Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
1 CRA-9497-2024
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 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9497 of 2024
DEEPAK YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the respondent/State
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard
finally.
This appeal is filed by appellant Deepak Yadav being aggrieved of
judgment dated 08.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pavai, District Panna, in Special Case No.39/2022 (State of M.P. through
Police Station, Raipura Vs. Deepak Yadav and others), whereby learned trial
Court has acquitted accused (Rakesh Yadav) of the charges under Section
366A IPC and Section 16 r/w Section 17 of POCSO Act but convicted the
present appellant/accused Deepak Yadav for offence under Sections 363,
366A, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 5(L) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced him as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
2 CRA-9497-2024
Appellant Deepak Yadav
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
366A I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years Rs.200/- R.I for 3 months
5 (L) r/w
POCSO R.I. for 20 years Rs.2000/- R.I for 6 months
Sec. 6
Appellant Deepak Yadav has been acquitted of charge under Section
506-II of IPC.
2 . The prosecution story, in brief is that on 24.05.2022 at about 8 P.M.
from village Jamundad, under Police Station- Raipura, District Panna,
appellant (Deepak Yadav) abducted the minor prosecutrix (PW/2) from the
custody of her father (PW/3) for forcing her enter into illicit intercourse and
committed rape upon the prosecutrix more than once.
3 . As per prosecution, father of the prosecutrix (PW/3) on 25.05.2022
lodged a missing report (Ex.P/11) of the prosecutrix. Police registered an
FIR bearing Crime No. 138/2022 (Ex.P12), in which, PW/3 named appellant
as suspect in the crime.
4 . Prosecutrix was recovered on 31.07.2022 and Dastyabi Panchnama
(Ex.P/4) was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Prosecutrix
was medically examined. Her admission School Register (Ex.P/1) was seized
and Medical report of prosecutrix is (Ex.P/17). Seized materials were sent for
medical examination and FSL report (Ex.P/28) was received. After
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
3 CRA-9497-2024
completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellant
(Deepak Yadav) and one other co-accused. When appellant was charged by
the trial Court as per Para 1 of this judgment he pleaded that he is innocent
and sought trial.
5 . Prosecution recorded statements of Bihari Lal Sahu Assistant
Teacher (PW/1), Prosecutrix (PW/2), father of the prosecutrix (PW/3),
Mother of the prosecutirx (PW/4), Suresh Prashad Yadav (PW/5), Uncle of
the Prosecutrix (PW/6), Chandni Jain Constable (PW/7), Nathuram Sharma
Dastyabi Panchnama witness (PW/8), Dr. Anusha Khare (PW/9), Jaipal
Singh Yadav Patwari (PW/10), Prakash Yadav Seizure witness (PW/11), Dr.
Mojilal Choudhary Medical Officer (PW/12), Rachna Patel Investigation
Officer/ASI (PW/13), Dhruv Singh Parmar Constable (PW/14), D.P.
Kushwaha S.I. (PW/15), Ramphal Sharma S.I. (PW/16), Babu Singh Head
Constable (PW/17), Srikrishna Mavai S.I. (PW/18).
6. After recording statement of prosecution witnesses, when
accused/appellant (Deepak Yadav) was examined under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. he stated that he is innocent. He also stated that there is a land
dispute with the father of prosecutrix, therefore, he has been falsely
implicated. No defence evidence has been given.
7. This appeal has been filed on the ground that appellant is innocent.
He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The evidence against appellant
(Deepak Yadav) is full of omissions and contradictions. As per scholar
register, date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 07.07.2007 but on
what basis this information is supplied, is not proved. Father of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
4 CRA-9497-2024
prosecutrix has also stated that he does not know the basis, on which, age is
mentioned in School. Therefore, it is not proved that on the date of
offence/incident prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age. Medical report
does not support forceful sexual intercourse. FSL report (Ex.P/28) is also not
in favour of prosecution, hence, it is prayed that appellant Deepak Yadav
should be acquitted of the charges.
8 . On the other hand Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Government
Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and supported the
impugned judgement and submits that judgment of the trial Court is well
justified and appeal should be rejected.
9 . After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
10. Bihari Lal Sahu, Assistant Teacher (PW/1) stated that admission
register of the prosecutrix is Ex.P/1 and her date of birth is recorded as
07.07.2007. In Para 3 of his cross-examination, he stated that he did not
bring the admission Register related to her first admission. He stated that the
Scholar Register which he had brought, is from class 6th to 8th. He does not
know as to on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded.
11. Father of the prosecutrix (PW/3) stated that his daughter is of 15
years and she was missing, therefore, missing person report (Ex.P/11) was
lodged and later the FIR (Ex.P/12) was lodged. When the daughter was
recovered her 'Superdagi Panchnama' (Ex.P5) was prepared. He stated that
first time her daughter refused medical examination and she said that nothing
wrong with her was committed. Her daughter did not speak the correct thing
in court for the first time. After two or three days she narrated the correct
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
5 CRA-9497-2024
incident then she was medically examined and her statements were recorded
in the court. In cross-examination, he denied that there is enmity related to
immovable property with the accused/appellant (Deepak Yadav). In Para 8
he stated that date of birth of the prosecutrix is either 07.07.2005 or 2006. He
neither has the birth certificate nor he gave the same to the police station. He
does not remember on what basis he recorded the date of her daughter in
School.
12. Mother of the prosecutrix (PW/4) has given statement on the same
lines as given by her husband (PW/3).
13. As per FSL report (Ex.P/28) there are no sperm on the vaginal
slide of the prosecutrix (Article A & C) and Pubic hair (Article B).
Therefore, this report is not in favour of the prosecution. As per lady Doctor
Anusha Khare (PW/9), it is stated that she examined the prosecutrix on
11.08.2022, her secondary sexual characters were developed. There were no
external injuries. Her hymen was old torn. There were no injuries on her
private parts. Therefore, on the basis of statement of lady Doctor Anusha
Khare (PW/9) evidence of prosecution relating to immediate forceful sexual
intercourse is lacking. Prosecutrix (PW/2) stated that appellant (Deepak
Yadav) met her and said that he will marry her, then enticed her and took her
near a tree where he did wrong with her and thereafter, his friend Rakesh
(Since acquitted) dropped them at Damoh Railway Station.
Accused/appellant Deepak took her to Bhopal and kept her in a room. There
was a company nearby his room where he was working. He committed
wrong with the prosecutrix multiple times. Then appellant Deepak Yadav
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
6 CRA-9497-2024
came to know that father of the prosecutrix (PW/3) has lodged a report then
he took the prosecutrix back to Raipura and left her at Katni 'Tigadda' and
told her not to inform anyone that he committed wrong with her, otherwise
he will do more wrong. Then prosecutrix came to the Police Station-
Raipura. Police called her father and mother. Her statement was recorded.
Thereafter police took prosecutrix to Panna for her medical examination but
she stated that no wrong has been committed with her. Therefore, she was
not medically examined. Thereafter, Police took prosecutrix to Panna Court,
where her statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there also
prosecutrix stated that no wrong has been committed with her. After coming
back to home with father and mother, prosecutrix informed them about the
incident and then prosecutrix again went to the Police Station and her
statements were recorded again, she was medically examined for the second
time and her statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. for the
second time. Statements recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. are Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/10. In Para 6 of cross-examination the
prosecutrix stated that she knows that in court one should state the truth but
she gave wrong statement before the Magistrate Court Panna, where the
prosecutrix stated that her uncle (PW/6) was angry with her because she was
watching mobile, therefore, she went away to Damoh and then to Bhopal. In
Para 8, she stated that she lived in Bhopal in a house and nearby there were
many other houses and rooms, but she did not inform anyone. She stated that
Deepak used to go for his duty at about 10 am and returned at about 10 pm
in the night. She used to cook food for appellant (Deepak Yadav) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
7 CRA-9497-2024
herself. When she went to Bhopal by train there were many people in the
train compartment but she did not inform anyone about the incident. In Para
10, prosecutrix stated that on 01.08.2022 she refused medical examination,
even when appellant (Deepak Yadav) was not there. In Para 11, she stated
that she was in fear of appellant (Deepak Yadav) therefore, she did not
inform about the incident even after she was recovered [Supurdagi-
Panchnama (Ex.P/5)]. She denied that she was speaking against appellant
(Deepak Yadav) due to the enmity.
14. Looking to the evidence of the lady Dr. Anusha Khare (PW/9)
medical report (Ex.P/17), FSL Report (Ex.P/28), statements of the
Prosecutrix (PW/2) and her statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
(Ex.P/9) on 01.08.2022, and Statements of Father of prosecutrix (PW/3) and
Assistant Teacher (PW/1), it is highly doubtful as to whether at the time of
incident prosecutrix was minor being less than 18 years of age, therefore, if
any intimacy developed involving physical relationship between the
prosecutrix and appellant Deepak, then it was a consensual relationship.
15. Prosecution has failed to prove the cogent evidence that on the date
of incident prosecutrix was less than 18 year. Prosecutrix did not tell actual
incident before the Court. As per her first statements recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/9) before JMFC, Panna on 01.08.2022 she did not
speak a word, of any offence committed by the appellant. Her second
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/10) on 13.08.2022
reflects that for the first time she stated about the incident, therefore, it
becomes highly doubtful as to whether statements under Section 164 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38443
8 CRA-9497-2024
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/9) is correct or subsequent statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/10) is correct. There is no DNA report. FSL report is negative,
therefore, it is a fit case, and where judgement of the trial Court cannot be
maintained firstly as it is not proved that on the date of offence, prosecutrix
was under 18 years, and secondly, whether any offence was committed upon
her by the appellant. Therefore, finding of the trial Court is found to be based
on wrong appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of
IPC and Section 5 (L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
16. Disposal of the case property would be as per Paras 67 and 68 of
the judgment of the trial Court. In the fact and circumstance of the case order
of compensation as per Para 69 of the judgment of the trial Court is not
interfered.
17. If appellant is not required in any other case, he be released from
jail immediately. Let original record of the trial Court be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
