The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench has refused to disturb a trial court's decision acquitting a man accused of molesting a minor girl in Shujalpur. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, hearing two connected criminal appeals, held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions and that a pre-existing dispute between the two families made the entire story doubtful.
Background Of The Case
The case goes back to March 5, 2021. According to the prosecution, a minor girl was home alone in the evening - her parents were away at daily-wage work and her brother had gone to fetch water from a nearby hand pump. While she was sweeping the courtyard outside her house, the accused, Jwala Singh, a neighbour, is alleged to have caught her hand and made an indecent remark, before trying to pull her towards a nearby drain.
The girl says she broke free, hit him with a broom, and ran to her brother at the hand pump. Her family called the police helpline, and an FIR was lodged the same day. A charge sheet followed on March 25, 2021. The trial, however, ended in acquittal on February 20, 2023, with the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, rejecting the prosecution's version entirely. That acquittal was challenged before the High Court under Section 372 of the CrPC - one appeal filed by the victim, the other by the State.
Arguments Before The Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had ignored consistent testimony from the girl, her parents, brother and the investigating officer, and that prior enmity between the families should not have been used to doubt otherwise credible witnesses. Reliance was placed on earlier rulings to argue that neither the absence of injuries nor the lack of independent corroboration should stand in the way of a conviction based on the complainant's own testimony.
The State's counsel for the accused countered that the trial court had rightly flagged serious contradictions and admissions made by the complainant herself during cross-examination, and that the acquittal deserved no interference.
Court's Observations
Justice Pillai went through the trial court record closely and found several gaps the prosecution could not explain. The complainant herself had admitted, during cross-examination, that her father and the accused's father had a falling out over work under a common employer, and that a heated exchange between the two fathers took place just a day before the alleged incident.
The order records this reasoning in some detail:
"She clearly admitted that a day before the alleged incident, a heated conversation had taken place between her father and the accused's father. Crucially, 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."
The Court also noted that the drain the girl was allegedly dragged towards did not appear anywhere on the official spot map, that her medical report showed no injuries despite the claimed struggle, and that she admitted she did not cry out for help even though the spot was close to a busy hand pump, a school playground and a main road. Despite this, the police had not examined a single independent witness from the area.
Summing up, the Court observed:
"The undeniable existence of prior intense rivalry between the two families, coupled with the glaring inconsistencies and weaknesses formally extracted during cross-examination, undeniably casts a heavy shadow of reasonable doubt over the entire prosecution narrative, rendering it legally unsafe to base a conviction upon."
The Decision
Finding no error, illegality or perversity in the trial court's reasoning, the High Court upheld the acquittal in its entirety. Both appeals - filed by the victim and by the State - were dismissed, and the accused was allowed to remain free of the charges.
