Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore
Cr.A No.2890/2020
(Lakhan Vs. State of MP) 1
INDORE; DATED - 15/07/2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.662/2021, which is first application filed
under section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence of
appellant Lakhan, who has been convicted under section 363, 366
of the IPC and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
5, 7 and 15 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the
prosecution was that the victim/prosecutrix was a minor. In order to
show that she is minor, a scholar register of concerned school was
produced. However, because of overwriting on the name of
prosecutrix, the Court below in para 3 of the judgment opined that
no conclusion regarding age of the prosecutrix can be drawn on the
basis of scholar register Exb.P/12, thereafter, the Court below
assessed the age of the victim on the basis of oral statements of her
parents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Court below
on the one hand in para 9 of the impugned judgment reproduced
section 94(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, which shows the methodology for determination of age
of a juvenile but did not adhere to said methodology. If the method
mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) of sub-section 2 of section 94 of the
Act, 2015 were not available/satisfied, the only course open to the
court below was to follow the procedure prescribed in Clause (iii)
of sub-section 2 of section 94 of the aforesaid act. The Court below
did not follow the said course and assessed the age of the
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore
Cr.A No.2890/2020
prosecutrix on the basis of shaking oral evidence, which were not
trustworthy. Thus, the age so determined is without any legal basis.
By taking this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix PW/2,
it is urged that she deposed that the appellant took her from
Gandherpuri then brought her to Indore. Some clothes were
purchase for the victim at Indore. Thereafter the appellant took her
to Ujjain, Guna, Gwalior, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The
prosecutrix remained with the appellant for about 4 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during this period,
she had several opportunity to raise alarm or seek help of the people
but she did not ask for any such help. Photographs of marriage
Exb.D/1 and the marriage affidavit Exb.D/2 is relied upon to
contend that it is case of consent on the part of victim.
The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent/State by contending that para 5 of the impugned
judgment shows that the victim was a minor.
Prima facie, we find substance in the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellant that if a law prescribes a thing to be done
in a particular manner, it needs to be done in the same manner and
other methods are forbidden. Section 94(2) of the aforesaid act
prescribes the method for determination of age of a juvenile.
Prima facie, the decision taken on the age runs contrary to the said
provision. Thus, without giving any final finding on this aspect, by
taking into account the marriage affidavit, photographs and
statement of prosecutrix PW/2, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the applicant, therefore, IA No.662/2021
is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of applicant is hereby
suspended and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore
Cr.A No.2890/2020
(Lakhan Vs. State of MP) 3
his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear
before the Trial Court, Dewas on 22.12.2021 and also on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court, Dewas in this regard
during the pendency of this appeal.
(Sujoy Paul) (Anil Verma)
Judge Judge
sourabh
Digitally signed by SOURABH
YADAV
Date: 2021.07.15 17:15:20 +05'30'
