State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rishikesh Mishra

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - An appellate court should be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal unless the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, wholly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record - If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. (Paras 15 and 16)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of interested witnesses - Statements of interested witnesses are subject to close and careful scrutiny - When there is a documented close intimacy and cordial relationship between the complainant and the accused, and no apparent motive for the crime is established, the prosecution's version becomes improbable - Delay in reporting the incident and failure to examine independent witnesses or official police personnel (such as PCR van staff) weakens the prosecution case. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:
The State filed an appeal against a judgment of acquittal where the accused were charged with forcibly entering a government residence, using obscene and caste-related derogatory language, criminally intimidating the complainant, and snatching her mobile phone. The trial court acquitted the accused after observing a close, intimate relationship between the complainant and the accused, inconsistencies regarding the timing and submission of the complaint, and the absence of independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision to disbelieve the testimony of the interested witnesses was justified given the proven close association between the parties and the absence of motive. The lack of corroboration from neighbors and the failure to examine official witnesses, combined with evidence supporting an alibi for one of the accused, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The findings of the trial court constituted a plausible and reasonable view.

Issues: Whether the judgment of acquittal was perverse or unsustainable in law, and whether the evidence on record necessitated the conviction of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption of innocence is reinforced upon acquittal. Interference by an appellate court is permissible only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreads material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt is possible. Since the trial court's view was possible and based on a proper appreciation of evidence, it cannot be disturbed.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC for offences under IPC Sections 457, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(x). (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.09.2016 passed in Special Case No.04 of 2015 (State of M.P. vs. Rishikesh Mishra and Anr.) by the learned Special Judge Panna, District-Panna (M.P.), whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 26.08.2014 at about 09:00 pm, the complainant, Vimlesh Singh, was present at her government residence bearing No. F-20, Civil Line. At that time, the accused Rishikesh Mishra, son of Narendra Mishra, resident of Jaisingh Nagar, along with his brother Ranu Mishra, resident of Bajrang Nagar, arrived at the complainant’s residence. It is alleged that both accused persons were under the influence of alcohol and were carrying a revolver. Acting in furtherance of their common intention, they forcibly entered the house of the complainant without permission. After entering, they began to abuse the complainant in a filthy and obscene manner. During the course of the incident, they used derogatory caste-related words such as “Godin” and “Adivasi,” thereby intentionally insulting and humiliating the complainant. The accused persons also criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening to kill her and further threatened that they would have her kidnapped in broad daylight through hired persons. In addition, they attempted to physically scuffle with the complainant, creating fear and disturbance. During the incident, the accused persons forcibly snatched the complainant’s mobile phone and took it into their possession. Due to this, the complainant was temporarily prevented from seeking immediate help. Approximately half an hour after the incident, upon regaining possession of his mobile phone, the complainant informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the occurrence. Upon receiving the information, a PCR van was immediately dispatched to the complainant’s residence. The complainant also narrated the entire incident to the PCR personnel upon their arrival and thereafter, an offence vide Crime No.528 of 2014 for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Rewa (M.P.) and the accused persons were thereafter, arrested.

3. Upon completion of investigation and other formalities, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Rewa. Since the offences were triable exclusively by the Court of Special Judge, the case was committed accordingly. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The respondents/accused abjured guilt and claimed to be innocent, contending that they have been falsely implicated. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents/accused in their defence.

4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 03 witnesses, namely complainant (PW-1), Soukhilal Kushwaha (PW-2), Ashutosh Pandey (PW-3) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/6 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/24, the documents on record. In defence, the respondents/accused examined Shivendra Pratap Singh (DW-1) and Harish Kumar Namdeo (DW-2) as defence witnesses.

5 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties acquitted the present respondents/accused. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has there is ample evidence inform of statements of witnesses namely Vimlesh (PW-1) and Soukhilal Kushwaha (PW-2) and the prosecution has established the gui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Petitioner
Versus
Rishikesh Mishra And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3942 of 2026
Decided On : 04-05-2026

An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. If the trial court's conclusion is a plausible view based on the evidence, it remains undisturbed even if a different view is possible.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURRAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J. The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Petitioner Versus Rishikesh Mishra And Others – RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 3942 of 2026 Decided On : 04-05-2026

An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. If the trial court's conclusion is a plausible view based on the evidence, it remains undisturbed even if a different view is possible.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.

The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Petitioner
Versus
Rishikesh Mishra And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3942 of 2026
Decided On : 04-05-2026