Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vickey Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37980
1 CRA-5392-2025
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 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5392 of 2025
VICKEY AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant prays for
withdrawal of I.A.No.5270/2025, which is first application under Section 430
(1) of Bhartiya Nagrik Saraksha Sanhita 2023 (under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.)
for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant -
Vicky Ahirwar.
Accordingly, I.A.No.5270/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up
for final hearing at motion stage.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved of
judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO, Act,
District -Sehore in Special Case No.34/2023 whereby appellant- Vicky
Ahirwar has been convicted for offence under Section 3 (a) and 4(1) of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37980
2 CRA-5392-2025
POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo 12 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-,
with default stipulation of R.I. for one month.
3. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case appellant and the
victim were friends. They celebrated their birthday together. Victim had met
appellant on 26.02.2019 in a marriage function of her Bua's 'Dever'
(Brother-in-law) where appellant had come for photography, then they
started talking on mobile phone. It is alleged that, on 27.08.2019, the victim
had attended birthday party of appellant at 'Uddi Baba' Cafe, where
allegation is that victim's privacy was violated. Which continued upto
20.12.2022 and then her marriage was fixed. Thereafter, on 14.01.2023
certain objectionable photographs were sent as a result of which her
relationship with her fiance was severed.
4. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State opposed the prayer and supported the impugned judgement
and submits that appeal should be rejected.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is submitted that full case of the prosecution is based on
inappropriate appreciation of evidence. Prosecutrix has stated that her date of
birth is 01.01.2001. Though birth certificate (Ex. P/6) is available on record,
but both the mother and father of the victim have stated her date of birth to
be 01.01.2001. Dr. Sujata Parmar (PW/2) found no injury marks on the body
of victim, both internal as well as external. School teacher has not been
examined by the prosecution. Mother of the victim (PW/7) stated her date of
birth to be 01.01.2001. They have not supported prosecution case. She on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37980
3 CRA-5392-2025
contrary admitted that proposal for marriage was given which was when
denied by the accused, then report was lodged. Similar statements have been
given by father of the victim (PW/8).
6. Thus, it is evident that at the time incident victim was adult. The
victim has turned hostile. She has denied factum of violation of her privacy.
Seizure of birth certificate has been proved. Parents of the victim were not
confronted with the birth certificate (Ex.P/6) to find out correctness of the
same. Therefore, when parents of the victim admit that victim was an adult
and consenting party at the time of the incident, conviction cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
7. Accordingly, Impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced
judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO, Act,
District -Sehore in Special Case No.34/2023 is set aside. The appellant, if not
required in any, other case, be set free.
8. The case property be disposed off as per judgment of the trial court.
9. The record of the trial court be sent back.
10. In above terms this appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
