Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anjum Seikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
1 CRA-2933-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2933 of 2015
ANJUM SEIKH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3125 of 2015
SHANTIBAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Shukla - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 559 of 2022
KHAIRUNISHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Shukla - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 560 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 22-05-2025
17:07:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
2 CRA-2933-2015
KAILASH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Shukla - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6199 of 2022
VIJAY SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Vinita Rai with Shri Pushplata Mishra - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - learned Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
In these cases, appellants Anjum and Shanti Bai, who are appellants in
Cr.A.No.2933/2015 and Cr.A.No.3125/2015 have been tried together and
sentenced to suffer 10 years imprisonment vide judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 18/09/2015 in S.C. No.300066/2014 by Special Judge (POCSO
Act), District Chhindwara; while appellants Kailash & Rajni, Vijay and
Khairunisha, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.560/2022, 6199/2022,
559/2022 respectively have been tried together and sentenced to suffer 10 years
RI, life imprisonment and 10 years RI respectively vide judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 30/11/2021 passed in S.C. No.300066/2014 by Special Judge
(POCSO Act), District Chhindwara.
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized simply in the following
words:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
3 CRA-2933-2015
2.1 The prosecutrix went missing on 16/03/2013 and FIR has been registered
later on after a year on 12/03/2014, pursuant to which, the prosecutrix herself
appeared before the Police Station on 19/03/2014 from Shujalpur. The entire case
is based largely on the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1). The prosecutrix
states in her first testimony on 10/09/2014 that she was about 17 years on that
date and her date of birth is 16/10/1998. She further states that she studied from
class 1st till class 5th in Mission Tani School, Budhwari, District Chhindwara
and thereafter, from class 6th to class 8th, she studied in Maharani Laxmi Bai
Girls School, Chhindwara. She says that on the date of incident, she with her
friend Shivani, who are both studying in Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls School in
class 7th and 8th respectively used to go to do domestic work as her mother was
not well. She further states that she and her friend Shivani used to go to wash
dishes to the house of accused-Anjum, who told both of them that they have to
travel to Rama Kona and so the prosecutrix along with Shivani went to Rama
Kona and return to Chhindwara in the evening. She further states that at Rama
Kona, the prosecutrix, accused Anjum, daughter of accused-Anjum and son-in-
law were at home, and they were discussing something amongst themselves,
which was over heard by Shivani who did not reveal to the prosecutrix what the
conversation was. Thereafter, she says when they return to Chhindwara in the
evening, the accused Anjum told the prosecutrix that they have to travel to Bhopal
to attend the 'Varsa' of Shanti Bai's grandson, and they would return the next day.
She further said that the accused-Anjum told her to inform her mother over
mobile. She further continues to say that at the station along with them Shanti Bai,
Anjum, Anjum's mother Khairunnisa, Shanti Bai's daughter and her son-in-law
Kailash Yadav were there. She further states that they caught the train from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
4 CRA-2933-2015
Chhindwara to Bhopal and during the journey, Shivani told the prosecutrix to
accompany her till the toilet and that she wanted to disclose something to the
prosecutrix in private. She further states that at that time, the accused-Anjum had
taken away the prosecutrix's mobile and the daughter of Shanti Bai followed them
to the toilet. Thereafter, it is stated by the prosecutrix, that she and Shivani went
inside the next coach, where daughter of Shanti Bai followed them and after a
while Shanti Bai's son-in-law-Kailash Yadav also reached there. Kailash told the
prosecutrix to come back to the original coach and sit there. Prosecutrix further
says that in the train, she asked for her mobile from accused-Anjum to call her
mother but during the time the mobile was in possession of the accused-Anjum,
she is alleged to have broken the sim, on account of which the prosecutrix was
unable to contact her mother. She further states that the next day at 12:00 p.m.,
they reached Shujalpur railway station and alighted there and from there they took
a bus to Susner and from Susner, they took another bus to Kushner and by
evening 4:00 p.m., they reached Kushner and there, those persons with whom the
accused had struck a deal, came there. She further states that the accused Anjum
had gone to the market accompanying the boy with whom a deal was stuck for her
sale, to purchase a saree for the prosecutrix who was then asked to dress in the
saree after which, she was presented before everyone and all those present there
put money into the lap of the prosecutrix and in the evening all of them left. She
says that she asked the accused-Anjum what was happening, to which accused-
Anjum told her that since you come here for the first time, those are ceremonies
that take place here. The prosecutrix says that till that point of time the
prosecutrix did not know that the accused-Anjum had struck a deal with the
accused persons to purchase the prosecutrix. The same evening, the prosecutrix's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
5 CRA-2933-2015
friend Shivani informed that these people have sold you and the prosecutrix
must assert if she wants to go back to Chhindwara. Thereafter, in paragraph 10 of
her examination-in-chief she suggests that the person with whom she was sold to,
his name is accused-Vijay Singh Yadav. She further states that the next day, she
put her foot down and insisted that she be sent back to Chhindwara but the
accused-Anjum and Shanti Bai and Khairunisa took Shivani and returned to
Chhindwara and left the prosecutrix. She further states that the age of Shivani
being less, they could not strike a deal for her.
3. She continues by stating that the accused Kailash informed her that if she
insisted excessively, she would not be allowed to return to Chhindwara and
threatened her. She further states that to the next two days, she stayed at the house
of Kailash and the next day Kailash informed the prosecutrix that the accused-
Vijay Yadav had a religious function at his residence and that they have to go
there and thereafter she would be taken back to Chhindwara. That evening, she
says that the Kailash and Rajni, daughter of Shanti Bai, went to the house of
accused Vijay, where they stayed for one night. Thereafter, Kailash, Shanti Bai
and Rajni left the prosecutrix there. The next day, the prosecutrix says that the
Shanti Bai and Rajni forcefully made her go to the 'Haldi ceremony' and accused
Kailash threatened her by dire consequences and the same night, Kailash left from
there giving excuse of his mother's illness. Thereafter, she says that the accused-
Vijay forcefully married her. She further insisted for returning home, upon which
accused Vijay physically assaulted her. She further says that she was not happy
with Vijay Yadav. She further says that accused-Vijay Yadav forcibly raped her
and kept illicit relationship with her for one year. After one year, her mother, with
her friend Shivani traced her and gave a report to the Police, upon which accused-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
6 CRA-2933-2015
Anjum came from Chhindwara along with her mother Khairunisa and her brother
in order to take her back to Chhindwara, in which accused-Vijay Yadav is stated
to have told them that they have pay Rs.One Lakh for the prosecutrix and they
would release her if they get Rs. One Lakh in return. She further states that she
along with accused-Anjum, Anjum's mother and her brother reached Chhindwara,
where she was kept in the house of accused-Anjum for 5-6 days. After which
Irfan, husband of Anjum, Khairunisha and her brother would try to make the
prosecutrix understand that they would let her go only on one condition that she
would not state anything incriminating to the staff of Police Station City Kotwali
and she would change the statement, when she once return there and that is how,
the prosecutrix reached to the Police Station on 19/03/2014.
4. The narrative of the prosecution's case disclosed from the testimony of the
prosecutrix raises certain questions, which militate against normal course of
human conduct. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that it is strange,
suspicious and unbelievable, that the prosecutrix went missing for a full year and
not even a missing person report is registered by her mother till 12/03/2014. The
second aspect that they have stated, which is unique to the case is that the
prosecutrix who was forcibly being held back against her will by the accused
persons, herself reaches the police station on 19/03/2014 and gets her recovery
memorandum prepared.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, referred to the statement of the prosecutrix
and have argued that there is nothing to disclose that force of any kind was used
upon the prosecutrix to hold her back for one year. Learned counsel for the
appellants have referred to the initial part of the testimony of the prosecutrix,
whereby she stated that she travelled along with accused by train and twice by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
7 CRA-2933-2015
bus. It is further argued that there was sufficient opportunity for the prosecutrix to
shout and raise an alarm, if she had been taken against her will by the accused
persons. Though the suggestion given by the defence have been refuted by the
prosecutrix (PW1), who has denied the suggestion that she was never raped by the
accused-Vijay Yadav, and neither was she abducted. Learned counsel for the
appellants have also drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 19 of the
prosecutrix testimony, whereby she says that it is correct to suggest that she
studied till 7th standard and that she was good at her studies and scored good
marks and it is also correct to suggest that she used to participate in all the
competitions, which were held in the school. By reading the said paragraph,
learned counsel for the appellants have stated that the prosecutrix was not a
helpless child as is sought to be made out by the prosecution but she was
reasonably accomplished for her age and she knew what was happening to her and
therefore, her evidence could not be construed strictly without appreciating the
fact that she was mature enough to know what was happening to her.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants have also referred to paragraph 20 of the
testimony of the prosecutrix, where she stated that it is correct to suggest that
there was no certificate of birth ever prepared of the prosecutrix. She further says
that it is correct to suggest that her mother had given her date of birth in the
school by estimation. It has also been drawn to our attention that in paragraph 21,
the prosecutrix says that it is correct to suggest that she had alone gone to the
police station. They have further drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph
32 of the testimony of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that it is correct to
suggest that when she was married with accused Vijay, accused Anjum and Shanti
Bai were not there. Thereafter, she voluntarily suggest that when she got engaged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
8 CRA-2933-2015
to accused Vijay, the accused Anjum and Shanti Bai were very much there. She,
however, further suggests that when she was engaged, she was not aware of the
same and at that time she was told by accused -Anjum about the customs and
traditions of the place.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants have thereafter drawn attention of this
Court towards paragraph 49 of the testimony of the prosecutrix, whereby
prosecutrix says that it is correct to suggest that for one year, the village where
she stayed, she was not locked up in the room. She further states that it is correct
to suggest that she had knowledge of the fact that she was married to Vijay, but
she was not aware that after marriage with accused Vijay a new Adhar Card has
been made. She further says that it is not correct to suggest that the accused Rajni,
Kailash did not sell her to Vijay for Rs. One Lakh, inasmuch as it is incorrect to
suggest that the mother of the prosecutrix has received Rs. One Lakh for selling
her.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted by drawing the
attention of this Court towards paragraph 50 of the testimony of the prosecutrix,
wherein she stated that the date on which she testified before the trial Court, she
was married for the past 3 years, and the fourth year is going on. On the basis of
the statement of the prosecutrix in paragraph 50, learned counsel for the
appellants have submitted that only on account of her having married elsewhere,
she was under any pressure to testify against the appellants/accused persons so
that they do not come out of the jail as the prosecutrix apprehends that her
married life would be disturbed, if the appellants are set forth with liberty.
9. Shivani (PW-3) is the friend of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the
appellants have drawn the attention of this Court towards para 7 of this witness's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
9 CRA-2933-2015
testimony wherein she says that it is correct to suggest that even before this
incident, she (PW3) had told the mother of the prosecutrix, 06 months before also
that the prosecutrix had run away with another boy. This witness further suggests
that when she had informed the mother of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix had
run away with another boy, the mother of the prosecutrix went to the house of the
boy to bring the prosecutrix back home. She further states that she had informed
the mother of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix is staying with accused -Vijay.
In the same paragraph, she says that it is correct to suggest that she had intimated
the mother of the prosecutrix one year before itself that the prosecutrix is living
with accused Vijay. Later on, this witness further states that the prosecutrix had
earlier on two different occasions left her home, which was also known to the
mother of the prosecutrix. She further suggests that the mother of the prosecutrix
had told her to come to the Court and testify, on account of which she had given
her statement before the trial Court. It is necessary to state here that this witness
has not been declared hostile and neither she has been re-examined by the
prosecution, even though in her cross-examination, she has stated the facts which
are adverse to the case of the prosecution.
10. PW-5 is the mother of the prosecutrix. In paragraph 2 she says that the
incident had taken place one year before the registration of FIR and that the
prosecutrix had left her home telling her mother that she has gone to the house of
her friend Shivani. She further states that after going to the house of her friend
Shivani, the prosecutrix returned after one year and informs the witness that she
was sold for Rs. One Lakh by accused-Anjum and besides this the prosecutrix has
not stated anything to this witness It is relevant to state here that the relationship
between the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) and her mother (P.W.5) was not cordial and it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
10 CRA-2933-2015
reflected from paragraph 48 of the testimony of the prosecutrix, where she says
that even after returning to Chhindwara, she was not living with her mother. She
further states that there were quarrels between the prosecutrix and her mother.
11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand argued that the testimony of
the prosecutrix is elaborate and she had spoken with great detail about all the
accused persons and their varied roles at different points of time, thus, there is no
reason to disbelieve her. He further states that she was not able to return back to
her home on account of the fear of accused Vijay Singh. As regards delay in
registration of FIR, learned counsel for the State submits that mother of the
prosecutrix (PW5) did not register the FIR promptly because she had no know the
whereabouts of her daughter and it was only when she came to know as to what
had happened with the prosecutrix upon her return, that she registered the FIR on
12/03/014.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial
court.
13. In this case, undoubtedly, the testimony of the prosecutrix is elaborate, she
has literally given a blow-by-blow account of how she reached the custody of
accused Vijay Singh. She also comes across as a confident girl, reasonably
educated, who is doing well in studies and participating in co-curricular activities,
which shows that the prosecutrix is a girl endowed with high confidence level and
is not someone, who could be fooled by anyone. Prosecutrix's narrative also
shows that the initial journeys made by the prosecutrix was without any force,
compulsion, coercion or threats and she had taken a train and two journeys by bus
to reach the house of accused-Vijay. She has also stated in her testimony that there
were other houses in the vicinity, where she was held and it was not the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
11 CRA-2933-2015
where she was kept locked inside one room for an entire year.
14. Thus, her travel and reaching to accused Vijay not due to any force, threat
or coercion on the part of the accused and she had to have gone there on her own
will and with full knowledge of what was happening. This court rejects the part of
her testimony, where she says, even when her engagement took place, she did not
know what was going on. The said contention put forth by the prosecutrix is
fanciful. She would have been exposed of several such ceremonies of engagement
before the marriage during the course of her life which she would have witnesses
as a guest before she herself got engaged. Therefore, the journey along with the
accused-Vijay does not disclose any kind of coercion, threat or force being
brought to bear upon the prosecutrix and her stay with accused Vijay could only
be seen as consensual.
15. However, the only question that is left to be decided is with regard to the
age of the prosecutrix. The prosecution's case is that the prosecutrix was a minor,
when she was taken away. However, the testimony of her mother and the
prosecutrix go to reveal that neither of them has knowledge about the actual date
of birth of the prosecutrix, and prosecutrix had herself stated that her mother had
given the date of birth on the basis of estimation. The keeper of the records of the
school, where the prosecutrix studied has been examined as P.W.-8. He is the
teacher who got the record of the school exhibited. This witness has stated that no
document was ever produced when her date of birth was recorded in the school
and that the father of the prosecutrix had given the date of birth by estimation.
16. Mother of the prosecutrix i.e. P.W.-5 also states that she was not aware
about the actual date of birth of the prosecutrix and she had given date of birth of
the prosecutrix to the school authority on the basis of estimation. MLC of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
12 CRA-2933-2015
prosecutrix is inconclusive as expected, as the prosecutrix was with accused-
Vijay for almost one year. Besides, the conduct of P.W.5, who is real mother of
the prosecutrix, of not take any steps or action after coming to know that her
daughter is missing for one full year, is suspicious. The normal course of human
conduct for a mother whose daughter has gone missing is to immediately file a
missing person's report with the police at the earliest, if not an FIR. However, the
mother of the prosecutrix does nothing at all and that shows that P.W.-5 was fully
well aware where the prosecutrix was and that the prosecutrix was there with the
blessings of P.W-5. Else, at least a missing person report would have been
registered by P.W.-5 in the month of March, 2013 itself, when after 24 hours, the
prosecutrix did not return to her home in Chhindwara and those with whom, she
had gone did not give any answer with regard to her disappearance. Thus, the
miasma surrounding the date of birth of the prosecutrix is a lacuna in the
prosecution's case and the benefit of that must go to the accused.
17. In view of what has been argued and considered hereinabove, this Court
goes to hold that the prosecutrix's journey and her stay with accused-Vijay was
consensual and there is no evidence to make this court believe that force,
coercion or threats were used upon the prosecutrix throughout the journey by train
and two journeys by bus, where she could have easily raise any alarm to other co-
passengers. As regards, her previous conduct, the statement of her friend-Shivani
(P.W. 3) clearly discloses that the prosecutrix was habituated to eloping with
other boys and on two earlier occasions she had done so, was within the
knowledge of her mother (P.W. 5). As this witness has not been turned hostile and
has not be re-examined by the prosecution to seek clarification, her statement is
binding on the prosecution case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21001
13 CRA-2933-2015
18. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt and so, these appeals succeed, and the impugned
judgments of conviction and sentence are hereby set-aside. The appellants are
acquitted. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. The
appellants, who are in jail, shall be released forthwith.
19. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the record be sent back to the court
concerned for information and necessary compliance.
20. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
