The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rahul Dhulia
2022 Latest Caselaw 2149 MP

                                     1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                   BEFORE
                           SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                      &
                     SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                         ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31945 of 2020

         Between:-
         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. P.S.
         TEELAJAMALPURA DIST. BHOPAL (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI S.K. KASHYAP, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

         AND

         RAHUL DHULIA S/O SHAMBHUDAYAL DHULIA ,
         AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, H.NO. 780 BEHIND SONI
         BHAWAN TEELAJAMALPURA DIST. BHOPAL
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENT


      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
passed the following:
                                      ORDER

Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.1098/2018.

Learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State submits that as per the prosecution story on 16.08.2018, 15.09.2018 and on other dates, the respondent committed rape on the victim, a minor whose age is determined as 14 years 7 months. The court below has disbelieved the prosecution story by holding that the incident has allegedly taken place at the residence of the prosecutrix. The incident has taken place in a room which is surrounded by rooms of tenants. Thus, why prosecutrix has not called the tenants for help.

Criticizing this order, learned Government Advocate submits that once it is held that the prosecutrix was a minor, the question of consent does not arise. Sections 29 and 30 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, 'POCSO Act') raises a presumption against the accused and court below has not examined the matter from that angle. If statement of the victim is otherwise

trustworthy, there was no need to support it by DNA sample or by any other piece of evidence. The court below has committed grave error of law in passing the judgment contrary to the scheme and object of the POCSO Act.

We have heard the counsel at length and perused the record.

Prima-facie, we find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the State for grant of leave. The victim was found to be a minor. In that case, Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are attracted. This is also trite that if statement of the victim could not be demolished and is trustworthy, there is no need of its corroboration.

Considering, the aforesaid, leave is granted.

The Registry shall convert this matter into an appeal.

A bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) be issued to the respondent for a date to be fixed by the Registry.

                                                 (SUJOY PAUL)                                         (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                                    JUDGE                                                      JUDGE
                                              Priya.P




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2022.02.17 15:31:04 IST