Madhya Pradesh High Court
Teerath Ladiya @ Raj Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38250
1 CRA-9853-2024
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 13th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9853 of 2024
TEERATH LADIYA @ RAJ AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant .
Ms.Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
press I.A.No.31475/2024 and prays for final hearing of the appeal.
Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence is dismissed as
withdrawn. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, appeal is
taken up for final hearing at motion stage.
2. The appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 13.8.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Deori, District Sagar in Special Sessions Case No.16/23 whereby
appellant has been convicted under sections 363, 366A, 376(3) of IPC and
sections 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act and he has been sentenced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38250
2 CRA-9853-2024
Fine In default of fine
Conviction Act Imprisonment
amount amount
366A IPC R.I. for 03 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 03 months
POCSO
3/4(2) R.I. for 20 years Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 06 months
Act
Not separately
376(3) IPC - -
sentenced
Not separately
363 IPC IPC - -
sentenced
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix is a
consenting adult. Her school 'Pragati Patrak' for 2017-18 (Article-A/1) is
incomplete inasmuch as though it reflects that date of birth of the victim as
28.6.2008 and in 'Dakhil Kharij' register (Exhibit-P/10C) the date of birth is
mentioned as 28.6.2008 but the School Teacher (PW.4) has admitted that
neither any birth certificate was given nor the admission form contains the
signatures of any of the parents of the victim. It is also submitted that mother
of the victim (PW.2) admitted that her marriage was performed 25 years
prior to the incident. She has two sons and a daughter. All the children were
born with a gap of one year after her marriage. Thus, it is submitted that
victim being a consenting adult, which fact is corroborated by PW.3 (father
of the victim) and PW.4-Primary School Teacher and therefore, provisions
of POCSO Act will not be attracted and it is a case of acquittal.
4. Ms.Shweta Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General supports the
impugned judgment and submits that age of the victim is below 18 years and,
therefore, no indulgence is called for.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38250
3 CRA-9853-2024
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, it is stated that victim has admitted her acquaintance with the
appellant. She has also admitted that appellant had asked her to marry. She
has also admitted that no force or coercion was used nor she was beaten by
the appellant. She further admits that at Anthani where appellant had taken
her she had not narrated anything about the incident to anybody. She further
admits that she had returned from Anthani when her mother had assured her
to marry with the appellant.
6. PW.2 (mother of the victim) in her cross-examination stated that
when her marriage was performed at that time she was 18 years of age. Her
marriage was performed twenty five years back. She has two sons and a
daughter. All the three children were born at an interval of one year after her
marriage. She does not remember the date of birth of her eldest son.
7. PW.3 (father of the victim) admitted in paragraph 7 of his cross-
examination that his age is 42 years. When his marriage was performed, that
time what was his age is not known to him. He admitted that after one year or
quarter past one year of marriage, his eldest son was born. Then he states that
victim is two years younger than his elder son. Thus, PW.3 has corroborated
the statements of his wife (PW.2) that her marriage was performed 25 years
prior to the incident and after one year of marriage eldest son was born and
thereafter there is gap of one year each, amongst all the three children.
8. Mansingh Jatav (PW.4) School Teacher admitted that victim was
given admission on 09.7.2014. Her date of birth is mentioned as 28.6.2008 in
Exhibit-P/10C. However, in cross-examination he admitted that in Exhibit-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38250
4 CRA-9853-2024
P/10C word 'Kumhar' is mentioned with writing of another pen. He admits
that at the time of admission Admission Form is filled up by the parents of
the students. He admits that alongwith admission form birth certificate is
obtained but stated that there is no mention of any birth certificate in 'Dakhil
Kharij' register (Exhibit-P/10) nor this register does contain signature of
parents/guardian of the victim.
9. Dr.Deepshikha Jaiswal (PW.5), who had examined the victim,
stated that on examination of private parts of the victim there were no injury
marks. Her secondary sexual characters were fully developed. Hymen was
old torn, therefore, she could not give any opinion as to immediate
intercourse with the victim. Two slides were prepared. In cross-examination
she admitted that there were no injuries, no bruises or contusions on the body
of the victim. Her hymen was ruptured, but it could not be said that it was
ruptured recently.
10. In view of such evidence of School Teacher (PW.4), lady doctor
(PW.5) and admission of victim, her mother & father, it is revealed that
victim was adult at the time of incident which is corroborated by the father of
the victim. We are of the opinion that trial Court has committed an error in
over-looking this vital piece of evidence and recorded conviction with the
help of provisions of POCSO Act. Since the prosecution has failed to prove
that victim was a child as defined under the POCSO Act, therefore,
provisions of POCSO Act will not be attracted and since our finding is that
victim was an adult at the time of incident even the provisions of sections
363, 366A of IPC too will not be attracted. The victim admitted that she left
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38250
5 CRA-9853-2024
her 'Nani's' home on her own volition and she being adult had a right to
choose.
11. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction is set aside. Appeal
is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 363,
366A & 376(3) of IPC and section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The appeal is
allowed. The appellant be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in
any other case.
12. Let record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned
Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
