IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 19^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9136 of 2019 MOHAN Versus SURESHCHANDRA AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the appellant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 05.02.2026 Pronounced on : 19.02.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.08.2019 in Special Case No.03/2017 by Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Neemuch, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506-II of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 instituted on a complaint filed by Mohanlal (PW-1) in the Court of JMFC, Neemuch on 18.08.2011 regarding the incident dated

05.07.2011 at 10:00 AM behind the petrol pump, Neemuch.

2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that Mohanlal (PW-1), belonging to a Scheduled Caste community as per the certificate (Ex.P-2), had been working as a driver with Manoj Dhakad (PW-3) for the past 10 years. He lodged a complaint against the respondents, who do not belong to the SC/ST community, alleging that on 05.07.2011 at about 10:00 AM, when he parked his tractor behind a JCB machine, the respondents reached the place of incident, i.e., behind the petrol pump at Neemuch, and used abusive language, including caste-based remarks. They voluntarily caused injuries to him by assaulting him with fists and kicks and also extended threats to his life.

3. The respondents abjured their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Mohanlal (PW-1), Jodhraj (PW-2), Manoj Dhakad (PW-3), and Kailash Chouhan (PW-4).

4. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court acquitted the respondents recording the finding in para 15 that Jodhraj (PW-2) and Manoj Dhakad (PW-3) have initiated this false prosecution through their driver Mohanlal (PW-1) by preparing a concocted story.

5. Challenging the acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court passed the judgment of acquittal by drawing unwarranted inferences. The trial Court failed to properly consider the facts and the law. It also did not duly appreciate the deposition of the appellant/complainant and the other witnesses.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. The scope of appeal against the judgment of acquittal has been mentioned in the case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down legal principles for entertaining appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

''42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;

(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusi