IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46 of 2012 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus RAM BAHORE @ RAMKISHORE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Amit Pandey - Government Advocate for applicant/State.

None for respondent.

ORDER The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST of Atrocities Act), Satna in Special Case No.37/2000, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of offences under Sections 147, 294, 324/149, 323/149, 506(B) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 17.06.1999 at about 3 O'clock Badri Lal Patel, Lallu, Rambahore and Sadhu Patel came and told for vacating the land, otherwise they would face serious consequences. At that time, Dayanand and Ramjas came there and tried to intervene then one Mirra Patel, Bala Patel, Lakhan Patel abused the victim and also insulted them. When the victim objected to abuse them, the respondent Mirra assaulted Tangi on the head of Shakuntala (sister-in-law of the complainant). Another respondent Rambahore struck his brother Ghasil on the head, whereas Badri also assaulted with a lathi to Ghasil. When the victim raised an alarm, Ramcharan Brahmin and Shiv Prasad Patel, who are the witnessed of the incident, came there. FIR was lodged against the respondents. During the investigation, on 18.06.1999 ASI inspected the scene of the incident and spot map was prepared in presence of witnesses. He also recorded the statements of witnesses Bhaskar Prasad Tiwari and Jagdish Prasad. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the CJM, Satna who committed the case to the Court of Special Judge, Satna.

3. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State has submitted that judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge is incorrect, improper and bad in law. Findings recorded by the trial Court are contrary to the material available on record are perverse, therefore, the same are liable to be set a side and respondents deserves to be convicted. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and has wrongly acquitted the respondent. The respondent has committed the offence which is also proved by the prosecution and other witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that learned trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the material on record in its proper perspective and without applying the judicial mind, acquitted the accused person/respondent. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned Judgment is bad in law. The findings and conclusion drawn by the Court below is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/State at length and perused the record of the case.

6. The prosecution has registered the offences under section 324, 323, 294 and 506 B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against 9 accused persons.

7. The learned counsel for the State has criticized the impugned order on the ground that while passing the said order, the trial Court failed to consider various materials and facts. The injuries sustained by injured person were not considered. The statements of the witnesses were also not considered while passing the judgment.

8. The record of the case reveals that during the course of the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses belonging to the family of the complainant party as well as certain independent witnesses. However, the testimony of the independent witnesses namely PW-5 Shiv Prasad and PW-6 Jagdish Prasad did not support the prosecution ca