Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36220
1 CRA-5098-2023
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 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5098 of 2023
RAJESH SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent - State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press
I.A.No.13320/2024, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.13320/2024 is dismissed as not pressed.
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant-
Rajesh Soni being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.04.2022, passed by
the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Waraseoni, District Balaghat
(M.P.), whereby, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections
363 of IPC, for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and fine
of Rs.100/-, Section 376(a)(b) of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20
years and fine of Rs.100/-, Section 6(1) of POCSO Act, he is sentenced to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36220
2 CRA-5098-2023
undergo R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.200/- and Section 4(2) of POCSO
Act, with default stipulations, respectively.
2. It is submitted that provisions of POCSO Act will not be attracted. It
is a case of false accusation. Report of PW/7, lady doctor Smt. Rashmi
Waghmare, clearly reveals that there were no injury marks on the private
parts of the victim belying the statements of victim and other prosecution
witnesses, at best, even if it is accepted that private parts of the victim were
touched by the appellant, then it will at best is a case of non-penetrative
sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, for which
maximum punishment is 05 years.
3. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the State opposes of
the prayer of the appellant and submits that victim has categorically stated
that the incident as it took place with her, therefore, no indulgence is called
for.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, as far as age of the victim is concerned, that is not in dispute. She
was about ten years at the time of the incident. There is ossification test
report available on record to prove the age of the victim.
5. PW/1, is the mother of the victim. She stated that victim's privacy
was sought to be violated by the appellant. She stated that she is residing
with her elder sister and victim is a student of 5th Class. Incident took place
on 22.5.22 at about 10.30 a.m. PW/1 mother of the victim admits that she
had not seen the incident taking place. She further admits that victim had not
informed about the incident to anybody on the road side. She further admits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36220
3 CRA-5098-2023
that she had never visited the place of the incident and further admitted that
she was accompanied by police personnel from Lalbarra and are giving
statements. She admits in para 9 that before recording of her statements in
the Court she had visited police station Lalbarra, where Daroga had informed
her to give statements as were recorded by the police personnel.
6. PW/2, victim stated that when appellant was tried to violate her
privacy after taking out her uniform and his own clothing, then she had
scratched on his back, but this statement of the victim is not corroborated
with the evidence of PW/14 Dr. Balmik Chaturvedi, who categorically stated
that he had not found any injury on the back of the appellant.
7. PW/7, Dr. Rashmi Waghmare, stated that she had not found any
injuries on the private parts of the victim. Her hymen was intact. There was
no discharge of any vaginal or other fluid including blood.
8. When these facts and evidence available on record are taken into
consideration, then at best it is a case of non-penetrative sexual assault as
defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
9. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment dated
30.4.2022 is modified to the extent that appellant's conviction under Section
363 of IPC is hereby maintained. His conviction under Section under
Section 376 (a) (b) of IPC and Section 6(1) of POCSO Act is, hereby, set
aside. Now, appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7/8
POCSO Act for which he will serve the sentence of 05 years R.I. and will
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default he will further
serve the sentence of 03 months R.I.. All sentences to run concurrently.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36220
4 CRA-5098-2023
10. Case property be disposed off in terms of the orders of learned trial
Court.
11. Record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
