The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of attempting to commit wrongful acts with a 12-year-old girl, observing that the child did not raise an alarm while allegedly being dragged by a 23-year-old accused, which is highly unnatural. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 346]

Observing that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt, the bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai stated,

"The trial court correctly observed that 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".

The bench further emphasized,

"The glaring lack of any outcry at the time of the incident, the absolute absence of physical injuries on the complainant's hands, the highly public nature of the immediate vicinity, and the prosecution's failure to produce any independent corroborative witnesses collectively destroy the foundation of the prosecution's story".

Two appeals were filed, one by the State and one by the Victim, challenging the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting a man accused under the POCSO Act.

Per the facts, on March 5, 2021, at around 5pm, the minor victim was alone at her residence and was sweeping in the open courtyard just outside her residence. The accused, who was her immediate neighbour, approached her and allegedly caught her right hand with malicious intentions and stated that he wanted to do 'something wrong with her'.

Thereafter, the accused allegedly dragged her towards a nearby drain and attempted to perform wrongful acts against her will. Resisting the said attempt, the victim alleged freed herself and ran towards the hand pump and narrated the ordeal to her brother. The brother thereafter informed their parents via phone, and the family later contacted the police and registered a complaint.

The investigation agency conducted a medical exam on the same day and prepared the required documents. The final chargesheet against the accused was submitted to the Court on March 25, 2021.

The counsel for the State argued that the judgment of the Trial Court was liable to be set aside as it was violative of principles of natural justice. It was argued that the Trial Court committed a serious and manifest error by not rationally analysing the evidence.

The State submitted that the Trial Court severely erred by considering the prosecution's story as doubtful based on alleged prior enmity between the families. Further referring to the case of Vijay v State of Madhya Pradesh [2010 ], the State argued that the accused could have been convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim if it were entirely credible.

The counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal contended that the Trial Court recorded glaring contradictions in admissions made by prosecution witnesses. It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The court noted that the Trial Court rightly examined whether the FIR was a byproduct of a prior dispute between the parties related to employment. It was noted that the victim's father and the accused's father had serious verbal altercations on the date of the said incident.

The bench also took serious note of the victim's statement that a day before the incident, her father had an altercation with the accused's father, and out of anger, her father had proceeded to file a formal police report against the accused.

The court further clarified that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, but "such evidence must inspire unshakeable confidence". Further, the bench observed that the location of the drain as complete missing from the official spot map.

Additionally, the bench also noted that if the accused had any intention of committing wrongful acts, he would rather have dragged the victim through a widely accessible public place; he would have opted for the isolated house of the victim that was available. This, the stated story of the prosecution, appears "contradictory and unnatural".

Furthermore, the court observed that the accused was a physically strong man aged 23 years, and the victim was only 12.5 years old, and thus, there ought to have been friction injuries on her while she allegedly was struggling to free her hand. However, per the medical report, the victim's body "shows an absolute absence of any injury marks".

Focusing on the fact that the alleged incident occurred in a densely populated area, however, the Investigation office conceded that the spot is a busy residential area, and no independent local residents were examined.

The court concurred with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, and thus there is no need for interference.

Case Title: Victim X v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA 9660/2023 & CRA 7483/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 346

For Appellant: Advocate Archana Jadia

For State: Government Advocate Jay Pal Choksey

Click here to read/download the Order