Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; if two views are possible, favor the accused's innocence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 18 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1027 of 2021 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus BHAGWAN SINGH AHIRWAR Appearance:

Ms Nupur Dhamija - Dy. Government Advocate for the appellant/State.

ORDER This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.07.2020 passed in S.C. No.947/2019 (State of M.P. vs. Bhagwan Singh Ahirwar) by XVIII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012, Bhopal (M.P.) whereby respondent /accused Bhagwan Singh Ahirwar has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 452, 354, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 7 /8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 09.09.2019 at around 03.30 p.m.

when prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was alone at home, accused/respondent trespassed into her house and with a bad intent caught hold of her hand and started pressing breast. When she screamed, accused ran away from there and threatened to kill her if she will disclose the incident to any person. On the next day, prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents and along with her father she submitted a written report (Ex.P-1). After investigation, FIR (Ex.P/2) was reduced into writing by S.I. Kavita Signature Not Verified Uikey (PW-4). On lodging of the First Information Report the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. On lodging of the FIR, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion.

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 session where the respondent/accused was tried.

4 The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused in the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 7 /8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and he claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 04 witnesses, which are prosecutrix (PW-1), teacher Vinu Mishra (PW-2), father of prosecutrix Ganesh Silawat (PW-3) and Investigating Officer Kavita Uikey (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/10 and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4 the documents on record.

6. The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the allegations levelled against the accused are not found to be proved and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charges under Sections 452, 354, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 7 /8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. Hence, this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant/State Signature Not Verified that the accused/respondent has been erroneously extended the benefit of acquittal while as per the statement of prosecutrix, she was found to be child as per para 17 of the impugned judgment and she was minor at the time of commission of offence. It is also submitted that prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically stated in her statement that respondent/accused has applied criminal force and outraged her modesty with ill-intention. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix's version remained intact in her cross- examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of victim. The statement of victim is also supported by her father Ganesh Silawat (PW-3). Therefore, in the light of the statements of prosecutrix (PW-3) and father Ganesh Silawat (PW-3) which are supported by the statements of other witnesses, prosecution has proved the alleged offence against the present respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal respondent/accused be convicted an