Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishwanath Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29770
1 CRA-4567-2021
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 7 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4567 of 2021
VISHWANATH LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.No.174 of
2022, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant Vishwanath Lodhi. Accordingly, I.A. No.174 of 2022 is dismissed
as withdrawn.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up
for final hearing at motion stage.
3. This appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved of
judgment dated 23/07/2021 passed in Special Case No.87/2020 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Patan District Jabalpur, whereby appellant-
Vishwanath Lodhi has been convicted for the offence punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29770
2 CRA-4567-2021
Section 6 read with Section 5(M) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment (which will be for the remaining part of natural life) with
fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation of one month additional RI.
4. It is submitted that prosecution case is that prosecutrix is related to the
appellant. He is grandfather of the prosecutrix in relation. On 07/12/2019 at
about 2:00 PM, prosecutrix aged about 10 years was sent by her mother
(PW-2) to the appellant Vishwanath Lodhi for taking some money.
Allegation on the appellant is that he had unclothed the prosecutrix and then
violated her privacy. When grandmother of the prosecutrix reached tapariya
of the appellant then she had seen her granddaughter in a compromising
position as a result of which on return she narrated the story to her son and
daughter in law, thereafter, prosecutrix informed her side of the story to her
mother. On 20/12/2019 a written application was given by the mother of the
prosecutrix as contained in Ex.P/1, to the Police Station Patan on which a
case Crime No.757/2019 was registered under Section 376, 376(1), 452 and
511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, FIR
(Ex.P/2) was registered. Case was investigated. Spot Map (Ex.P/3) was
prepared. Prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination, report of which
is Ex.P/19 proved by Dr. Kalpana Choudhary (PW-11). Her school record
etc. were collected. She was found to be minor. Upon investigation,
chargesheet was filed. The appellant abjured his guilt. The trial was
conducted and he has been convicted and sentenced as above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly, there is delay of 13
days in lodging the report. No justification is given for this delay. Ex.P/1 is
the hand written application given by mother of the prosecutrix. She has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29770
3 CRA-4567-2021
narrated incident to have taken place on 07/12/2009 (but it appears that there
is error in writing inasmuch the date of birth of the prosecutrix herself is
10/10/2010). Thereafter, it is pointed out that even Dr. Kalpana
Choudhary (PW-11) who had conducted examination of the prosecutrix
found no injury on any of the parts of the prosecutrix and had referred the
prosecutrix for further opinion to Elgin Hospital. There is no report from
Elgin Hospital in regard to the symptoms of the prosecutrix. Thus, it is
submitted that appellant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated on
account of family dispute, therefore, prays that appeal may be allowed and
conviction of the appellant may be set aside.
6. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate supports the
impugned order and prayer is made to dismiss the appeal and affirm the
judgment of conviction.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, PW-1 is the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix admitted that she had not
narrated any incident to her mother out of fear of being beaten. Prosecutrix
further admitted that distance between the place of residence of her family
and school is about one and a half kilometer. Though she denied that she had
gone to school, but School Teacher Anita Kol (DW-2), stated that she had
taken attendance at about 11:30 AM. Prosecutrix was present in the school
on 07/12/2019 from 10:30 AM to 04:30 PM. She further stated that she had
marked 'P" on Ex.D/2 in her own hand writing. She further stated that if
some child has to leave school in between then child is not allowed to leave
the school alone but can leave school only when parents or other relatives
come to collect the child. There is no evidence that any of the relatives of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29770
4 CRA-4567-2021
victim collected her from the school on 07/12/2019.
8. PW-2 stated that appellant is her uncle in law. She admitted that her
husband is involved in the work of plucking of the crops and to pay labour
charges to the labourers engaged in this work. She further admitted that her
husband had made arrangement of certain labourers for the appellant and he
used to charge commission from everybody.
9. PW-3 father of the prosecutrix admitted that he had gone along with his
wife and mother to lodge report on 20/12/2019 but there is no explanation
for delay in lodging of report when incident was seen on 07/12/2019 by the
grandmother of the prosecutrix.
10. PW-4 Yashwant Singh Thakur, has proved the age of the prosecutrix.
PW-6 is the grandmother of the prosecutrix. She has also not explained delay
in lodging the report. She too stated that prosecutrix had not attended school
on the said date. However, this evidence of the prosecutrix is contradicted by
the School Teacher (DW-2). Prosecutrix, her mother and grandfather are
contradicted by DW-2. There is no contradiction to the evidence of the
defence witness DW-2 School Teacher Anita Kol. It has come on record and
not disputed that FSL report is inconclusive, as a result of which sample
could not be sent for DNA reporting. Thus, it is evident that neither the
violation of privacy of the prosecutrix is medically corroborated by Dr.
Kalpana Choudhary (PW-11) who had conducted the MLC of the
prosecutrix nor there is any other evidence to prove the violation of privacy
of the prosecutrix and therefore, there being no evidence, conviction of the
appellant cannot be upheld merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
11. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29770
5 CRA-4567-2021
conviction is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail, he be released
immediately, if not required in any other case.
12. Case property be disposed of as per the orders of learned trial Court.
13. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
