Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55869
1 CRA-8154-2025
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 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8154 of 2025
NANDRAM AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shuka, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant instead of pressing
I.A.No.20265/2025, which is first application under Section 389(1) of the
Criminal Procedure Code/430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, prays that
this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A.No.20265/2025 is dismissed as not pressed and with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
3. This Criminal Appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 23.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,
Banda, District Sagar (M.P.), in Special Case No.59/2020, whereby the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55869
2 CRA-8154-2025
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
363 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years Rs.500/- R.I for 1 month
R.I. for 10
366 I.P.C. Rs.500/- R.I. for 1 month
years
R.I. for 20
05/06 POCSO Rs.500/- R.I. for 1 month
years
376(3) IPC Nil Nil Nil
4. Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that prosecutrix is a consenting adult. Appellant has been falsely implicated.
Prosecutrix herself and her parents have not supported the prosecution case.
Gangaram Rajak (PW/5), School Teacher has also admitted that no
documentary evidence was produced to point out that date of birth of the
Victim was 22.06.2006. DNA report Ex.P/21 is low uninterpretable and,
therefore, no definite opinion is given. Lady doctor Dr. Sanyogita Thakur
(PW/10), has also not given any definite opinion in regard to violation of
privacy. In fact, Dr. Sanyogita Thakur (PW/10), had advised UPT as well as
X-ray for age determination, but prosecution has not produced any X-ray
report on record which makes the case of the prosecution that Victim was a
minor, is doubtful.
5. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent-State, in his
turn, submits that incident is of 13.04.2020. Date of birth of the Victim as
per record is 22.06.2006 and, therefore, she was hardly 13 years 10 months
of age at the time of the incident and no indulgence is therefore called for.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55869
3 CRA-8154-2025
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it reveals that PW/1 is the mother of the Victim. In para 1 itself, she stated
that age of the Victim is 19 years. Victim has studied upto 5th Class. She
was admitted in a school at Village Matiya by her father.
7. PW/1, mother of the Victim, in cross-examination, admits that the age of
the Victim is 19 years and police had obtained her thumb impression on 2-3
blank papers. She does not know as to on what basis date of birth of the
Victim was recorded. This witness was re-examined by the learned Public
Prosecutor and on re-examination she denied that age of the Victim was 14
years at the time of the incident. She admits that she had not prepared any
birth certificate for the Victim or the horoscope of the Victim, therefore, she
cannot state as to what is the age of the Victim. She denied a suggestion that
age of the Victim is between 14 to 16 years and on her own stated that age of
the Victim is 19 years.
8. Victim (PW/2), denied that appellant is known to her. She denied her
statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as contained in Ex.P/4.
However, in Ex.P/4, her 164 Cr.P.C., statements given before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, she admitted her love affairs with the appellant and
stated that appellant had violated her privacy in the name of marriage.
9. Victim (PW/2), in cross-examination, stated that her age is 19 years, as a
result of which, her father performed her marriage with one Kallu Adivasi
resident of Imaliya. This marriage was performed as per Hindu tradition.
10. Dr. U.S. Pandey (PW/3), is the person who had drawn samples and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55869
4 CRA-8154-2025
preserved them.
11. Balchand (PW/4), is father of the Victim. He stated that at the time of the
incident, age of the Victim is 19 years. In cross-examination, he admitted
that age of the Victim is 19 years and has further stated that she had never
gone to the school.
12. Gangaram Rajak (PW/5), Primary Teacher, admitted in cross-
examination that no horoscope or birth certificate was produced by her father
and date of birth was recorded as per estimation.
13. Dr. Sanyogita Thakur (PW/10), found that there were no internal or
external injures on the body of the Victim and her hymen was old torn.
There was no redness on her private parts. She expressed that no definite
opinion can be given. She had advised X-ray examination for age
determination, but no X-ray examination report is brought on record by the
prosecution.
14. When these facts are taken into consideration, then once Victim admits
that her marriage was performed and parents of the Victim as well as Victim
state that her age was 19 years at the time of the incident and further that
prosecution failed to comply with the directives of the lady doctor Sanyogita
Thakur (PW/10), and have not brought any X-ray report on record to
determine the age of the Victim, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
maintained, especially when even School Teacher Gangaram Rajak (PW/5),
admits that there is no basis for recording of the date of birth of the Victim as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55869
5 CRA-8154-2025
22.06.2006.
15. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction
dated 23.7.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is, hereby, set
aside. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case property be disposed of as per the orders of the learned trial Court.
16. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
