Madhya Pradesh High Court
X vs State Of Mp on 12 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37863
1 CRA-10304-2024
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. 10304 of 2024
X
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishnu Kumar Patel - Advocate for the appellant .
Ms.Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
press I.A.No.23570/2024 and prays for final hearing of the appeal.
Accordingly, I.A.No.23570/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally.
2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated
13.7.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Additional
Sessions Judge, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur (MP) in SC/16/2023
whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37863
2 CRA-10304-2024
Conviction Sentence Fine In Default
Not separately
376AB IPC - -
sentenced
376(2)(f) Not separately
IPC sentenced
Life Imprisonment In default of fine amount to
5(N) r/w 6 of
(for rest of natural Rs.1,000/- undergo additional R.I.of
POCSO Act
life) 01 month
Life Imprisonment In default of fine amount to
5(M) r/w 6 of
(for rest of natural Rs.1000/- undergo additional R.I. of
POCSO Act
life) 01 month
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant
is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. Reading
from the evidence on record it is submitted that DNA report (Exhibit-P/27)
provides that from the source of the victim a very low and uninterpetable (Y-
STR) DNA profile was recovered, which can not be matched with sample of
appellant/accused. It is pointed out that Lady Doctor-Dr.(Smt.) Tejasvi
Arjaria (PW.9) has clearly stated that there were no injury marks or signs of
struggle on the body of victim. Hymen was intact. There was no blood loss.
No definite opinion can be given in regard to violation of privacy of the
victim. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses. The conviction of appellant is based on surmises and
conjectures without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record. Hence, prayer is made to set aside the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the trial Court.
4. Ms.Shweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General, in his turn,
supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37863
3 CRA-10304-2024
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, it is found that PW.2-victim stated that accused is known to her.
She calls him 'Mama'. Incident is of night. She was playing outside her home
when accused came and asked her to show lights, then he took her on his
laps towards hillock where he violated her privacy and bitten on her cheek
and chest. She also stated that at the time of incident she was in her grand-
mother's ('Nani') house. She admitted that she is residing in her 'Nani's house
for last one year. She also admitted that at the time of incident it was raining.
6. PW.5 (grand-mother of the victim) has admitted that though
incident took place on 07.9.2023 but report was lodged on 09.9.2023.
7. PW.1-mother of the victim admitted in paragraph 5 that accused
had asked her 'Devar' to counsel her as visitors are coming to her house and
she was giving an opportunity to the strangers to talk about her. She admitted
in paragraph 6 of her cross-examination that on this account there was an
altercation with 'Devar', in which, he was beaten by the complainant party.
She admitted that prior to the incident there was slight drizzle. She admitted
that after one hour, victim was recovered. She admitted that at the time of
lodging of F.I.R. she had recorded that when accused met in morning, then
he ran towards his house.
8. Lady Doctor-Dr.(Smt.) Tejasvi Arjaria (PW.9) stated that victim
had informed her that her grand-father on 07.9.2023 had taken her into a
room and taken off her clothes and thereafter had bitten her cheek & nipple
and touched her private part. It is also categorically stated by the doctor that
there were no injury marks on the body of victim or there were no marks of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37863
4 CRA-10304-2024
struggle. Hymen was intact. There was no blood loss. No definite opinion
could be given in regard to violation of privacy of victim.
9. Thus, it is evident that victim has shown the place of incident to
be a hillock. There is no recovery of soil soaked clothes of the victim, though
it is admitted by PW.1, PW.2 & PW.3 that it had rained just prior to the
incident. Another contradiction is that father of the victim (PW.4) admitted
in paragraph 8 that victim was recovered at 12 midnight. He further states
that accused had met him in the morning. He admits that they had not
enquired anybody in neighhbourhood to ascertain whereabouts of the victim.
He has stated in paragraph 9 and tried to explain the delay in lodging FIR by
saying that victim was not keeping good health and, therefore, she was taken
to doctor for treatment and he had spent about Rs.50,000/- on her treatment,
but later on in paragraph 9 itself, he admits that victim was not taken to any
doctor during night hours. Then he states that victim was taken to the doctor
next day but no prescription of doctor was given to the Police personnel. In
paragraph 10 he further admits that accused is 'Chachiya Sasur' of mother of
the victim.
10. When these evidence are taken into consideration alongwith the
evidence of Dr.Tejasvi Arjaria (PW.9), then firstly place of incident is not
corroborated; secondly lady doctor has categorically stated that neither there
was internal or external injury marks on the body of victim, nor there was
any sign of struggle. Hymen was intact. There was no blood loss. Her
medical report is Exhibit-P/16. In cross-examination she categorically stated
that there were no injury marks on the private part of the victim. The case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37863
5 CRA-10304-2024
the prosecution has not been corroborated. DNA profile is very low and
uninterpetable. There is suggestion to the mother of victim, which has been
tacitly admitted that she was having enmity with the present appellant as he
was informing to her 'Devar' to counsel her not to allow different persons in
her house.
11. We are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant recorded
by the trial Court is on the basis of surmises and conjectures without there
being any material or evidence or its corroboration.
12. We are conscious that enmity is a double edged weapon and it
can be used either way. But aspect of violation of privacy is not medically
corroborated and father of the victim stated that he had taken the victim for
treatment and spent Rs.50,000/- on her treatment but failed to prove such
treatment through documentary evidence, the conviction of the appellant
only to satisfy the case of the prosecution is not made out. Impugned
judgment of conviction is set aside.
13. Appeal is allowed. The appellant be released forthwith, if his
custody is not required in any other case.
14. Let a copy of judgment alongwith original record of the trial
Court be sent to the concerned court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE
JUDGE
RM
