1. Criminal case alleging threat to defame a woman to pressurise her into unlawful demands; charge under Section 354-ka(1)(i), IPC; trial court acquitted; State appeals. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Umesh Chaudhary - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1909 of 2016
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Deeksha Agrawal.
For the Appellant :Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Government Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Deeksha Agrawal.
An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or illegal; if two reasonable interpretations of evidence exist, the court must adopt the view favorable to the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354-ka(1)(i) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(III) - Criminal Appeal against acquittal - Burden of proof - Guilt of the accused must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt; if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused should be adopted (Paras 15 and 16).
(B) Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of interference - Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the finding is perverse, illegal, or impossible - Reversal of acquittal requires the appellate court to demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the trial court's decision (Paras 15 and 16).
Facts of the case:
A prosecutrix alleged that the accused approached her while she was alone and threatened to defame her by informing her in-laws of alleged illicit activities to pressure her into a relationship. An FIR was lodged four days after the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading the State to appeal the decision.
Findings of Court:
The court observed material contradictions and variations in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her related witnesses. Specifically, there were discrepancies regarding the time and location of the occurrence and omissions regarding the specific nature of the threats. The prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for the four-day delay in lodging the FIR, and no independent witnesses were examined to support the testimonies of the related witnesses.
Issues: Whether the trial court's decision to acquit the accused based on material contradictions in evidence and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR was perverse or illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. Since the trial court's view was legally plausible and the prosecution failed to prove the case with cogent evidence, the appellate court cannot interfere with the acquittal unless a clear illegality or perversity is established.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- sexual harassment (Para 2)
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- appeal against acquittal
-
evidence
- witness testimony
- fir and delay
- burden of proof
-
criminal procedure
Table of Contents
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.11.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.4696 of 2013 ( State of M.P. vs. Umesh Choudhary ) by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni (M.P.), whereby the respondent/accused, Umesh Choudhary, has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 354-ka(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) a resident of village Bhajiya, Police Station Badwara, had gone to visit her sister (PW-2) in village Pahrua about ten days prior to 26.09.2013. On 26.09.2013 at around 02:00 PM, the prosecutrix had gone for a walk on the road along with her sister. At that time, when her sister went aside to ease herself and the prosecutrix was alone on the road, the respondent/accused approached her and finding her alone, threatened her by stating that if she did not love him, he would inform her in-laws that she was involved in illicit activities with other persons. It is alleged that the respondent/accused threatened to defame the prosecutrix with the intention of pressurizing her to fulfil his unlawful demands. Thereafter, the prosecutrix informed her sister about the incident and subsequently went to her father (PW-3) at village Bhajiya. After narrating the incident to him, she approached the concerned Police Station and lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1). During the course of investigation, the spot map of the place of occurrence (Ex.P-2) was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Charge was framed. The respondent/accused abjured his guilt, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses, namely prosecutrix (PW-1), her sister (PW-2), her father (PW-3) and Sub Inspector Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/3, the documents on record. In defence, the respondent/accused examined Geetabai Choudhary (DW-1) and placed document Ex.D/1 on record.
5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties acquitted the present respondent/accused. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has contended that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has fully supported the prosecution case. The sister of the prosecutrix, to whom the incident was immediately disclosed has also corroborated the prosecution story. The father of the prosecutrix, has further supported the case by deposing that the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. The testimonies of all three witnesses have remained intact and unimpeached during their cross-examinations. According to learned counsel, the prosecution case stood clearly established; however, the learned trial Court, solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR has erroneously acquitted the present respondent. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondent/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that all the witnesses examined in support of the prosecutrix, namely PW-2 and PW-3 are related witnesses and that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay of about four days in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are material variations and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, who is the sole eyewitness to the incident thereby rendering her evidence unreliable. The remaining witnesses, namely PW-2 and PW-3, are me
