Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu @ Chandraprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
1 CRA-6613-2024
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 27th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6613 of 2024
MONU @ CHANDRAPRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ganga Prasad Patel - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni - Dy A G appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7069 of 2024
KAILASH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ganga Prasad Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Yash Soni - Dy A G appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Ganga Prasad Patel learned counsel for the appellants prays for
withdrawal of I.A. No.13341 of 2024 , an application under Section 389 (1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail filed in
Cr.A. No.6613 of 2024 on behalf of appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash.
2. I.A. No.13341 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
2 CRA-6613-2024
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, aforesaid
appeals are taken up for final disposal at motion stage.
4. The sole appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash, who has filed Cr.A.
No.6613 of 2024 has been convicted by learned IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Deori, District Sagar in Special Sessions Case No.06 of 2022 as
under :-
Conviction S e n t e n ce
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
fine deposited in lieu of Fine
details
366-ka IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.5000/- R.I. for three
months
5(L)/6 POCSO R.I. for 20 Rs.10,000/- R.I. for six
Act years months
5. The appellant No.1- Kailash Yadav, appellant no.2-Ramkrishn @
Ramkesh, appellant no.3-Anil Yadav and appellant no.4-Devisingh Yadav ,
who has filed Cr.A. No.7069 of 2024 have been convicted by learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deori, District Sagar in Special Sessions Case
No.06 of 2022 as under :-
Conviction S e n t e n ce
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
fine deposited in lieu of Fine
details
366 (A) IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.5000/- R.I. for three
months
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
3 CRA-6613-2024
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the prosecutrix
is a consenting party. She had gone with the appellant - Monu @
Chandraprakash on her own volition. There are several contradictions in her
story. It is pointed out that (PW-1) prosecutrix admitted in Para-6 of her
examination when leading questions were put to her that there are several
omissions in her Case Diary Statement (Ex.P-4). In Para-7, she admitted
that when she had left her home at that time her sister, mother and brother
were present at home. She had not informed anybody before leaving home.
This fact is corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Archana Sharan (PW-3),
who has stated in Para-4 that besides there being no external and internal
injury on her body, the prosecutrix had informed her that she had gone with
the appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash on her own volition.
7. It is further submitted that Amit Kumar Khare (PW-5) a Primary
School Teacher has admitted in his cross-examination that no proof of date
of birth was given in the school while taking admission.
8. Reading from Para-11 of the cross - examination of mother of the
proxecutrix, (PW-7), it is pointed out that the mother of prosecurix admitted
that her marriage was performed twenty five years back. After two years, her
first daughter was born. Prosecutrix is her third child. There is age gap of
two years amongst all the three children. Thus, when this statement of
mother of the prosecutrix (PW-7) is taken into consideration and is read with
the statement Amit Kumar Khare (PW-5), a Primary School Teacher, then it
is evident that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident and this fact
could not be disputed and is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
4 CRA-6613-2024
prosecution.
9. It is surprising to note that prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief
states that she was a student of Class -12th when the incident took place
but prosecution has failed to produce her 10th class mark-sheet which would
have been a cogent proof of date of birth of the prosecutrix in terms of the
provisions of contained in Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care of Protection
of Children) Act 2015.
10. Shri Yash Soni, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
acquittal of appellants. He submits that P-13 is 'Dakhil Kharij Register', P-
14-C is also part of record of the school for the Sessions 2010-2011 and
Ex.P-15 is certificate issued by Head Master of Primary School, Bagdari,
Development Block Keshari, district Sagar showing the date of birth of the
prosecutrix as 16.4.2005, and therefore, it is submitted that in 2022 the
prosecutrix was minor.
11. Before adverting to the merits of the case, if is necessary to request
the Director General of Police, State of M.P. to instruct all the Investigating
Officers through Superintendents of Police by calling them through Video
Conferencing and informing them that wherever prosecutrix in cases
pertaining to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
2012/Violation of Privacy accepts that she was studying in 10th class or has
failed in 10th class or was studying in any higher class then mark sheet of
10th class should necessarily be seized so that many of the abnormalities
and contradictions can be overcome. This direction will be communicated
by Shri Yash Soni, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
5 CRA-6613-2024
M.P. to the Director General of Police, State of M.P. alongwith certified
copy of this judgment within seven working days.
12. As far as merits are concerned, Dr. Archana Sharan (PW-3) has
admitted that prosecutrix informed her that she had left her home on her own
volition with the appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash. She also stated that
prosecutrix had informed her they had run away to Gujrat. They had first
travelled on a motorcycle from Bagdari to Deori and from Deori to
Gadarwara in a jeep. From Gadarwaha, they had taken a bus to reach
Pipariya and from Pipariya they had taken a train to travel to Morvi, Gujrat
where they were working together in one Indian Pack Company. Dr. Archana
Sharan (PW-3) also stated that her hymen was old torn and there was no
pain or swelling in the private part of the prosecutrix.
13. When these aspects are taken into consideration alongwith the
evidence of the prosecutrix that when she left her home, her mother, brother
and sister were present in the home and she has not informed anybody
about the incident, theory of abduction as a result of which appellant No.1-
Kailash Yadav, appellant no.2-Ramkrishn @ Ramkesh, appellant no.3-Anil
Yadav and appellant no.4-Devisingh Yadav, S/o Tejbal Yadav, who have
filed Cr.A. No.7069 of 2024 have been convicted under Section 366-A of
IPC, is not made out. Prosecutrix being a major leaving her home on her
own volition cannot be said to be kidnapped or abducted so as to uphold
conviction of appellant No.1- Kailash Yadav, appellant no.2-Ramkrishn @
Ramkesh, appellant no.3-Anil Yadav and appellant no.4-Devisingh Yadav,
S/o Tejbal Yadav.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27971
6 CRA-6613-2024
14. As far as conviction of appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash is
concerned, his conviction too cannot be sustained under Section 366-A of
IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
2012 in the eyes of law, in as much as, the provisions of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, will be applicable only when
victim is a minor. Since prosecution has failed to prove that victim was minor
at the time of the incident, and there appears to be consent as narrated by Dr.
Archana Sharan (PW-3) and accepted by the prosecutrix (PW-1), conviction
of the appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash under Section 366-A of IPC and
under Section Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act 2012 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
15. Accordingly, aforesaid conviction is set aside. Cr.A. No.6613 of
2024 filed on behalf of appellant - Monu @ Chandraprakash a n d Cr.A.
No.7069 of 2024 filed by appellant No.1- Kailash Yadav, appellant no.2-
Ramkrishn @ Ramkesh, appellant no.3-Anil Yadav and appellant no.4-
Devisingh Yadav are allowed. The appellants (named above) if not required
in any other offence be set free. Case property be disposed of as per
directions of the trial court.
16. Record of the trial court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
