Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay@ Junior Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39845
1 CRA-12763-2024
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 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12763 of 2024
AJAY@ JUNIOR MANJHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Jee Shukla - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This case is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 29945 of 2024 , which is first application under
Section 430 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn.
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.07.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, District Rewa in
Special Case No. 175/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-,
Section 5(L)/6(1) of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and sentenced to 20 years' R.I. with
fine of Rs.500/- and also under Section 3(2)(5) of the S.C./ S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39845
2 CRA-12763-2024
Rs.500/- along with default stipulations. Though appellant has also been
convicted under Sections 363, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5(L)/6, 7/8
of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and Sections 3(1)(b)(1), 3(2)(5A) of the S.C./ S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act but no separate sentence has been awarded for
the same.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim is a
consenting adult. In Ex. D/1, her first statement given to the police, she
stated that her parents wanted to marry her against her wish and, therefore,
she had left her home. It is submitted that mother of the victim (P.W.3) has
admitted in her statement that eldest daughter was married when she had
completed 18 years of age. Her marriage was performed about 5 years prior
to the date of deposition. She admitted that victim is 2-3 years younger to the
eldest daughter, therefore, there is an admission that victim was major at the
time of the incident. It is submitted that this statement of P.W.4 is
corroborated by P.W.2 father of the victim in asmuch as he has admitted that
his marriage was performed in the year 1997. One year thereafter, eldest girl
child was born. Therefore, it is evident that when statements of P.W.2 and
P.W.4 are read together then elder sister of the victim was born in the year
1998 and birth of the victim will be of the year 2000-01, therefore, as per the
evidence which has come on record, victim was adult at the time of the
incident.
3. It is also pointed out that this being a case of consent and DNA
report (Ex. C-1) being uninterpretable, the impugned judgment of conviction
of the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39845
3 CRA-12763-2024
4. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned
judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that DNA report (Ex. C/1) is uninterpretable. It is
mentioned that from the vaginal slide of the victim un-interpretable Y STR
DNA profile was obtained, as a result of which it could not be matched with
the blood sample of the appellant Ajay @ Junior Manjhi.
6. Ex.D/1 is the statement of the victim in which she has
categorically stated that she being enraged with the act of her parents in
seeking an alliance for her against her wish, she had left her home on her
own volition.
7. P.W.1 victim has admitted that Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3 were never
read over to her and, therefore, she cannot say as to what is mentioned in
them.
8. The victim admitted that in Ex. D/1 it is not mentioned that Ajay
@ Junior Manjhi had violated her privacy in the room of Anita Adiwasi. She
admitted that her elder sister is already married. She also admitted that in Ex.
D/1 she has mentioned that her parents wanted to marry her against her wish
and, therefore, she had left her house.
9. P.W.2 father of the victim stated that his marriage was performed
in the year 1997. The eldest child was born after one year of the marriage. He
also admitted that the date of birth of the victim was recorded on estimation.
He further stated that no birth certificate was produced in support of the date
of birth of the victim. This witness further admitted that in Ex. P/5 whatever
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39845
4 CRA-12763-2024
date of birth is mentioned, the same is mentioned by the police and not by
him.
10. P.W.3 Dr. Deepa Singh had examined the victim and found that
there were no injury marks - internal or external on the body of the victim.
No definite opinion could be given in regard to establishment of physical
relationship. There was no sign of any forceful relationship.
11. P.W.4 mother of the victim admits in paragraph 6 that victim is
2-3 years younger to her elder daughter.
12. P.W.5 Ram Prabhakar Singh, Senior Teacher / Scholar Incharge
of the Government School stated that the date of birth which is mentioned in
the scholar register as 11.07.2004 contains over-writing in the figure of '4'.
On perusal of the school admission form (Ex. P/14-C) it is evident that date
of birth of the prosecutrix has been overwritten from 11.7.2001 to
11.7.2004. There is manipulation in the year of birth. In column 5 age is
mentioned as 4 years whereas P.W.5 Ram Prabhakar Singh admitted that
admission in L.K.G. is given at the age of 6 years. He has admitted
manipulation in the admission form and it is also admitted that no birth
certificate was obtained at the time of the admission, therefore, prosecution
has failed to prove the date of birth of the victim. They have also failed to
show that the victim was minor at the time of the incident. P.W.3 Dr. Deepa
Singh has clearly stated that there was no injury - internal or external on the
body of the prosecutrix. The victim admitted that she had left her house on
her own volition being enraged with the fact that her parents wanted to marry
her against her wish.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39845
5 CRA-12763-2024
13. When all the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration then
victim being an adult at the time of the incident and had left in the company
of the appellant is not a sufficient circumstance to invoke provisions of
Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 5(L)/6, 7/8 of
P.O.C.S.O. Act and Sections 3(1)(b)(1), 3(2)(5A), 3(2)(5) of the S.C./ S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, impugned judgment dated
30.07.2024 having been passed without proper appreciation of evidence on
record, is set aside. The Appeal is allowed.
14. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if he is
not required in any other case.
15. The case property be disposed of as per the directions of the
Trial Court.
16. Record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VSG
