Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rishi (Risi) Pal on 29 July, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
1 CRA-16030-2023
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 29th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16030 of 2023
SITARAM PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Priyan Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 99 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RISHI (RISI) PAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Singh - Govenrment Advocate for the appellant -State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
I.A. No.30255 of 2023 , an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condoning the of 77 days' in filing of Cr.A. 16030 of
2023 and I.A. No.1843/2024, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the Cr.A. No.99
of 2024 are allowed and delay in filing aforesaid appeals are condoned.
Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties both of them are being decided by
this common order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
2 CRA-16030-2023
Cr.A. No.16030 of 2023 :-
Instant appeal has been filed by the complainant - Sitaram Pal under
Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against acquittal order dated 27.6.2023 passed in
S.C. No.77 of 2020 by Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act 2012)/Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, M.P. arising
out of Crime No.190 of 2020, through P.S. Taradehi, District Damoh.
2. By the aforesaid order, learned trial court has acquitted the accused
- Rishi Pal from the offence punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2) N
of IPC and Section 5 (N)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, accused - Sonu Pal has been acquitted from the offence punishable
under Section 363, 366A, 343, 376(2)N/109 of IPC and from Section under
Section 5(N)/6, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Similarly accused Gyani Pal, Bhujji Pal and Ashok Pal have been acquitted
from the offence punishable under Section 366A and Section 212 of IPC and
accused Viran @ Khalak Singh, Ganpat @ Geeta, Shibbu Pal and Chammu
Pal have been acquitted from the offence punishable under 212 of IPC.
Cr.A. No.99 of 2024 :-
3. The instant appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. under Section
378 of Cr.P.C. against acquittal order dated 27.6.2023 passed in S.C. No.77
of 2020 by Special Judge, (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
2012)/Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, M.P. arising out of Crime
No.190 of 2020, through P.S. Taradehi, District Damoh.
4. With the aforesaid appeal has been filed also alongwith I.A.
No.382/2024, an application seeking grant of leave to appeal under section
378(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
5. Learned counsel for both the appellants submit that in serious and
heinous crime the respondents who were accused before the trial court have
wrongly been acquitted. There was ample evidence including the DNA report
(Ex.P-27) but that was not considered in its proper perspective, therefore,
prayer is made for convicting the respondents.
6. Perused the record and considered the arguments.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
3 CRA-16030-2023
7. The case in nutshell before the trial court was that accused Rishi Pal
and Sonu Pal had abducted the minor prosecturix on 10.9.2020 at about 5
AM under the P.S. Taradehi, district Damoh from the lawful custody of her
father and mother for forcing her to marry him or for illicit intercourse with
him and between 10.9.2020 to 25.9.2020 the accused Rishi Pal confined the
prosecutrix in a hotel at Mandsour and committed rape multiple times. The
accused Sonu Pal assisted him in commission of aforesaid crime by helping
him in abduction of prosecutrix while the accused Gyani Pal, Bhujji Pal and
Ashok Pal took minor prosecutrix from Mandsour to Katni and accused
Viran @ Khalak Singh, Ganpat @ Geeta, Shibbu Pal and Chammu Pal
assisted the accused Rishi Pal by providing him shelter for the same period
for committing the offence of abduction and rape.
8. As per prosecution story the (PW-1) father of the minor prosecutrix
had lodged a report at P.S. Taradehi, district Damoh (Ex.P-6) to the effect
that her elder daughter aged about seventeen years three months was married
in village Magrai under the Police Station Jabera. The prosecutrix had gone
to her husband's home once and thereafter she was in parental home. On
9.9.2020, when the whole family had gone to sleep and the prosecutrix was
sleeping in a separate room, she came to him (father) between 10-11 PM and
asked for his mobile complainant-father gave his mobile phone to the
prosecutrix. Next day when he went to the room of the prosecutrix to take
back the mobile, he found that neither the prosecutrix nor the mobile was in
the room. He searched the prosecutrix in the vicinity and at homes of
relatives but she was not traceable. Therefore Crime No.190 of 2020 under
Section 363 of IPC was registered at P.S. Taradehi, district Damoh.
9. During the course of investigation on 25.9.2022 the kidnapped
prosecutrix was recovered from a place under the Police Station Tendukhera
and a Panchanama (Ex.P-8) was prepared and thereafter she was handed
over to her mother and father by Supratnama (Ex.P-9). Her statements were
recorded and videographed script of statement was prepared which is Ex.P-
18 in which she has stated that Rishi Pal had taken her to Mandsour by the
black coloured car of Sonu Pal. Thereafter Sonu Pal had dropped her and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
4 CRA-16030-2023
Rishi Pal at the Railway Station and left. Rishi Pal confined her in a hotel for
eight days and continuously did wrong thing. Then Rishi Pal intimated his
father that he and prosecutrix are staying in a hotel and are willing to
perform marriage. On 19.9.2020, father of Rishi Pal, namely Gyani Pal came
to Mandsour to take them alongwith Bhujji Pal and Ashok Pal and took
them to Katni and kept them in a rented house. At Katni also Rishi used to
establish physical relations with her. On 21.9.2020 the prosecutrix by using
the phone of a person intimated her Uncle (Taujee) about her presence at
Katni and he said that he will come after five days. Thereafter Gyani Pal
brought Rishi Pal and the prosecutrix to Patan. Bhujji Pal took prosecutrix
to Tendukheda where her mother and father also came. She narrated the
whole incident to her mother and father.
10. Police later on added Section 366-A, 376(2) and 342, 343 of IPC
and Section 5/6 and Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act in FIR.
11. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The
accused were charged as per Para-3 of the impugned judgment. The accused
pleaded innocence. After prosecution evidence during the course of
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they pleaded that they are
innocent. Learned trial court recorded evidence of (PW-1) school teacher
regarding age of the prosecutrix, (PW-2) father of prosecutrix who had
rented his house to Rishi Pal, (PW-3) mother of the prosecutrix, (PW-4)
Mamta Ahirwar Police Constable, (PW-5) Dr. B.P. Ahirwar, (PW-6)
Constable Balwinder Singh, (PW-7) Shailesh Constable, (PW-8) Viran Pal,
(PW-9) Ashok Kumar Pal, (PW-10) Dr. Kalpana Ahirwar, (PW-11) Rajesh
Rathore Hotel owner, (PW-12) Lakhan Pal, (PW-13) Alok Kumar Singh Sub
Inspector, (PW-14) Gopal Constable and (PW-15) Lakhanlal Sharma Sub
Inspector.
12. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence available on record in
Para-21of its judgment held that it is not proved that on the date of offence
i.e. on 10.9.2020, the prosecutrix was less than eighteen years of age, i.e. a
'child' as per Section 2 (1) (D) of Protection of Children from Sexual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
5 CRA-16030-2023
Offence Act.
13. This finding of fact that on the date of offence the prosecutrix was
not under eighteen years has not been challenged by both the appellants
party. (PW-2) father stated that at the time of incident his daughter was aged
about seventeen years while mother (PW-3) stated that she was between 17
years and 17.6 years and trial court has also considered that it is not proved
that on what basis the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded in the
school as (PW-1) Mukesh Chand Jain, school teacher in cross - examination
has admitted that it is not mentioned in the school record as to on what basis
the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded and it was mentioned
that the grand-father of the prosecutrix got the date of birth of the
prosecutrix recorded in school. Even (PW-2) father in cross- examination, in
Para-22 has admitted that his daughter i.e. the prosecutrix was married after
she has attained majority (Balig) and therefore the age told by her father and
mother that daughter was between seventeen years to 17.6 years at the time
of incident is neither confirmed on the basis of oral evidence nor on the basis
of school register produced by prosecution. Therefore, no interference can be
made in the findings regarding age of prosecutrix by the learned trial court.
14. Once it is held that on the date of incident i.e. 10.9.2020
prosecutrix was not minor then question comes of her consent. On this if we
go through the record of the trial court as mentioned in Para-26 of the
judgment of the trial the statement of prosecutrix could not be given before
the trial court as she had expired on 16.2.2021 after the charges were framed
on 30.1.2021 but before evidence could be recorded on 10.3.2021.
15. Although as per DNA report (Ex.P-27) it is positive but once it is
held that on the date of offence the prosecutrix was less than eighteen years
of age is not proved then its relevance would arise only if it is proved that
physical relationships were established against her consent and were made
by using force. In this case there is evidence to the effect of father of
prosecutrix that while going away, she (prosecutrix) took with her sarees and
ornaments. In para-18 (PW-2) father of prosecutrix stated that prosecutrix
took away the ornaments which were not returned to him. In Para-19 PW-2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34681
6 CRA-16030-2023
stated that prosecutrix took her red saree, mangal sutra and sindoor also. All
these facts by the prosecution evidence points to her consent in going away
with Rishi Pal. She never complained to anyone in hotel at Mandsour. As per
medical report (Ex.P-13), the Doctor (PW-10) has opined that no definite
opinion can be given about rape or recent intercourse and no external or
internal injuries were bound on the body of the prosecutrix.
16. In the case of Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh and
others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 186 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para -8 has
opined that in case of appeal against acquittal, the appellate court can review
the evidence and interfere for compelling reasons such as whether admissible
evidence has been unreasonably and unjustifiably ignored resulting into
miscarriage of justice. If two view are possible then one favourable to the
accused should be adopted.
In these appeals looking to the judgment of the trial court on the basis
of evidence before the trial court the view taken by the trial court cannot be
said to be preserve.
17. Therefore, in the light of prosecution evidence and judgment of the
trial court this court is of the view that there is no ground to admit both the
appeals for final hearing. Resultantly, I.A. No.382/2024, an application
seeking grant of leave to appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 filed in Cr.A. No.99 of 2024 is dismissed.
Consequently, r.A. No.99 of 2024 is also dismissed. Similarly, Cr.A.
No.16030 of 2023 is also dismissed without notice to the other side at
admission stage itself.
18. Record of the trial court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
