Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rafique Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
1 CRA-7896-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7896 of 2021
RAFIQUE KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated
08.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) District-Balaghat in SC
No.02/2018, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(I)
of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and with fine of Rs.
5,000/-, and under Section 376 (2)(N) of IPC/ Section 5(l) read with section
6 of POCSO Act sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and Section 506 (Part-II) of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7
years and with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 29.10.2017, at about 2:00 p.m.,
during the day time, when prosecutrix had gone to the house of appellant, at
that time, appellant was alone at the house. Appellant caught hold and
thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault on minor prosecutrix and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
2 CRA-7896-2021
also threatened her. Thereafter, appellant repeatedly committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on minor prosecutrix from 29.10.2017 to
04.11.2017. Thereafter, prosecutrix informed her mother and other family
members on 05.11.2017. Thereafter, on 06.11.2017, (Ex.P/3)'s report was
lodged in police station.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, after referring to para-5, 6, 7 and
8 of cross-examination of prosecutrix, submits that therein prosecutrix has
clearly denied about any incident committed by the appellant. It is also urged
that DNA report (Ex.P/24) also does not support prosecution story. In view
of prosecutrix statement in her cross-examination, appellant cannot be
convicted on the basis of testimonies of (PW-2), (PW-6), (PW-7) and (PW-
8). Thus, learned trial Court has committed materially illegality in convicting
and sentencing the appellant. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed
by the appellant be allowed and he be acquitted of offence under Sections
376(2)(I) of the IPC, 376(2)(N)/Section 5(l) read with section 6 of POCSO
Act and Section 506 (Part-II) of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, appellant cannot be sentenced with the period
already undergone. He further submits that trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant. No interference is required in the same and
appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record
of the case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
3 CRA-7896-2021
6. Perusal of examination-in-chief of prosecutrix (PW-3) and her
mother (PW-2) and (PW-6) reveals that in their examination-in-chief,
aforesaid prosecution witnesses have supported prosecution story, especially,
prosecutrix.
7. Now question arises as to whether prosecutrix is a wholly reliable
witness.
8. From perusal of examination-in-chief, especially, para-2, it appears
that only single incident occurred at about 2:00 p.m. during day time, one
year ago. In examination-in-chief itself, prosecutrix did not depose that
appellant repeatedly established physical relation with her/committed
aggravated penetrative sexual on her from 29.10.2017 to 04.11.2017 as
mentioned in FIR (Ex.P/3). With respect to reliability and trustworthiness of
prosecutrix, para-5, 6, 7 and 8 of her cross-examination are relevant, which
are as under:-
ितपर ण ारा ी महे बसेन अिधव ा वा ते आरोपी
" 5 - यह कहना सह है क मेरे प रवार म मेर दाद चाची
और चाचा बगैरह रहते है 1 मैे बऔर मेरे प रवार इनके
प रवार से अलग िनवास करते है यह कहना सह है क
आरोपी मेरे प रवार म आिथक मदद करता था और आरोपी
का हमारे घर म आना जाना था 1 यह कहना सह है क
आरोपी के घर मे उसक प और ब चे भी साथ म रहते है 1
यह कहना सह है क मेेर दाद और चाची को आरोपी का
हमारे घर आना जाना पसंद नह ं था यह कहना सह है क
मेर दाद और चाची को यह भी पंसद नह ं था क आरे ापी
हमारे घर म अिथक मदद कर 1 यह कहना सह है क इसी
बात को लेकर मेर दाद और चाची मेर मां और आरोपी से
झगडा करती थी 1
6 - यह कहना सह है क घटना दनांक के दन भी
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
4 CRA-7896-2021
मेर मां के साथ और आरोपी के साथ मेर दाद और
चाची ने झगडा कया था और आरोपी को मारपीट कये
थे 1 यह कहना सह है क उ झगडे क रपोट
िलखाने मेर मां को आरोपी साथ लेकर गया था 1 यह
कहना सह है क मेर दाद ने मुझे धमकाई और मुझे
अपने साथ रपोट िलखाने लेकर गई थी 1 यह कहना
सह है क मेर दाद और चाची ने थाने म या रपोट
िलखाये मुझे नह ं बताये ले कन बाद म मुझे पता चला
क मेरे साथ आरोपी रफ क ने गलत काम कया था
इस बात क रपोट िलखाये थे 1 यह कहना सह है क
आरोपी ने मेरे साथ कोई गलत काम नह ं कया था 1
7 - यह कहना सह है क मेर दाद और चाची अभी
भी मुझे और मेर मां को धमकाते रहते है क आरोपी
के खलाफ बयान दे ना है 1
8 - यह कहना सह है क आरोपी ने मेरे साथ कमरे
म गलत काम नह ं कया था 1 यह कहना सह है क
मेर दाद ने यह बोली थी क कोट म जाकर यह
बोलना है क आरोपी ने बला कार कया है ा यह कहना
सह है क मेर दाद के कहने पर म बला कार करने
वाली बात बता रह हू ं 1 यह कहना सह है क आरोपी
ने मेरे साथ कोई गलत काम नह ं कया 1 यह सह है
क आरोपी ने मेरे साथ बला कार नह ं कया था 1 "
9. Thus, from aforesaid cross-examination of prosecutrix, it is clearly
evident that no incident, as mentioned in FIR (Ex.P/3) and examination-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
5 CRA-7896-2021
chief of prosecutrix, has occurred. In cross-examination, prosecutrix has
clearly denied that appellant committed any wrong with her.
1 0 . Thus, from cross-examination of prosecutrix, it is evident that
prosecutrix is not a reliable and trustworthy witness.
11. It is evident that prosecutrix's mother (PW-2) and (PW-6) have
deposed on the basis of information provided by the prosecutrix and (PW-2)
and (PW-6) are not eye-witness to the incident. In view of cross-examination
of prosecutrix, testimonies of (PW-2) and (PW-6), with respect to aggravated
penetrative sexual assault, cannot be relied and acted upon. Further, PW-7
has turned hostile and she did not support prosecution story. Kamlesh (PW-
8), Aseem Baig (PW-11) and Durga (PW-12) have also turned hostile and
they did not support prosecution story.
12. Further, in the instant case, DNA report (Ex.P/24) also does not
support prosecution story.
13. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, especially,
para-5, 6, 7 and 8 of cross-examination of prosecutrix, appellant cannot be
convicted and sentenced under Sections 376(2)(I) and 376(2)(N) of the
IPC/Section 5(l) read with section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506 (Part-II)
of the IPC.
14. Thus, learned trial Court has not appreciated evidence on record in
right perspective and has materially erred in convicting and sentencing
appellant for aforesaid offences.
15. Resultantly, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, appeal
filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned judgment passed by the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25857
6 CRA-7896-2021
Court is set aside and appellant is acquitted for offence under Sections 376(2)
(I), 376(2)(N) of the IPC/ Section 5(l) read with section 6 of POCSO Act and
Section 506 (Part-II) of the IPC.
16. Appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
1 7 . Copy of judgment be immediately sent to concerned jail for
information and necessary action.
18. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed off
accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
