Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalairam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33751
1 CRA-5294-2025
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 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5294 of 2025
LALAIRAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K. Vaishya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.13192 of 2025, first application under Section 430 (1) of Bhartiya
Nagarik Surksha Sanhita 2023 (under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.) for
suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.
I.A. No.13192 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is heard
finally.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in
S.C. No.24 of 2023 by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, district Singhrouli whereby the present appellant has been
convicted as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33751
2 CRA-5294-2025
Conviction S e n t e n ce
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
fine deposited in lieu of Fine
details
366 IPC Seven years Rs.500/- R.I. for one
year
3/4 (2) POCSO Twenty years Rs.500/- R.I. for one
Act year
5(L)/6 POCSO Twenty years Rs.500/- R.I. for one
Act year
2. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent. It is case of consent
which has been converted into that of violation of privacy.
3. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has admitted that the appellant is
known to her and they were talking to each other for the last 5-6 months. The
appellant was working with her and the prosecutrix asked him to keep her
with him. On 8.6.2023, the appellant had taken her to village Gobha. She
was taken on a motorcycle. She had remained with the appellant for 5-6
days. She has admitted in cross -examination that she was coming to a fair
with the appellant and therefore with her consent the appellant performed
marriage with her. She also admitted that after marriage with the appellant
with her consent relationship was established. She also admitted that when
her parents came to know of the fact that she is in love affair with the
appellant -Lalairam Yadav then they wanted to marry her somewhere else.
Reading from the evidence of mother of the prosecutrix, it is submitted that it
can be presumed that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident.
Similarly, school teacher Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-7) too has not supported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33751
3 CRA-5294-2025
the case of the prosecution and therefore appellant being a consenting adult
with the prosecutrix living in consensual relationship will not call for
conviction under Section 366 of IPC or under Section 3/4(2) or under
Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
4. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor the State
supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, the victim has admitted about her love affair with the appellant. She
has also admitted the factum of marriage performed on 18.6.2023. She has
also admitted that relationship was established with her consent.
6. PW-2, mother of the victim admitted in Para-14 of her cross-
examination that her marriage was performed twenty years one prior to the
date of incident. In Para-10 she has admitted that the prosecurix was born
after 1-11/2 years of her marriage. Thus, it is evident that on the date of
recording of the statements of the mother of the victim, she was adult so
also on the date of the incident.
7. PW-2, mother of the victim also admitted that the victim had studied
at village Patoli for a period of three years and after closure of the said
school her name was recorded in Vanshpati School at village Harwah. This
fact is admitted by PW-3 in Para-10. Later on he has tried to wriggle out of
his statement but the fact of the matter is that there are corroborative
admissions namely the prosecutrix had studied for three years at village
Patoli and thereafter she was admitted in class-I in Vanshpati School in at
village Harwah which is evident from Ex.14-C and evidence of mother of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33751
4 CRA-5294-2025
the victim that her marriage was performed twenty one years prior to date of
deposition and victim was born after 1 - 1 1/2 years. Sushil Kumar Shukla
(PW-7) has admitted that no enquiry was conducted in regard to age of the
victim at the time of admission. He has admitted that no document in support
of the date of birth of the victim was taken at the time of admission.
8. Dr. Ritu Singh (PW-5) has admitted that there were no injury marks
external or internal on the body of the victim and there were no sings of any
fresh intercourse.
9. Sobranram Dubey (PW-4) admitted that the victim had never
informed him that the appellant had performed any wrong act with her and
she admitted that she had run away on her own volition alongwith the
appellant.
10. In view of such facts, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of
the prosecutrix, school entry registered (Ex.C-14) is doubtful as deposed
by Sushil Kumar Shukla (PW-7) corroborated by the evidence of PW-2,
mother of the victim that victim was adult at the time of the incident
buttressed with the evidence of the victim herself that she had ran away with
the appellant on her own volition, performed marriage and entered into
physical relationship with her own consent, mere positivity of DNA report is
not a sufficient circumstance to uphold the conviction specially when
prosecution has failed to prove that victim was minor at the time of the
incident.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above,
the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in S.C. No.24 of 2023 by Special
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33751
5 CRA-5294-2025
Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, district Singhrouli
is set aside. The appeal stands allowed.
12. The appellant be set at liberty if his presence is not required in any
other office.
13. The record of the trial court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
