Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Minor Assault Case, Cites Prior Enmity and Contradictions

Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Minor Assault Case, Cites Prior Enmity and Contradictions

In a significant ruling that underscores the high bar for criminal convictions, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of attempting to commit a wrongful act with a minor girl. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai , found the prosecution’s case riddled with inconsistencies, including prior family enmity, a complete lack of physical injuries, and the victim’s admission that she did not raise any alarm during the alleged incident.

The twin appeals arose from a common trial court verdict dated February 20, 2023, where the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur (Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi) had acquitted Jwala Singh of all charges. The minor victim, represented as Victim X , and the State of Madhya Pradesh separately challenged this acquittal, but both appeals were dismissed.

A Dispute Rooted in Prior Grudges?

The prosecution alleged that on March 5, 2021, around 5:00 p.m., the 12-and-a-half-year-old victim was sweeping the courtyard of her home while her parents worked as labourers and her brother fetched water. According to the FIR, the neighbour, Jwala Singh, caught her right hand, enticed her to follow him to a nearby drain for “dirty things,” and attempted to drag her. The victim claimed she freed herself, hit him with a broom, and ran to her brother.

However, the High Court noted a critical admission extracted during cross-examination. The victim herself stated that a day before the incident, a heated argument had occurred between her father and the accused’s father over a work-related dispute. “She further admitted that solely because of this prior altercation, her father, acting out of sheer anger, proceeded to file a formal police report against the accused,” Justice Pillai observed.

This prior enmity was independently corroborated by the victim’s father (PW-2), who acknowledged a disagreement with the accused’s family over employment. The trial court had rightly given weight to this background, the High Court concluded.

Cracks in the Prosecution’s Narrative

The High Court meticulously dissected several glaring gaps in the case. First, the alleged scene of the crime—the drain to which the accused supposedly dragged the victim—was conspicuously absent from the official spot map (Exhibit P-2). “If the accused genuinely intended to commit a wrongful act, he would logically not have attempted to drag her towards an open drain through a widely accessible public place when an isolated house was readily available,” the judgment notes.

Second, despite the accused being a physically strong man of about 23, the victim’s medical examination (Exhibit P-03(A)) revealed absolutely no injury marks . Justice Pillai remarked that in a struggle where a minor is forcibly dragged, some defensive or friction injuries would naturally be expected. Their complete absence cast doubt on the prosecution’s version.

Third, the victim admitted in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that she did not shout or raise any alarm when the accused caught her hand. She merely “shook off his hand and escaped.” The High Court found this entirely unnatural: “In a terrifying situation where a woman is allegedly being dragged for a wrongful act, the total failure to shout or scream for help appears completely unnatural and highly improbable.”

Moreover, the incident allegedly occurred in a densely populated residential area. At 5:00 p.m., about 6-7 women were fetching water at a nearby hand pump, a higher secondary school opposite the house had students in the playground until 6:00 p.m., and people frequently passed by. Yet, the investigating officer (PW-8) admitted that no independent local residents were examined as witnesses. The trial court had questioned this absence, and the High Court agreed: “Given the public nature of the location, the fact that no independent person witnessed the event or was questioned by the police brings the entire incident under the ambit of suspicion.”

Legal Precedents and the Benefit of Doubt

The appellant argued relying on * Karu Lal and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh * that prior enmity alone does not discredit otherwise credible witnesses, and cited * Vijay alias Chini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh * to contend that the absence of injuries is immaterial for establishing the offence. The High Court acknowledged these principles but found them inapplicable here because the victim’s testimony itself inspired no “unshakeable confidence.”

Justice Pillai wrote: “The explicit and fatal admission made by the complainant regarding her father filing a false police report in a fit of rage is thoroughly strengthened by the numerous other circumstantial weaknesses present in the case.” The lack of an outcry, absence of injuries, public vicinity, and failure to produce independent witnesses collectively destroyed the foundation of the prosecution story.

Final Decision: Acquittal Affirmed

In a crisp conclusion, the High Court found no manifest error, illegality, or perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence. “The findings of the trial court are well-reasoned, highly logical, and strictly based on the evidentiary material available on record,” the order states.

Both Criminal Appeals were dismissed, and the accused, Jwala Singh, remains free from all charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that while the sole testimony of a victim can sustain a conviction, it must pass the test of scrutiny, especially when undermined by admitted animosity and contradictory circumstances.