IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 9 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 under Sections 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC was registered against unknown persons.

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)

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 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 cou