Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devvrat Vaidya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
1 CRA-11408-2024
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 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11408 of 2024
DEVVRAT VAIDYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Mohammad Siddeeque- Advocate for the objector.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that this case can
be heard finally and, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant, prays for
withdrawal of I.A. No.27026/2024.
Accordingly, I.A. No.27026/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up
for final hearing at motion stage.
This appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 02/09/2024, passed in Special Case No.17/2022, by learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act and also SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, Betul, District- Betul, whereby, appellant - Devvrat Vaidya has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
2 CRA-11408-2024
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
376 (3), 376
I.P.C. R.I. for 20 S.I. for 1
(2)(n) and 5(l) Rs.5,000/-
and POCSO Act years years.
and (jii)/6
2. It is submitted that it's a pure and simple case of consent between
two adults. Age of the victim is doubtful. Though, Victim (PW/1) admitted
that she was studying in Class 12th, but her 10th class marksheet was not
deliberately seized. Mother (PW/2) and Father (PW/5) of the victim admitted
that at the time of the incident, victim was adult, therefore, in view of the
admission of the victim that whatever happened between her and the
appellant, was with her consent, and that there being evidence on record that
victim was adult at the time of the incident. Therefore, conviction under
Sections 376 (3), 376 (2)(n) of IPC and 5(l) and (jii)/6 POCSO Act cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
3. Shri Arvind Singh, learned Government Advocate supports the
impugned judgment and opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. Shri Mohammad Siddeeque, Advocate for the objector supports the
case of the appellant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, brief facts of the case are that in September, 2021, appellant Devvrat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
3 CRA-11408-2024
Vaidya called the prosecutrix towards the school. Prosecutrix had gone to
Government Middle School, Badalpur to meet Devrat. Allegation is that
appellant Devvrat Vaidya violated her privacy. However, in her Examination
in chief, which was conducted on 25.05.2022, she stated her age to be 19
years. She stated that they are two brothers and sisters. Brother is elder to her
by two years. She stated that incident took place about nine months back
when she was a student of Class 11th. She stated that whatever happened
between her and appellant Devvrat Vaidya, was with her consent. A
suggestion was given to her after declaring her to be hostile that since she
wanted to marry the appellant Devvrat Vaidya, she is giving incorrect
statements before the Court and giving her age to be incorrect, but that has
been denied. In cross examination, she admitted her age to be 19 years. She
admitted that she does not possess any birth certificate and further stated that
there is no birth certificate either at her home or in the family. She admitted
that she had not informed anybody about her pregnancy.
6. Mother of the victim (PW/2), stated that at the time of the incident,
victim must have been 18 to 19 years of age. In cross examination, she stated
that her marriage took place 22 - 23 years back. She has two children, the
elder one is son and younger one is the victim. Elder son was born after 1- 1
1/2 years of her marriage and thereafter, victim was born 1- 1 1/2 years of
the birth of her son. She stated that she cannot see as to who had recorded
date of birth of the victim in the school. She admitted that victim never
informed her about her violation of privacy in the hands of appellant Devvrat
Vaidya.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
4 CRA-11408-2024
7 . Fathers of the victim (PW/5), too stated that she was adult at the
time of the incident.
8 . Smt. Anita Bhumarkar (PW/4), Government Teacher stated that date
of birth of the victim as per the school records is 01.05.2006. She took
admission in 1st class on 15.06.2011. In cross examination, she admitted that
birth certificate (Ex.P/13), has been issued on the basis of the school records.
She admitted that in birth certificate (Ex.P/13), in the column of date of
admission, date of birth has been wrongly mentioned. She admitted that birth
certificate (Ex.P/13), does not make a mention of the date on which victim
was admitted in the school. She admitted that she had not given admission to
the victim. She further stated that at the time of admission no birth certificate
was obtained nor it is mentioned in any of the records. She also stated that
father of the victim is not known to her.
9. Lady doctor namely Dr. Kavitha Kori (PW/3) stated that she had
examined the victim on 05.04.2022. Victim had informed her that they had
established physical relationship seven months prior to the incident. Her
condition was good, she was appearing to be anemic. There were no external
injury marks on the body, she was carrying pregnancy of 8 - 8 1/2 months.
Her hymen was torn at many places. There were no injury marks. No definite
opinion could be given in regard to violation of her privacy. In cross
examination, Dr. Kavitha Kori admitted that she had not prescribed any test
for age determination as she had seen the Aadhar card of the victim on the
basis of which she had recorded her date of birth.
10. When evidence of these witnesses are taken into consideration,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
5 CRA-11408-2024
then on the one hand Victim (PW/1) and father of the victim (PW/5) admits
that victim was an adult at the time of the incident. Mother of the victim
(PW/2), also admitted that she was adult at the time of incident and
thereafter, she gave chronology of her marriage and birth of her two children
which also reveals that victim was major at the time of the incident.
11. Smt. Anita Bhumarkar, Government Teacher (PW/4), admitted that
date of admission in the school is not mentioned, there is no birth certificate
to substantiate the date of birth of the victim.
12. Dr. Kavita Kori (PW/3) accepted that date of birth was recorded on
the basis of Aadhar card which in our opinion is not a proof of date of
birth. Prosecution failed to seize marksheet of class 10th, despite the fact
that when matter was reported, victim was studying in 12th class.
13. We are conscious of the fact and have taken note of it that Exhibit
P/35 is a DNA report, which reveals that the product of conception contains
Autosomal STR, DNA profile, which reveals that product of conception is
the biological child of appellant Devvrat Vaidya and the prosecutrix. Thus,
in view of the fact that Victim (PW/1), admitted it to be a consensual
relationship, mother of the victim (PW/2) accepted that victim was adult at
the time of the incident, then in view of the fact that it is a case of consensual
relationship between two adults, provisions of POCSO Act will not be
applicable, so also provisions of Section 375 IPC of will not be attracted.
14. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced
dated 02.09.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and also SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Betul, District- Betul, having been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40007
6 CRA-11408-2024
passed without taking into consideration, the evidence which has come on
record, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, is hereby set aside. The
appellant, be set free, if not required in any, other case.
15. In above terms, this appeal CRA No.11408/2024 is allowed and
disposed of.
16. Record of the trial Court be sent back. Case property be disposed
off in terms of the order of the trial Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
