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

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1436 of 2026 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus PRADEEP SAHU @ PAPPU AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for appellant/State.

Shri Saket Sharma - Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

Shri S.C. Chatruvedi - Advocate for respondent no.3.

JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.04.2015 passed in Session Trial No.10/2014 (Pradeep Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P.) by learned Sessions Judge, District Sidhi (M.P.), whereby respondents - Pradeep Sahu @ Pappu, Jairam Sahu and Ramprabhav Yadav (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 456, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.06.2013 in the night, when complainant Ramakant Sahu and his wife were at hospital and their daughter (prosecurtix) was at home along with her younger brother, at that time respondents forcefully entered into their home from the roof, caught hold the prosecutrix, torn her undergarments and tried to outrage her modesty, but when she screamed and called her brother, respondents fled from the spot. Upon receipt of the report, the matter was taken up for investigation by the police. The case was duly registered, and the spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared. The respondents were arrested during the course of investigation. Statements of the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses were recorded. The investigating officer collected the necessary evidence and prepared the panchnama in accordance with law.

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 sessions, from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial.

4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused persons in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 456, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed false implication. During their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution allegations.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, prosecutrix (PW1), Chhotelal Sahu (PW-2), Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Deenbandhu (PW-4), Ramdayal Sahu (PW- 5), S.I. Smt. Manju Sharma (PW-6), Jaimanti Sahu (PW-7), Tersi Sahu (PW- 8), Sub Inspector R.K. Mishra (PW-9), Dr. Pushpa Bhagat (PW-10) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/11, the documents on record.

6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Sections 456 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that ample evidence is available on record to substantiate the prosecution case. The prosecutrix (PW-1), along with her brother (PW-2), and prosecution witnesses Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Ramdayal Sahu (PW-5), Jaimanti Sahu (PW-7) and Tersi Sahu (PW-8) have materially supported the prosecution story. Their testimonies are further corroborated by the First Information Report and the medical report, which have been duly proved through the depositions of S.I. Smt. Manju Sharma (PW-6) and Dr. Pushpa Bhagat (PW-10) before the Court. It is argued that despite such cogent and reliable evidence, the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused p