[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63072
1 CRA-10911-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10911 of 2024
SANDEEP VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Paras Nath Das, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.7194/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7194/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.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 27/02/2024 passed in S.C.No.10/2023 by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POSCO Act), Gauharganj, Distt.Raisen (MP) whereby
appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following terms:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63072
2 CRA-10911-2024
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
R.I. for R.I for
363 I.P.C. Rs.1,000/-
03 years 03 months
R.I. for R.I for
366 I.P.C. Rs.2,000/-
05 years 06 months
Life R.I for
5(m)/6 POCSO Rs.5,000/-
Imprisonment 01 year
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated and even if the
prosecution's story is accepted to be true, though there are several
shortcomings and omissions in that story, then also it is not a case of
penetrative sexual assault, but, at best, a case of non-penetrative sexual
assault, therefore, conviction under Section 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
3. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, opposes the prayer
and submits that no indulgence is called for.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. Dr.Mamta Parte
(PW-8), lady doctor, deposed that on 22/02/2023 she was posted as Medical
Officer at Civil Hospital, Mandideep. Woman Constable No.800 Kanchan
Rathore had brought the victim, aged about five years for MLC. This
witness had conducted MLC with the consent of the mother of the victim.
This witness deposed that mother and father of the victim were deaf and
dumb, therefore, the person who had accompanied the victim and her parents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63072
3 CRA-10911-2024
had given the version, however, victim had not stated anything on her own.
Thereafter this witness deposed that on examination, she had found that there
were no external or internal injuries on any part of the body including the
private parts. This witness also found the hymen to be intact.
5. Thereafter in cross-examination, this witness i.e. Dr. Mamta Parte
(PW-8) clearly admitted that while recording the history, victim did not state
that appellant had either kissed her or had touched her vagina with his palm.
This witness admitted that her junior doctor i.e. Dr.Sneha Pinpalkar, while
preparing MLC report (Ex.P/5), had not recorded this fact in front of her.
Thereafter in para-5 of her cross-examination, this witness deposed that
while examining the child victim, she had no iota of doubt that any object or
part of the body was ever entered into the vagina of the victim. Thereafter
this witness deposed that even if a finger would have been entered into the
vagina of the victim, then there would have been redness and swelling which
was not present in the case of the victim.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Jangde Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, decided on 10/09/2025
in SLP (Cri.) No.10377 of 2025 , wherein under similar facts and
circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court has altered the conviction and
sentenced the appellant with five years rigorous imprisonment.
7. Since the facts are identical and in view of the expert medical
evidence of Dr. Mamta Parte (PW-8), we alter the conviction of the appellant
from one under Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act to Section 7/8 of POCSO
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63072
4 CRA-10911-2024
Act and direct him to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year.
Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC is maintained. All the
sentences to run concurrently.
8. Accordingly, with the above modification in the impugned
judgment, this appeal is allowed in part.
16. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
