Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Sanodiya 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:37757
1 CRA-9922-2024
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. 9922 of 2024
RAHUL SANODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of
I.A.No.30287 of 2024, first application under Section 430 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Surakha Sanhita 2023 for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.30287 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard
finally.
The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 7.8.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012), Seoni, District Seoni, (M.P.) in S.C./04/2023, whereby learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37757
2 CRA-9922-2024
court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-
Conviction S e n t e n ce
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
fine deposited in lieu of Fine
details
366 IPC R.I. for Five Rs.1000/- S.I. for 2
years months.
5(L)r/w Protection R.I. for Rs.2000/- S.I. for 3
Section 6 of Children Twenty years months
from Sexual
Offence
Act,2012
2. Shri Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. It is a case of consent and
infact infatuation between two youths has resulted into a case having criminal
connotation.
3. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent. Merely on the basis of
oral testimony conviction cannot be upheld. F.S.L. report (Ex.P-17) is
negative quo the victim. It is submitted that the age of the victim is doubtful
as stated by her father (PW-3) and thus in view of testimony of PW-3,
documentary evidence (Ex.P-8-C), which is a High School mark-sheet
deserves to be and should be discarded.
4. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that as per the mark-sheet (Ex.P-8-C) date of birth of the victim is
mentioned as 15.9.2006. Incident took place in 2022, therefore, she was
sixteen years of age at the time of incident. Thus, no indulgence is called for.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37757
3 CRA-9922-2024
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
statements of father of the victim (PW-3), it is admitted by PW-3 in his
cross-examination that his age is about 45-47 years. His marriage was
performed 25 years prior to date of deposition and victim was born five years
after the date of marriage which reveals that age of the victim to be twenty
years at the time of the incident. It is further evident from Para-11 of the
cross -examination of PW-3 that he admitted that appellant is known to him
since his childhood. His house is infront of house of his brother-in-law. He
admitted that the victim used to visit the house of the appellant from her
childhood. He further admitted that he attended the school to record name
and date of birth of the victim. He admits that date of birth of the victim was
not recorded in the Kotwar Panji. Thereafter, he stated that it was mentioned
in a slip given by the hospital, but admitted that such slip is not produced by
him.
6. It is further admitted that a form was filled at the time of admission
but that was not filled in his writing as he is illiterate. He further admits that
he is not knowing as to what was mentioned in the form and school teacher
had filled the date of birth on his own which is not known to him.
7. In para-13 of his cross-examination, he corroborates his earlier
statement saying that his age is between 47 to 48 years, his marriage was
performed when he was 20-22 years. He admitted that he did not produce
horoscope of the victim, Thus, it is evident that as per admission of PW-3,
father of the victim, he had not recorded date of birth of the victim in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37757
4 CRA-9922-2024
school. It was filled by the school master. As per the testimony of PW-3, his
marriage was performed 25 years prior to the incident and five years
thereafter his eldest child, i.e. the victim was born.
8. PW-4, aunt of the victim too has stated in para-8 of her cross-
examination that age of father of the victim is 48 years and victim is his
eldest child.
9. Dr. Rajneeta Baghel (PW-6) had examined the victim on
28.12.2022. She stated that she had not seen any mark-sheet etc. to find out
the date of birth of the victim. She admitted that she had handed over vaginal
slide, pubic hair and blue colour underwear to the Constable on 28.12.2022.
She admitted that there were no external or internal injury marks found on
the body of the victim. Thus, when evidence of PW-6, lady doctor is taken
into consideration alongwith evidence of PW-3, father of the victim and the
statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., then in her
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has categorically stated
that she had gone with appellant - Rahul on her own volition to perform
marriage. Physical relationship was established with her consent. She further
stated that Rahul finished his savings then on the advice of his friend, they
had returned back to Seoni as Police was harassing his friends. She admitted
that she had gone to Nagpur alongwith the appellant on her own volition.
10. Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in the case of
Lallusingh, S/o Jagdishsingh Samgar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1996
M.P.L.J., 452 held in para-6 that despite the absence of formal proof of
document of dying declaration, the same can be made use of by the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37757
5 CRA-9922-2024
In para-6, it is noted that "we deprecate method of prosecution of
withholding the evidence collected during investigation. The prosecutor is a
'State' and, therefore, the prosecution should be fair enough to produce all the
evidence collected during investigation and it should be left to the Court to
come to its own conclusion on the facts proved before him or the Court
concerned.
But, despite the absence of formal proof of document of dying
declaration, the same can be made use of by the accused in his defence
accused can take the advantage of the document even without proof of the
same. Similarly, the medical certificate showing the injuries on the body of
the accused can also be made use of by the accused despite absence of
formal proof."
11. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this High
Court in Lallusingh (supra), we are of the opinion that when unexhibited
statements of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are taken into
consideration, then subject to verification of age its a case of consent.
12. As far as consent is concerned, we are constrained to discard 10th
class mark-sheet (Ex.P-8-C) as a proof of date of birth of the victim in view
of evidence of her father (PW-3). No school teacher has been examined in
the matter. Therefore, when PW-3 father of the victim categorically states
that he had not recorded date of birth as he is illiterate, then he has given
chronology of the events starting from his marriage to birth of the victim
pointing out that victim was an adult at the time of incident, we have no
hesitation to set aside the judgment of the trial court having failed to take
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37757
6 CRA-9922-2024
into consideration evidence of PW-3, father of the victim in the right earnest,
who has not supported the 10th class mark-sheet (Ex.P-8-C) and also in
view of statements of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which clearly
reflects consent, as is clear from her cross-examination where she admits that
she was talking to the appellant on a phone given by appellant to her through
her friend.
13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 7.8.2024
passed by learned Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012), Seoni, District Seoni in S.C./04/2023 is set aside. The
appeal is allowed. The case property be disposed off in terms of the order of
learned trial court.
14. Record of the trial court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
