Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahendra Jatav on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50877
1 CRA-9020-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9020 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MAHENDRA JATAV
Appearance:
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Government Advocate for Appellant/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved of judgment
dated 24.8.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bijawar,
District Chhatarpur in Special Case No.50/2017 recording a finding of
acquittal in favour of accused Mahanedra Jatav from the charges of Sections
363, 366, 376(2)(dha) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State submits that the
finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is uncalled for. Admittedly,
age of the victim was less than 18 years of the age on the date of the incident.
In school record, her date of birth is shown as 5.1.2000. The incident is of the
year 2016 and at that time, she was about 16 years of age and, therefore, the
Trial Court has committed an error treating her to be an adult and also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50877
2 CRA-9020-2022
treating the case to be that of consent rather than abduction and rape.
We have heard learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
Bhagirath Ahirwar (PW.13) admits that at the time of admission of the
victim, her parents had not brought any birth certificate. He recorded her date
of birth on the basis of admission form but no such admission form has been
exhibited on record alongwith Exhibit P/20C. PW.2 is the mother of the
victim. She admits that she does not know the date of birth of the victim. She
deposed that the age of her eldest son is 25-26 years and that of her second
son is 24 years whereas the victim is her third child and she was born one
and a half year after the second child. The testimony of PW.2 was recorded
on 19.12.2018 and if we travel back in time to 2016 then also the age of
younger son was 22 years and by that estimation too, the age of the victim
will be about 20+. PW.4 is brother of the victim. He admits that his age is 23
years. He has a younger brother, who is one year younger to him and then the
victim is one year younger to his younger brother. The victim was major on
the date of the incident. PW.1 is the father of victim. He deposed that he was
possession horoscope/birth chart of the victim but did not produce the same
in support of the contention that the date of birth of the victim is 5.1.2000.
PW.1 deposed that he had given that certificate to the school teacher but
Bhagirath Ahirwar (PW.13) categorically admits that no such document was
given by the parents of the victim. He had recorded the date of birth on the
basis of his memory whereas before the Court, he admits that he does not
remember the date of birth of the victim. The victim has been examined
before the Court of law. The victim admits that her age at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50877
3 CRA-9020-2022
deposition was 25 years. She has shown her date of birth to be of 1997.
PW.4 deposes that his year of birth is 1993.
When all these aspects are taken into consideration then on the date of
the incident, the victim was major. There is a bonafide doubt as to the date of
birth of the victim. The finding recorded by the Trial Court does not call for
any indulgence.
At this stage learned Government Advocate for the State submits that
the DNA report is positive.
Once the victim herself admits that she was in consensual relationship
with the accused and when the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the
victim was major then in a case of consent, none of the ingredients of the
offence of Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(dha) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
will be applicable.
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of this appeal, I.A.No.19004/2022 also
stands dismissed.
Record be sent back forthwith.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
