Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35860
1 CRA-10987-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10987 of 2023
ANIL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Subodh Tamrakar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Criminal Appeal
is heard finally.
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,
Gadarwara District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in S.C. No. 05 of 2020 whereby
learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 366 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.2000/- with default
stipulation RI for one month, under Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years and fine of
Rs.5000/- with default stipulation of 03 months Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. It is submitted that, victim was major at the time of incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35860
2 CRA-10987-2023
Prosecution has not proved her date of birth. Prosecution has also not
produced her first school entry register. Evidence of father of the victim
(PW-3) leads to a conclusion that victim was major at the time of the
incident, therefore, it is submitted that, it being a case of consent, mere
positivity of DNA report is not sufficient for conviction.
3. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government Advocate relying on the
DNA report opposes the prayer.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the records, PW-1 victim has stated that incident took place three months
back. She was at her residence. At about 08:30 she had come to her courtyard
and Anil Yadav had taken her to Salichouka Railway Station, from where
she had travelled with him to Itarsi, from Itarsi to Narsinghpur, from
Narsinghpur to Ghatpindrai, from Ghatpindrai to Maihar and from Maihar to
Kareli. He had taken her to the house of his Mama Halku Yadav. She had
stayed with Anil Yadav at the house of Halku Yadav where Anil had
violated her privacy then from there she had come to Gadarwara and then
called her father.
5. In cross-examination, this witness (PW-1) admitted that appellant
is not a resident of her village. In para-8 of her cross-examination, she
admits that she had developed a friendship with the appellant at Village
Sahawan. She has admitted that her parents had seen her talking to the
appellant. She has also stated that there was an altercation between her
parents on account of witnessing her conversation with the appellant. After
such altercation she had left her home on her own volition. She admitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35860
3 CRA-10987-2023
she stayed with the appellant and had not given any statements to the Police
at Rampura. She had signed on spot map (Ex.P-8) at Police Station. She
admitted that she had not gone to the Police Station on her own, but later on
she had accompanied her parents. She admits that she was talking to the
appellant on phone. She also admits that during whole course of journey and
stay, she never raised any alarm nor informed anybody about she being
kidnapped or her privacy being violated.
6. PW-2 is the mother of the victim. She has admitted that the day on
which victim had left their home, she and her husband had scolded her as
they had seen her talking on phone.
7. PW-3 father of the victim admitted in para-4 of his cross-
examination that he has five daughters and one son. Victim is the eldest
child. He had recorded her date of birth on estimation. He further admits that
when the incident took place and at that time he was already in talks for
marriage of the victim and on his own stated that her engagement was
broken. In para -6 he admits that after 03-04 months when his daughter had
returned back, then he had lodged a report at Police Station Salichowka.
8. When this evidence of PW-1 to PW3 is read alongwith the
evidence of PW-6 Headmaster of the school, he has admitted that victim had
not taken admission in Class-I in is school. He cannot say that as to and what
basis the date of birth is recorded in Ex.P-11. He admits that parents got date
of birth on the basis of estimation.
9. PW-10 Dr. Babita Singh stated that victim was fully conscious.
She was well oriented. Her secondary sexual characters were very well
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35860
4 CRA-10987-2023
developed. There is no external injury marks on the body. On examination of
her private parts no injury marks, blood flow or pain was observed, Hyman
was old torn. In her cross-examination, this witness admitted that if any
forceful intercourse is performed with a girl, then she will suffer injuries on
her private parts. Victim was habitual of intercourse.
10. When all these facts are taken into consideration, then firstly
prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim. Therefore, in the light
of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana
(2010)1 SCC 742, when prosecution has failed to discharge the burden and
father of the victim himself admits that, her marriage talks were going on and
in fact there was breaking up of an engagement, coupled with his admission
that he had recorded her date of birth by estimation and the fact that
prosecution has not produced the first school entry register which is admitted
by the School Teacher (PW-6), then prosecution having failed to prove the
age of the victim, it being a case of consent as is evident from the evidence
of PW-1 Victim, conviction under Section 366 of IPC and under Section
5(l)/6 of POCSO Act cannot be sustained.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed . The impugned judgment
dated 17.08.2023 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of charges
under Section 366 of IPC and under Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.
12. If the appellant is not required in any other case, then he be
released forthwith.
13. Case property be disposed off in terms of the directions of the
learned trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35860
5 CRA-10987-2023
14. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AR
