[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabhan Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64948
1 CRA-13668-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13668 of 2024
CHANDRABHAN SINGH GOND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Shankar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.20422/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.20422/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.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 judgment
dated 25/11/2024 passed in Special Case No.SC-18/2023 by learned 2nd
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64948
2 CRA-13668-2024
Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara (MP) whereby appellant has been
convicted and sentenced in the following terms:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
363 IPC Nil Nil Nil
R.I. for R.I for 01
366 IPC Rs.2,000/-
05 years month
376(2)(n) IPC Nil Nil Nil
R.I. for R.I for
5(l)/6 POCSO Rs.5,000/-
20 years 03 month
2. Shri Ravi Shankar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that victim was a consenting adult as can be seen from her own
testimony when read with the testimony of her mother (PW-3) who had
admitted that the victim was an adult at the time of the incident. It is
pointed out that even Naana of the victim (PW-2) admitted that they had
fixed marriage of the victim because she had attained adulthood. It is
pointed out that Netraj Lodhi (PW-4), school teacher, deposed that no
documentary proof was given in support of the date of birth of the victim
and, thus, it is pointed out that when mother of the victim herself
admitted that victim was an adult and consensual relationship between
two adults will not be an offence either under POCSO Act or under
Section 375 of IPC.
3. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, in his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64948
3 CRA-13668-2024
turn, submits that DNA report (Ex.C/1) is available on record and it
points out that 'Y' DNA profile obtained from the vaginal slides (Ex.-A),
pubic hair (Ex.-B) and underwear (Ex.-C) of the victim were matched
with the 'Y' DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of appellant-
Chandrabhan Thakur. It is, thus, submitted that victim, being a minor as
per the school record inasmuch as her date of birth is mentioned as
10/12/2006 whereas incident took place on 04/04/2023, no indulgence is
called for.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Victim (PW-1) deposed that appellant-Chandrabhan Thakur
(Gond) is known to her. He is of her village only. Thereafter victim
deposed that she had left her home in the company of the appellant and
gone to Indore where they had stayed for two days, then they started
living like a husband and wife. Thereafter they had received a phone
call from Maama of Chandrabhan and on his call, they had gone to
Bareilly where they had stayed for one- one and half month as a husband
and wife and established physical relationship. This witness (victim)
admitted that she had never informed anybody about her abduction or
her privacy being violated against her will. Victim also admitted in
cross-examination that she wanted to marry the appellant and appellant
never used any force or coercion on her.
6. Maternal grand-father of the victim (PW-2) admitted that they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64948
4 CRA-13668-2024
wanted to marry the victim and had fixed her marriage because she had
attained the age of majority.
7. Mother of the victim (PW-3) admitted in cross-examination
that before victim left her home, she had fixed her marriage. This
witness deposed that marriage of victim was fixed because she had
attained the age of 18 years. This witness further deposed that victim is
her second child. Age of first daughter is 22-23 years. Victim is one
and half - two year younger to the elder daughter. She also admitted
that since the marriage of victim was fixed, therefore, she had left her
home. This witness further deposed that they have very good relations
with the family of the accused and appellant was with the victim to take
care of her.
8. In view of such statement when read with the evidence of
Netraj Lodhi (PW-4), school teacher, who had admitted that date of birth
of the victim was recorded as was narrated by the parents of the victim,
but, there is no documentary evidence in regard to the date of birth so
also the evidence of Dr.Vinsi Mandrai (PW-10) who deposed that hymen
was old torn, there were no external injury marks on the private parts of
the victim and there was also no bleeding and in cross-examination, this
witness deposed that from appearance, victim was appearing to be an
adult, her secondary sexual characters were developed, when taken into
consideration, then a consensual relationship between two adults is not
an offence either under Section 375 of IPC or under POCSO Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64948
5 CRA-13668-2024
therefore, charges against the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.
9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant
is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is in jail, he be released
immediately, if not required in any other case.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
