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned lower appellate Court on proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned lower appellate Court.
22. Ex consequenti,, while affirming the findings of acquittal of respondent No.1 by the learned lower appellate Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE ac/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/28/2026 11:49:16 AM