Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh @ Lalai Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
1 CRA-6195-2023
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 8th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6195 of 2023
RAMESH @ LALAI KOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant prays for
withdrawal of I.A. No.427/2024 an application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
I.A. No.427/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C') takes exception to the
judgment dated 24.03.2023 passed in Special Case No.13/2021 by the
learned Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act) 2012, Umariya, M.P. whereby the appellant was held guilty for
offence and directed to undergo sentence which are mentioned in a chart
as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
2 CRA-6195-2023
Conviction under Sentenced to undergo
Section
376 (1) of I.P.C. Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to suffer R.I. for six months.
2. Learned trial court acquitted the appellant for the offences under
Section 376 (3) of IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 4 and Section 5 j(ii)
r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.
3. As per prosecution case on 9.1.2021 the prosecutrix (PW-1)
alongwith her father (PW- 2) and mother (PW-3) lodged a report that
she is resident of Deori under the Police Station Manpur and has studied
upto 9th class. Last year on 25.7.2020, on the eve of 'Nag Panchami' the
accused - appellant had come to participate in 10th day of last rites of
her Uncle (Phoofa) namely Bhiyalal Kol in village Nabua, P.S.
Manjhouli, district Sidhi, the accused - Ramesh @ Lalai Kol, who is
nephew of her aunt (buwa) had also come to village Deori. On 26.7.2020
at about 8 a.m. while she was going to her aunt's house, then on the mid
way the accused caught her hands and dragged her to the old house of
her aunt and committed rape. She shouted for help but the accused
pressed her mouth and after committing rape ran away. Thereafter, she
came to her house and out of fear did not disclose the incident to
anyone. About three days ago, she had pain in her stomach, then she
went to Doctor with her sister and she came to know that she has
pregnancy of six months.
4. On the basis of oral report A.S.I. Varsha Baiga (PW-11) recorded
FIR (Ex.P-1) and inspected the spot and made a map (Ex.P-2) and
thereafter wrote a letter (Ex.P-15) to Doctor for medical-examination of
prosecutrix after obtaining permission of S.D.M. and permission of
mother of the prosecutrix she was medically examined and Sonography
was done. Sonography report is Ex.P-7. The statement of prosecutrix
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
3 CRA-6195-2023
was recorded and C.D. (Article-A) was prepared. Certificate under
Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex.P-28. The accused was arrested and
medically examined and article received from the health centre was
seized by seizure memo (Ex.P-13). Statement of prosecutrix (PW-1)
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by Judicial Magistrate,
Umariya.
5. It is also submitted that regarding age certificate obtained from the
Primary School, Deori as per seizure memo (Ex.P-26). The statements
of witnesses were recorded. Blood sample of accused was taken and
seizure memo (Ex.P-11) was prepared. Blood sample of prosecutrix
(PW-1) was taken for D.N.A. examination. Sample for D.N.A. was sent
to Regional Forensic Laboratory, Bhopal. D.N.A. report (Ex.P-34) was
received.
6. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The
accused was charged for the offences as mentioned in Para-1 of
judgment of this court. The accused denied the charges and prayed for a
trial. After prosecution witnesses were examined, the accused stated that
he is innocent and D.N.A. report is false.
7. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses.
(PW-1) prosecutrix, (PW-2) father of the prosecutrix, (PW-3) mother of
the prosecutrix, (PW-4) Anita Dodwe lady Police Constable, (PW-5) Dr.
Dinesh Kumar Kodiya who conducted Sonography of the prosecutrix,
(PW-6) aunt of the accused of the prosecutrix and accused as well. (PW-
7) Dr. Pramod Dwivedi who has taken blood sample of the accused for
DNA examination. (PW-8) Dr. B.K. Prasad, who has examined the
accused physically, (PW-9) Ajay Jatav, Constable, (PW-10) Dr.
Abhishek Mishra. (PW-11) A.S.I. Varsha Baiga, (PW-12) elder sister of
the prosecutrix, (PW-13) Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, Incharge Head
Master of Government Middle School, Deori, P.S. Manpur.
8. The grounds of appeal are that the prosecution has failed to prove
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
4 CRA-6195-2023
the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The whole prosecution case is
false and FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay. At the time of
incident if the prosecution case is to be believed, the prosecutrix was
major, therefore, it is a case of consent, therefore prayer is made for
acquittal of the accused and set him at free.
9. Per contra, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the
State supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
10. Perused the record and considered the arguments.
11. As per statement of Dr. Abhishek Mishra (PW-10) who deposed
in place of late Dr. Soniya Singh in examination-in-chief in para-3 has
stated that the prosecutrix has stated that she had friendship with the
accused for about five months and they are having physical relationships
for about four months. In cross-examination in Para-11, he has further
stated that late Dr. Soniya Singh, who had conducted the medical
examination of the prosecutrix and who expired in July 2022, in report
(Ex.P-16) has changed the age of the prosecutrix from sixteen years and
reduced it as fifteen years and six months. Now due to death of Soniya
Singh, there is no explanation as to why age of the prosecutrix was
changed and reduced by late Dr. Soniya Singh. Infact, it is seen that
there is overwriting on the back page of Ex.P-15, the medical-
examination request of prosecutrix (PW-1) whereas her age has also
been altered by overwriting without any initial.
12. PW-2, father of the prosecutrix in his statement has stated that he
is having nine children out of which the prosecutrix is the fourth girl
child. He does not remember the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Her
eldest daughter is thirty years of age. When being asked by the defence
as to how many years is the prosecutrix (PW-1) younger than the eldest
daughter then instead of replying the query, it was answered by the
father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) that at the time of incident, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
5 CRA-6195-2023
prosecutrix was of fourteen years of age. In Para-4 of cross-examination,
it is stated that after birth of eldest daughter, second girl child was born
and there is difference of three years in birth amongst each child.
Therefore, on the date of evidence i.e. on 2.2.2022 the age of PW-2 is
mentioned as forty three years, then if the age of eldest daughter was
thirty years, then the age of the prosecutrix, fourth child would be twenty
one years on the date of statements of witness (PW-2) father and since
the incident is stated to have taken place on 26.7.2020, the age of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) can safely be presumed to be more than nineteen
years.
13. PW-3 mother of the prosecutrix in cross-examination has stated
that the prosecutrix is her daughter at serial no.4 and her eldest daughter
is aged about forty years but during the course of examination in the
court, she has stated that she cannot say when the child was born. In
para-4 of cross-examination, this witness has stated that the prosecutrix
is two years younger than the eldest daughter. She then stated that she is
much younger.
14. PW-13, Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, Incharge Head Master,
Government Middle School, Deori, P.S. Manpur has stated that he has
issued the birth certificate of the prosecutrix on the basis of Dakhila
Kharij Register, which is Ex.P-36 in which her date of birth is recorded
as 26.6.2005. The prosecutrix was admitted on 1.7.2010 in Class-Ist.
Original Dakhila Kharij Register is Ex.P-37. In Cross-examination in
Para-3, he has stated that he cannot say on the basis of record as to on
what basis the age of the prosecutrix was recorded while admitting her in
the school. He does not know whether her date of birth certificate was
produced at the time of admission or not.
15. Therefore, it is seen that looking to the statement of the father
(PW-2) and mother (PW-3) and the prosecutrix (PW-1), it is seen that
there is no basis to know as to on what basis the age of the prosecutrix
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30133
6 CRA-6195-2023
was recorded in the school. There is cutting in the medical form (Ex.P-
16) by late Dr. Soniya Singh. Including prosecutrix they are nine sisters
and father and mother have by estimation stated the age of the
prosecutrix. The age of the prosecutrix and her elder sister does not tally
the mathematical calculation so as to level the prosecutrix as minor on
the date of incident.
16. Accordingly, considering the evidence on record, it is held that the
learned trial court has rightly recorded in Para-29 of the judgment that
the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the prosecutrix was minor
on the date of incident and looking to statement of Dr. Abhishek Mishra
(PW-10), it is found to be a case of consent between two adults and on
the same ground, no offence is made out. The report of the incident was
belatedly lodged. Therefore, it is held that the trial court has wrongly
held in Para-57 that offence against the appellant - accused under
Section 376 (1) of IPC is proved. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned
above, judgment dated 24.03.2023 passed in Special Case No.13/2021
by the learned Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act) 2012, Umariya is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The
appellant is acquitted of charge under Section 376 (1) of I.P.C. The
appellant be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any
other offence. The case property be disposed of as per judgment of the
trial court. The record be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
