Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36713
1 CRA-3212-2025
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 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3212 of 2025
JAY YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3788 of 2025
RAMDAS URF KHILAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Archana Tiwari - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Both these appeals have been filed against the same judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur in SCATR No.
365/2023, hence these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Appellant Jay Yadav in CRA No. 3212 of 2025 has been convicted under
Section 376(D) of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-;
in default 6 months R.I. Similarly, appellant Ramdas @ Ramkhilan Yadav in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36713
2 CRA-3212-2025
CRA No. 3788 of 2025 is also convicted under Section 376(D) of IPC and
sentenced to R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default 6 months R.I.
Both the appellants have been acquitted of the charges framed under Section 506
Part II of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the S.C./ S.T.
Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. As per the prosecution story, prosecutrix (PW1) who is a married lady of 50
years of age alleged that while appellant Ramdas @ Ramkhilan Yadav committed
rape on the prosecutrix, the other appellant Jay Yadav recorded a video by his
mobile. It is submitted by learned counsels for appellants that the whole
prosecution evidence is unnatural, unbelievable, full of contradictions and
omissions and there is no ground to convict and sentence the accused persons.
Hence prayer is made for acquitting the appellants.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State
opposes the prayer made in the appeals and supports the impugned judgment.
5. Considered the argument of learned counsel for the rival parties and perused
the record. As per prosecutrix (P.W.1) on 15.09.2023 at about 8:00 pm in the
night while she was returning from a Gangajali Karyakram in the village to her
house, on the path, both the appellants/accused were standing. She knew the
appellants/accused as they were of her own village. Suddenly accused Khilan
Yadav came from behind and gagged her mouth and dragged her into the bushes.
Appellant Jay Yadav came there. She asked him to help her but he did not help.
Meanwhile, appellant Khilan Yadav committed wrong with her and Jay Yadav
started recording the scene of the wrong committed by Khilan Yadav on her by
his phone. He was also saying that he would viral the video and was also
threatening her. After that the accused went away. At that time it was raining. She
went to her house through mud and she did not inform anyone but in the morning,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36713
3 CRA-3212-2025
she told her children and when they said that report should be made then she
lodged report Ex. P/1 at police station. Police sent her for medical examination
and prepared spot map Ex. P/2. Police also recorded her statement. In cross-
examination, she denied that there was any dispute about money transaction
between her son Lakhan and Jay Yadav.
6. In Para 13, she stated that the way on which she was going after Gangajali
Karyakram, many persons were also going but she did not call anyone to help her
because she did not think that the accused who are boys of her own village would
do such a thing with her.
7. P.W.2, son of the prosecutrix has stated what his mother P.W.1 told him. He
stated that his mother told the family members about the incident in the morning.
He also said that police had carried out the D.N.A. sampling of Ramdas and Ex.
P/4 identification form bears his signature. He denied making false accusations
against the appellants.
8. P.W.3, daughter of the prosecutrix, has also submitted that her mother told her
about the incident.
9. P.W.4, lady Doctor Neha, who examined the prosecutrix medically has stated
that on her right thigh there were two small sized abrasions. There was no internal
injury therefore no definite opinion could be given about the recent intercourse.
10. PW6, A.S.I. Deepti Lilhare has stated that she had written the First
Information Report Ex. P/1 which bears her signature on portion B to B.
11. P.W.7, daughter of the prosecutrix has narrated the incident as her mother
P.W.1 prosecutrix, told her. In paragraphs 4 and paragraph 5 of her cross-
examination, she stated that when her mother came back it was raining, clothes of
her mother were wet and there was mud on them. Therefore her younger sister
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36713
4 CRA-3212-2025
gave her mother clothes to wear. She denied that due to the money dispute
appellants have been falsely implicated.
12. P.W.8, Sunil Pandey Head Constable, is a witness to seizure memo of Ex.
P/9 and Ex. P/10. Ex. P/9 is seizure memo of semen slide and Ex. P/10 is seizure
memo of blood sample of accused Ramdas.
13. P.W.9 Shrichand Head Constable, has collected the sealed vaginal slides of
the prosecutrix.
14. P.W.11, Vivek Kumar Gautam C.S.P. has stated that he had seized a mobile
from accused Jay Yadav and sent accused Ramdas for medical examination. He
stated that Ex.P/3 i.e. 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
before the learned J.M.F.C. He also collected the DNA sample of the accused
Ramdas. In cross examination this witness has denied that he has not investigated
the matter properly.
15. P.W.12, Priyanka Aggarwal, Sub-Inspector has examined the data recovered
from the Article -A mobile seized from accused Jay. As per paragraph 5 of the
deposition of this witness, the pen drive Article A/2 regarding the data collected
from the mobile was played but there was no video in it as recorded by the learned
Trial Court.
16. In this case, DNA report (Ex.P/28) is negative as it mentions that in the
vaginal slide of the prosecutrix no male (Y) DNA profile was found.
17. Looking to the entire evidence, where there is no video found in the mobile
of accused Jay Yadav, DNA report is negative regarding appellant/ accused
Ramdas, there is no internal or external injury which can be attributed to the crime
except two minor abrasions on the right thigh of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix
did not inform her family members immediately about the crime, if any, the way
where the crime is alleged to have been taken, many persons were going on that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36713
5 CRA-3212-2025
way at about 8 p.m. when the crime is alleged to have taken place, but the
prosecutrix did not shout. Therefore, on appreciation of entire evidence, this
Court finds that no gang rape under Section 376(D) by the appellants is proved as
per finding recorded by the trial court. Hence appeals of the appellants are allowed
by giving them benefit of doubt. They are acquitted of the charges under Section
376(D) of IPC.
18. Let property be disposed as per para 71 and 72 at the judgment of the trial
court.
19. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VSG
