Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra @Sonu Loni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
1 CRA-1151-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151 of 2021
MAHENDRA @SONU LONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is finally heard.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 09.02.2021 passed by learned III Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sidhi (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial
No.18/2019 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for rigorous
imprisonment of 07-07 years with the fine of Rs.1,000/- each and Sections
376D of IPC and sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of 20-20
years with the fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulations.
3. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that on
02.04.2019, the victim (PW-1) went alongwith her mother (PW-2) to
purchase the vegetables in Bazar near Chandindai Mandir and when she was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
2 CRA-1151-2021
returning after taking vegetables near culvert at 06:00 pm, three boys on a
motorcycle met her and caught hold her and putting her on motorcycle
carried her towards Joba, when she cried, her brother (PW-4) chased but they
were out of his approach. They were calling each other as Mahendra @ Sonu
Loni, Jitendra Loni and Bhaiyalal Loni. They had carried the victim to
village Joba near Mahua tree in the field of wheat crop. Two persons
Jitendra Loni and Bhaiyalal Loni left the appellant Mahendra alongwith her.
Mahendra @ Sonu Loni put off her cloths and committed rape upon her.
After that, he offered meal but she denied and after that, Mahendra @ Sonu
called his friends Jitendra and Bhaiyalal went to left her in her sister's-in-law
house. The Police caught hold them and sent the victim to her home. She
narrated the story to her family members and on 04.04.2019, she lodged an
FIR. On that basis, Crime No.236/2019 was registered in Police Station-
Manjhauli, District-Sidhi under Section 376/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4
of POCSO Act. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet was
submitted before the Special Judge.
4. The trial Court framed the charges against the appellants under
Sections 363, 366, 376D of IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act. The trial
Court has also held that the victim at the time of offence was major. The trial
Court, after hearing both the parties, has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as per paragraph no.1 of the impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court
has wrongly appreciated the evidence as from Ex.D-2, it is clear that her
family fixed her marriage but she has not gone alongwith that person and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
3 CRA-1151-2021
victim was not married and she was residing with one person Ajay. The
victim alongwith Mahendra @ Sonu Loni on her own volition went to the
place of incident and established the physical relation and submitted that this
fact is proved by the medical report as no injury was found on the body of
the victim.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the
story is concocted as it appears from the statement of her brother (PW-4)
who has clearly stated that on the date of incident, he alongwith his sister
went to Mela and he returned but the victim remained in Mela. While he was
searching his sister, she was not found in Mela. Thus, theory is highly
doubtful that the victim was abducted when she was returning after taking
vegetables from the market. It is clear that after thought, the victim has
implicated the accused persons and it is also not the case of gangrape as it is
not possible for four persons to ride on a motorcycle while one person was
chasing them and from the DNA report, only the DNA of Mahendra @ Sonu
is found in the vaginal slide of the victim. There was no common intention
among the accused persons. Hence, it is submitted that appellants be
acquitted from all the charges and appeal be allowed.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the
trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and blood was found in the
private part of the victim that was a result of forceful intercourse and other
injuries were not found on the body of the victim as she was frightened
looking the accused persons. The trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellants. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
4 CRA-1151-2021
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The victim (PW-1) in her statement had stated that she is acquainted
with these appellants and on the date of incident, she went to purchase
vegetables in the market that was near the temple of her village. When she
was returning and reached near a culvert, the appellant Mahendra @ Sonu
was coming on the motorcycle, caught hold her hand and pressed her mouth
by his hand and pulling her made ride her on the motorcycle and they passed
near their house. After one kilometer distance from her village, they carried
her in Joba turn near mahua and mango trees in the field of wheat crop.
Alighting from the motorcycle, they pulled down her and they carried her
near the mobile tower in grown pulse crop field. Sonu put off her cloths and
committed rape upon her. Mahendra and Jitendra brought chicken meat, they
offered chicken meat and Roti to her in that she has not taken the food.
10. She has further stated that they inquired her maternal uncle's home.
She told that her maternal uncle is out of station then asked about her
maternal aunt and after that, they were bringing her on motorcycle to Jogi
Pahari. The Police was there and looking to the Police, she started crying and
on that, the Police stopped the motorcycle but appellants did not stop there
and the Police chased the motorcycle and surrounded the appellants asked
the bloodstain on her cloths where the appellants disclosed the fact and
Police brought the appellants alongwith her in Manjhauli Police Station and
left her home. Her medical examination was conducted.
11. This witness in the cross-examination has stated that her brother
(PW-4) chased her but he was unsuccessful. Her brother (PW-4) has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
5 CRA-1151-2021
that he is not acquainted with the appellants. The victim is his sister. On the
date of incident, he went to visit Mela that was held on the bank of river
Thonga. The victim also went alongwith him. After sometime, he returned
alone and victim was in Mela and she did not return. He searched his sister
but she was not found. After 2:00-3:00 am, Police brought her sister in their
house. In cross-examination, he has clearly denied the fact that when he was
returning from the market, the accused persons were carrying her sister on
motorcycle. He chased them but he was not successful.
12. Thus, there is a material contradiction on the point that the accused
persons had abducted the victim and forcefully carried her from the market
to spot where the offence was committed. From the paragraph no.9 of cross-
examination, it is also clear that after the incident, the FIR was lodged. She
went to visit the appellant Sonu when he was in the jail. In cross-
examination, she has further stated that as she was dragged by Sonu, her
cloths were torn and the stain of mud also came on her Salwar. She was
contradicted that the appellant-Sonu dragged her and kept her mouth closed,
she went near her house and dropped her cloths and on hearing her cry,
Police stopped motorcycle. These facts are missing in the case diary
statement (Ex.P-4).
13. Thus, from the chief and cross-examination of this witness, while
she has lodged the FIR against the three persons but in the Court statement,
she has given clean chit to accused Bhaiyalal and also improved her
statement.
14. Dr. Rashmi Soni (PW-5) who has examined the victim on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
6 CRA-1151-2021
04.04.2019. On examination, she has opined that her secondary sexual
characters were well-developed. There was no external injury on the body.
There was no pain on the bony area. There was no injury in the private part.
Only small bleeding was found. Two slides were prepared from the vaginal
sphere and undergarment was preserved. In paragraph no.9 of the cross-
examination, this witness has clearly admitted that there was no pain in
vagina and no scratches were found. She has not mentioned regarding the
hymen whether it was torn or not and also clarified that there was no injury
found on the back and thigh and further submitted that the bleeding in the
vagina of the victim may be due to different reasons. It may be due to
menstrual cycle also and on examination, no internal injury was found on the
body of the victim and she had opined only on the basis that there was
bleeding in the vagina that forceful intercourse was conducted.
15. Thus, it is clear that as the story stated by the victim, no injury was
found on the body of the deceased and if the incident as stated by the victim
had happened that she was dragged on the field of pulse crop and after the
cloths were taken out, forceful rape was committed by the appellant Sonu @
Mahendra. She must had sustained injuries.
16. The initiation of the story regarding the kidnapping has also
become highly doubtful as his brother (PW-4) has clearly stated that he and
the victim were in Mela and he returned and her sister was not found in
Mela. In this case, she went with the appellant from Mela.
17. The prosecution has not examined any Police Officer who has
supported the version of the appellants that the accused persons were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
7 CRA-1151-2021
bringing the victim and they were got in the suspicious circumstances or on
the cry of the victim and in reverse to that the prosecution is based on that
the victim has lodged the FIR and after that, the Police inquired the matter.
18. We are of the view that the conviction under Section 376 of IPC
may be based upon the single testimony of the victim and no further
corroboration is required but in this case, the initiation of the offence has
been suppressed by the victim as discussed above. Furthermore, only the
DNA is found positive regarding one accused Mahendra @ Sonu and no
injury was found on the person of the victim. From the statement of PW-4,
the victim was missing from Mela of village make doubtful the prosecution
story and it appears that that the victim has gone along appellant Mahendra
@ Sonu on her own volition and made relations with him. After that, reasons
the best known to her, the FIR has been lodged. Thus, the appellants are
entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial Court
could not be sustained. Hence, the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 366, 376D of the IPC and sentence imposed by the trial Court are
set aside. The appeal is allowed.
19. If the appellants are not required in any other case, they be
released forthwith. Fine amount, if deposited by them , be returned back to
them.
20. The case property be disposed of in terms of the orders of the trial
Court.
21. With the copy of judgment, the record of the trial Court be sent
back.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20882
8 CRA-1151-2021
22. Record of this appeal be consigned to record room.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HK
