Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36416
1 CRA-2984-2025
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 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2984 of 2025
AJAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated
04.3.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Seoni in
SC/41/2024 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
In default of payment
Conviction Sentence Fine amount of
fine amount
450 IPC R.I. for 05 years Rs.1,000/- S.I. for 02 months
376(3) IPC R.I. for 20 years Rs.2,000/- S.I. for 03 months
3/4 (2) of R.I. for 20 S.I. for 03 months
Rs.2,000/-
POCSO Act years
not separately not separately not separately
376(1) IPC
sentenced sentenced sentenced
2. Reading from the evidence of PW.1-victim it is pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant that victim has stated in her examination-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36416
2 CRA-2984-2025
chief that appellant/Ajay Dhurve is not known to her. Thus, it is submitted
that when DNA report itself is uninterpretable and the victim herself has
stated that appellant-Ajay is not known to her then there is no point in
maintaining the conviction of appellant. It is also submitted that it is a good
case for acquittal and on account of old rivalry appellant has been convicted.
3. Shri Ajay Sukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in his turn,
submits that victim has supported the case of the prosecution. In her
statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. also she has stated that she was
inappropriately touched on private parts by the appellant. Thus, negativity of
DNA report alone is not sufficient to record any acquittal.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is found that age of the victim is not doubtful. She has given her
date of birth as 04.12.2009. That means at the time of incident, which took
place on 29.5.2024, she was about 14 years of her age. She has though stated
that appellant is not known to her but does not mean that she was not in a
position to identify the appellant. She has admitted that appellant resides in
front of her house. That means, when these two statements are taken into
consideration there was no informal acquaintance with the appellant, but
being neighbourer she was in a position to identify the appellant. Thus, first
set of arguments as putforth by Shri Sunil Mishra, learned counsel, is not
made out. When statements of victim as given under section 161 Cr.P.C. are
seen in the light of Court statement then corroboration which is available is
that she was inappropriately touched on the private parts and there is no
penetrative sexual assault of victim as can be seen from the evidence lady
doctor (PW.6-Dr.Shilpa Sahlam).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36416
3 CRA-2984-2025
5. In view of such facts, the case of the appellant would fall not under
section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act but under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and
accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is modified from one under
Sections 376(1) & 376(3) of IPC and 3/4(2) of POCSO Act to one under
section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and the appellant is directed to undergo
sentence of 05 years R.I. with fine amount of Rs.5,000/- with default
stipulation of 06 months R.I. However, conviction of appellant by the trial
Court under section 450 IPC is maintained. It is made clear that all the
sentences would run concurrently.
6. In above terms, appeal is allowed in part. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith original record be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
