[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64370
1 CRA-14197-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 9th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14197 of 2024
RAJESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sharad Verma- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.9375/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.9375/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
heard finally.
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed in S.C.No.38/2023 by learned
Special Judge (POSCO Act), Tikamgarh (MP) whereby appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64370
2 CRA-14197-2024
has been convicted and sentenced in the following terms:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
R.I. for R.I for 01
363 IPC Rs.500/-
03 years month
R.I. for R.I for 02
366 IPC Rs.1,000/-
06 years months
R.I. for 03 R.I for
506-II IPC Rs.500/-
years 01 month
R.I. for 20 R.I for 04
5(l)/6 POCSO Rs.2,000/-
years months
2. Reading from the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it is
submitted that she was a consenting adult. She admitted that she was
in love relationship with the appellant.
3. Reading from the evidence of PW-4 mother of the victim, it is
submitted that mother has admitted her eldest daughter to be 25
years then that of second son to be 20 years and has further stated
that victim one year younger to the second son. Thus, it is submitted
that since incident is of 27.03.2023 and evidence of mother was
recorded in September, 2023, victim was a consenting adult at the
time of the incident. Prayer is made to set aside the judgment of
conviction and regard acquittal in favour of the appellant.
4. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned public prosecutor for State
opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that date of birth of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64370
3 CRA-14197-2024
the victim has come on record as 22.10.2005. She was about 17
years and 5 months of age at the time of the incident and therefore,
no indulgence is called for. It is further submitted that DNA profile
obtained from the vaginal slide of the victim so also from her under
garments has matched with the Y-STR DNA profile obtained from
the blood sample of the appellant as contained in Ex.P-20.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, PW-1 prosecutrix in para 5 of her cross-
examination has admitted that she was in love relationship with the
appellant. She had gone with the appellant because of said love
relationship. She has also stated that her marriage was performed
and she is aware of the fact that marriage is performed when a girl
attains age of 18 years. She further stated that she has no information
as to on what basis her date of birth was recorded by her parents. She
has also admitted that when she was residing with present appellant,
appellant used to go out for work but she never ran away nor
informed anybody about her goals.
7. PW-3 is a school teacher who has admitted that no proof of
date of birth was furnished by the father of the victim at the time of
her admission. He further stated that he cannot say as to whether
father has recorded date of birth as per estimation or not. He has also
stated that at the time of admission, age of the victim was more than
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64370
4 CRA-14197-2024
six years.
8. Dakhilkharij register is Ex.P-13C in which date of birth of the
victim is mentioned as 22.10.2005 but date of admission is
mentioned as 21.06.2013, she had left school after passing 5th class.
9. PW-4 mother of the victim in para 3 has admitted that victim
is her youngest child, eldest daughter is 25 years of age, second son
is aged about 20 years whereas victim as one year younger to the
second son. She stated that at the time of admission of the victim in
the school her age was 6-7 years. She admits that she has no
intimation as to whether age of the victim was more than 18 years at
the time of her elopement with the appellant or not. PW-4 admits
that victim had gone with the appellant on her own volition.
10. PW-5 Dr. Abha Singh, who had conducted MLC of victim
stated that secondary sexual characters of the victim were fully
developed, her hymen was intact and there were no injuries on the
body of the victim.
11. In view of such facts, when the age of the victim has come
out to be more than 18 years at the time of incident and victim has
admitted that she was a consenting adult who had gone on her own
volition with the appellant, therefore, conviction of the appellant
under Sections 363, 366 and 506-II of IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of
POCSO Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as victim being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64370
5 CRA-14197-2024
not a child, the provisions of POCSO Act will not be
applicable. Similarly provisions of Section 375 of IPC cannot be
invoked in the matter of consensual relationship between two
consenting adults.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is
hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. Appellant is in jail, he be released immediately, if not
required in any other case.
13. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS
