1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. for alleged attempt to commit wrongful act with a minor — Trial court disbelieved prosecution due to contradictions and prior enmity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
JAI KUMAR PILLAI, J.
Victim X – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 9660 of 2023
With
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others – Appellant
Versus
Jwala Singh – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 7483 of 2023
Decided On : 20-08-2026
Important Points
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal. The victim's sole testimony must inspire confidence; prior enmity, lack of injuries, and no independent witnesses can raise reasonable doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.164, S.372
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of appellate court - Appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's decision is perverse, illegal, or based on a misappreciation of evidence. (Paras 24-26)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of victim - Sole testimony of a victim can sustain a conviction if it inspires unshakeable confidence - Prior enmity between families does not automatically render evidence unreliable if otherwise credible - Absence of physical injuries on the victim is not conclusive of innocence - Failure to raise an alarm in a public place and lack of independent witnesses may create reasonable doubt. (Paras 14-23)
Facts of the case:
The minor complainant alleged that the accused, a neighbour, caught her hand and attempted to drag her towards a drain to commit a wrongful act. The complainant's father had a prior employment-related dispute with the accused's family, leading to a verbal altercation a day before the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution story doubtful due to material contradictions, admissions of prior enmity, absence of injuries on the complainant, lack of outcry, and the failure to examine independent witnesses in a densely populated area.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence. The complainant admitted in cross-examination that her father filed the FIR out of anger due to the prior altercation. The spot map did not show the alleged drain. The medical report showed no injuries. The complainant did not shout for help despite being in a public area with several women nearby. No independent witnesses were examined. The defence succeeded in creating reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or illegal? Whether the appellate court should interfere with the findings of the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the decision is afflicted by perversity, illegality, or manifest error. The trial court's findings, based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, were reasonable and the only plausible conclusion from the record.
Result: Both criminal appeals dismissed; impugned judgment of acquittal upheld.
(B) Evidence - Credibility of victim - Sole testimony of a victim can sustain a conviction if it inspires unshakeable confidence - Prior enmity between families does not automatically render evidence unreliable if otherwise credible - Absence of physical injuries on the victim is not conclusive of innocence - Failure to raise an alarm in a public place and lack of independent witnesses may create reasonable doubt. (Paras 14-23)
Facts of the case:
The minor complainant alleged that the accused, a neighbour, caught her hand and attempted to drag her towards a drain to commit a wrongful act. The complainant's father had a prior employment-related dispute with the accused's family, leading to a verbal altercation a day before the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution story doubtful due to material contradictions, admissions of prior enmity, absence of injuries on the complainant, lack of outcry, and the failure to examine independent witnesses in a densely populated area.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence. The complainant admitted in cross-examination that her father filed the FIR out of anger due to the prior altercation. The spot map did not show the alleged drain. The medical report showed no injuries. The complainant did not shout for help despite being in a public area with several women nearby. No independent witnesses were examined. The defence succeeded in creating reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or illegal? Whether the appellate court should interfere with the findings of the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the decision is afflicted by perversity, illegality, or manifest error. The trial court's findings, based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, were reasonable and the only plausible conclusion from the record.
Result: Both criminal appeals dismissed; impugned judgment of acquittal upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
Ms Archana Jadia - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri. Jay Pal Choksey – Government Advocate for the respondents State
Ms Archana Jadia - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri. Jay Pal Choksey – Government Advocate for the respondents State
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued trial court erred in acquitting despite consistent testimonies; respondent argued acquittal justified due to contradictions and lack of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld; accused remains free from charges. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. What is the standard of appellate review in an appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.?
Appellate court can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse, illegal, or based on misreading of evidence; otherwise, acquittal must be upheld. (Para 25 , 26 )
5. Can a conviction be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim?
Yes, if the testimony inspires unshakeable confidence and is credible; otherwise, corroboration may be required. (Para 17 )
6. What factors can cast doubt on the credibility of a victim's testimony in a sexual offence case?
Factors include prior enmity, absence of injuries, failure to raise alarm, occurrence in a public place with no independent witnesses, and contradictions in location. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of CRA Nos. 9660 of 2023 and 7483 of 2023 as both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 24/2021. This criminal appeal has been preferred under the statutory provisions of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking appellate intervention against the impugned judgment. The appellant herein, aggrieved by the final decision rendered by the learned trial court, has approached this Court to challenge the validity and legality of the order of acquittal. The core objective of this appeal is to seek a complete reversal of the findings that led to the exoneration of the accused.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is specifically directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur. The said judgment was pronounced by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi in Sessions Case No. 24/2021, whereby the entire prosecution story was disbelieved by the trial court. The appellant asserts that the learned subordinate court has committed a grave error of law in passing the said impugned judgment.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of 05.03.2021 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the minor complainant was entirely alone at her residence. The record indicates that her parents had gone away to work as labourers, and her brother had gone to fetch water from a government hand pump situated a little distance away from the house. At the relevant time, the complainant was engaged in sweeping the open courtyard space situated just outside her residential premises.
4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that while the complainant was sweeping the said open space, the accused, Jwala Singh, who resided in the immediate neighbourhood, approached her. The prosecution claims that the accused caught her right hand with malicious intentions and explicitly stated that he wanted to do something wrong with her. The accused allegedly attempted to entice her and drag her towards a nearby drain to perform indecent and wrongful acts against her will.
5. Resisting the said attempt, the complainant reportedly freed herself, hit the accused with a broom, and immediately ran towards the hand pump to narrate the ordeal to her brother. The brother subsequently informed their parents via phone, and upon their swift arrival, the family contacted the authorities by calling dial 100. The complainant, accompanied by her father and brother, then travelled in the police vehicle to the police station to formally lodge the First Information Report (Exhibit P-1), leading to the registration of Crime No. 50/2021.
6. Following the registration of the crime, the investigating agency conducted a medical examination of the complainant on the same day, marking it as Exhibit P-3(A). On 06.03.2021, a spot map of the incident location (Exhibit P-2) was prepared, and the complainant’s formal statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded before the competent court. Subsequently, relevant school registers certifying the victim's age were seized (Exhibit P- 5), the accused was arrested, and upon the completion of the investigation, the final charge-sheet was presented before the court on 25.03.2021.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is inherently liable to be set aside as it stands contrary to settled law and principles of natural justice. It was forcefully argued that the trial court has committed a serious and manifest error by not rationally analysing the statements and evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. The appellant contends that the acquittal order is a direct result of a legally flawed evaluation of the available evidentiary record.
8. It was further contended that the trial court erroneously discarded the consistent and corroborative testimonies o
