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

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 860 of 2012 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus MOHAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Advocate for appellant/State.

Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.01.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.112/2002 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amarwara, District Chhindwara (M.P.) whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-B and 147 of IPC.

2. As per the story of prosecution, on the date of the incident, at about 3:30 p.m., the complainant was sitting in the courtyard in front of his house. Mohan Yadav of the village was abusing him in front of the house. When he got up and went towards him, Mohan Yadav hit him on the head with a stick.

Narendra, Tikaram, Nanhu Yadav, Kalka Yadav, and Imrat Yadav were standing with sticks in their hands. Narendra Yadav also hit him on the left eye with a stick. When his wife, Savitribai, tried to intervene, Nanhu hit her with the stick, which hit her left hand. His wife suffered a head injury. When she screamed, his younger son, Dinesh, came running. Narendra, Tikaram, Mohan, Kalka, and Imrat also beat him with sticks, causing injuries to his head, shoulder, and waist, as a result of which there was bleeding. Mohan Yadav abusing and has said that if you try to get involved, we will kill you. Hearing the commotion, Mahesh, Mithailal, Babulal, Mullu, and Sarafi arrived. So all of them ran away from there and started throwing stones from a distance. His brother Mannu was also beaten up, about which he reported at Harai Police Station. On the basis of the report, a case was registered against the accused vide Crime No.10/2002 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 336, 506 IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation.

3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the accused. The accused/respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence and they claimed to be tried. In their defence they did not choose to examine any witness. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

4. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses, namely, Dr. N.V. Koshta (PW-1), Dr. D. Moitra (PW-2), Ramdayal (PW-3), Savitri Bai (PW-4), Dinesh (PW-5), Mithailal (PW- 6), Sarafi (PW-7), Munnulal @ Mallu (PW-8), Head Constable Sudama Pandey (PW-9), Jayant Temre (PW-10), Mannulal (PW-11), Babulal (PW- 12) and Mahesh (PW-13) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/15 and Ex.D/1 to D/4 the documents on record.

5. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties acquitted the accused persons, hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State that the learned trial Court despite cogent and reliable evidence on record has erroneously acquitted the respondents from the offences alleged against them. It is also submitted that the FIR is without inordinate delay lodged by the complainant. Dr. M.V. Koshta (PW-1) has found the injuries on the body of the victim Dinesh, Ramdayal and Mannulal and these witnesses, namely, Ramdayal (PW-3), Savitri (PW-4) and Dinesh (PW-5) Mannulal (PW-11) have supported the story of prosecution. Dr. D. Moitra has deposed that he has found grievous injury on the person of Dinesh in X-ray examination. Therefore, the case of prosecution is on cogent basis and established the offence alleged against the respondents accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal the respondents be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid offences.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer