Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
1 CRA-10141-2023
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 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10141 of 2023
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant .
Shri Nitin Kumar Gupta - Public Prosecutor on behalf of
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw
I.A.No.17628/2025 and prays for final hearing of this appeal. Accordingly,
I.A.No.17628/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties the appeal is finally heard.
2. This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated
08.5.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) & 18th
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case No.65/2020 whereby
the learned trial Court has convicted present appellant-Manoj Kumar Yadav
s/o Deenanath Yadav under section 376(1) of IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, sentenced to undergo Life
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
2 CRA-10141-2023
Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 6 months
R.I. He has also been convicted under section 506 Part-II of IPC r/w 3(2)
(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with 01 year R.I. and
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of 01 month R.I.. The appellant is
also convicted u/s 450 of IPC with 05 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulation of 01 month R.I.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has
failed to prove the age of the victim to be minor at the time of incident and,
therefore, her relation with consent between two adults does not fall under
the definition of house tress-passing or rape. It is pointed out that neither
Lady Doctor, who had carried out MLC on the victim, has been examined,
nor the School Teacher is examined who had issued the mark-sheet (Exhibit-
P/9). It is pointed out that even the MLC doctor who carried out the MLC
(Exhibit-P/3) has not been examined and in the MLC report (Ex.P/3) it is
mentioned that there was no evidence of any external injury or signs of any
injury over the body at the time of examination. There is no evidence of signs
of struggle or any external injury over the private part of victim. Slides were
prepared. No definite opinion could be given in regard to violation of
privacy of the victim. There is suggestion of X-ray also mentioned in the
Exhibit-P/3 for determination of her age. Thus, it is submitted that it a case of
no evidence where indifference of the learned trial Court has resulted in
unwarranted conviction.
4. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State supports the impugned judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
3 CRA-10141-2023
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, it is stated that DNA report (Exhibit-P/24) is positive and in the
DNA report it is mentioned that from vaginal slide of victim resulted in Y-
chromosome STR DNA profile, which matches with the blood sample of
appellant/Manoj Kumar Yadav. We have carefully perused the record. There
is no birth certificate of the victim on record. Exhibit-P/1 is the spot map.
Exhibit-P/2 is the consent letter of mother of the victim. Exhibit-P/3 is the
MLC report. Exhibit-P/4 is document of the Hospital, namely, Abhinandan
Hospital & Research Centre, Jabalpur, in which, it is mentioned that
Smt.Sheela Dahia had given birth to a female child on 29.3.2004 at 6.15 pm,
but name of father of the child is not mentioned in this report. Then, Exhibit-
P/5 is the report written in writing of the victim. Exhibit-P/6 is the F.I.R.
Exhibit-P/7 is the property seizure memo. Exhibit-P/8 is the Caste certificate
of victim. Exhibit-P/9 is the Class-IVth mark-sheet. Exhibit-P/10 is the
statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Then record in regard to collection of
blood sample is available, but no birth certificate is available on record.
6. Mother of the victim (PW.1) has admitted in her statement that
date of birth of the victim is 29.3.2004. She belongs to Dahiya community
which comes under scheduled caste. Incident is of 26.4.2020. Her husband
had gone to dump husk in the diary of Bablu Dharampal. In cross-
examination this witness has admitted that her age is 46 years and that of her
husband is 50 years. When her marriage was performed at that time her age
was 18 years, i.e. her marriage was performed 28 years prior to the incident.
She stated that after 10 years of her marriage, victim was born. She has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
4 CRA-10141-2023
admitted that she has a Keypad mobile, which she is using for last 04 years.
She has admitted that her daughter was already engaged. This witness
admitted that her house is situated in a 'Bada' where other several persons
are residing. She also admitted that she had appointed her own counsel who
was present in the Court. She admitted that she was counselled by her
counsel as to what is to be deposed in the Court but on the last date of
hearing, number could not reach. She also admitted that at the instance and
advice of her counsel she had filed objection to the bail application of the
appellant.
7. Victim (PW.2) has admitted that her mother had lodged a report
against Chanda Bai and her daughter-Neelam. This report was in regard to
her own abduction. She admitted that her mother had engaged one counsel
Shri Abhishek Soni. She admitted that she has read the complete charge-
sheet. She also admitted that her birth certificate is made. She further
admitted that she had gone to the house of her 'Bua' and she had left her
house out of annoyance. She admitted in her cross-examination that
appellant-Manoj is known to her since year 2017-18. She also admitted that
she has mark-sheets of Classes-10th, 8th & 5th Boards, but she has not
produced, as she had lost them. Her mother is an illiterate, therefore, she
does not know the special date, month or year. She admitted that earlier from
2017 to 2020 they had lodged reports against Manoj, Rohit, Chanda and
Neelam. In paragraph 12, this witness as admitted that the dairy of Bablu
Dharampal, where her parents are working, is at a distance of 300 metres
from her house and she had never approached dairy of Bablu Dharampal to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
5 CRA-10141-2023
narrate the incident to her parents. She also admitted that she has not narrated
anything about the incident to her neighbourers. She has also admitted that
there are no signs of opposition on her body to support that she tried to
prevent the appellant from violating her privacy. She admitted that Exhibit-
P/5 was prepared at the Police Station, in front of the Police personnel. She
had also lodged report FIR (Exhibit-P/6) at the Police Station and not at her
home. She admits that there are corrections and insertions in the report
(Exhibit-P/5).
8. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration, then it being
not mentioned in Exhibit-P/4 as to what is the name of father of victim, it is
also not made known that there were no other births in the family of PW.1
(mother of the victim) prior to discharge card (Exhibit-P/4), and there being
no corresponding birth certificate prepared from the office of the competent
authority, and in view of evidence of mother of the victim that her marriage
was performed 28 years prior to the date of incident and prosecutrix was
born 10 years thereafter, and then non-examination of Lady Doctor who did
not find even symptom of struggle or find any external or internal injury on
parts of the body of victim, coupled with the fact that prosecution did not
examine Lady Doctor & School Teacher, merely on the basis of surmises
and conjectures appellant's conviction cannot be upheld. It is liable to be set
aside and is hereby set aside, especially when victim has admitted that she
had mark-sheets of Class 10th, 8th & 5th Boards, but the prosecution has not
seized and produced them, as also the prosecution having failed to prove the
victim to be minor and the prosecution has not subjected the victim to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38904
6 CRA-10141-2023
ossification test, as advised by the MLC doctor who had prepared MLC
report (Exhibit-P/3), and in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in
Sunil Vs. State of Haryana , (2010) 1 SCC 742, we are of the opinion that
when prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim, then benefit of
doubt accrues in favour of the accused/appellant.
9. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction is set aside.
Appeal is allowed. The appellant be released forthwith, if his custody is not
required in any other case.
10. Let record of the trial Court be sent to the concerned Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
