Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chiranjit Sarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
1 CRA-3414-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3414 of 2023
CHIRANJIT SARKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.
Shri Anand Chourasia - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant
instead of pressing I.A. No.25612/2025, which is the fourth application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Chiranjit Sarkar S/o
Shri Haran Sarkar, prays that this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.25612/2025 is dismissed as not pressed and with
the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by convicted appellant - Chiranjit Sarkar being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Third
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
2 CRA-3414-2023
Offences Act, 2012, Deosar, District Singrauli (M.P.) in Special case
No.09/2021 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chiranjit Sarkar ), whereby the
appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 376(3) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- with a further stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year in
default of payment of fine amount.
4. Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that all three witnesses, namely, victim and her parents, have not
supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that conviction has been
recorded by the learned trial Court only on the basis of positive DNA report
and looking to the age of the victim, which came out to be 13 years, 1 month
and 22 years, at the time of the incident.
5. It is further submitted that since there is no ocular evidence, therefore, in
the light of the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in case of Premjibhai
Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in LAWS (GJH)-2009-1-
52 = 2009 CRI.L.J. 2888, when there is no corroborate evidence, then
acquittal should be recorded.
6. Reliance is placed on paragraph 16.2 of the said judgment, which reads
as under:-
"16.2 We appreciate the action on the part of the
Investigating Police Officer to opt for collection of scientific
evidence in form of DNA Report. DNA Report plays an important
role and its need and usefulness can not be underestimated. It is
useful to any Investigating Police Officer to assess as to whether
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
3 CRA-3414-2023
his investigation of a crime is on right track or not. It would save
people from facing unwarranted prosecutions. But, when the
question of appreciation of evidence of such report arises before a
criminal Court, especially when such report is positive, it shall
look for other evidence, particularly when such other evidence
does not fall in line with the result in the positive DNA report or
when such other evidence is in direct conflict with the opinion
expressed in such positive report. Such report can be used as
corroborative evidence i.e. an evidence to substantiate other
evidence. A positive DNA report cannot be the sole and
conclusive evidence to record conviction in a criminal case."
7. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor submits that MLC
report is Ex.P-26, proved by the lady doctor PW-11 Dr. Sushma Sahu. It is
pointed out that lady doctor while giving her MLC report has categorically
recorded a finding that physical condition is required to be corroborated with
the DNA finger printing and biochemical examination. Thus, it is submitted
that since DNA report (Ex.P-31) is positive and merely saying that the girl
was major, is not a sufficient. Conviction needs to be maintained as there is
corroboration of the findings of the lady doctor PW-11 Dr. Sushma Sahu vis-
a-vis the DNA report (Ex.P-31). It is also submitted that PW-2 father of the
victim and PW-3 mother of the victim have admitted that there was a
compromise effected between the parties.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
4 CRA-3414-2023
record, it is true that the victim has tried to gloss over the matter by saying
that she was major. Her parents too have tried to gloss over the matter by
saying that the victim was a major, but there is school record (Ex.P-12C),
proved by school teacher PW-4 Vibhuti Pratap Narayan, showing the date of
birth of the victim to be 01.01.2008.
9. PW-4 Shri Vibhuti Pratap Narayan, school teacher deposed that he was
working as a Primary Teacher in the said school since 1997. He had received
a letter from the police authorities vide Ex.P-11 asking to give date of birth
of the victim. As per the school records, date of birth of the victim is
01.01.2008 and she had taken admission in Class-1 on 01.08.2015. In cross-
examination, this witness admitted that the victim's father had come to admit
her in Class-1 and no admission form was filled.
10. PW-1 victim has though stated that appellant Chiranjit is not known to
her. She stated that she had studied upto Class-5 th, but name of her school is
not known to her. She mentioned her age to be 19 years, but when this
evidence is examined in the light of Ex.P-1, which is the statement of the
victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C., then in her 164, Cr.P.C. statement, she
stated her age to be 14 years and further stated that Chiranjit is a resident of
her village. They were known to each other. Appellant Chiranjit used to visit
her house. About 8 days prior to her deposition, Chiranjit had visited her
house, from where they had travelled in an auto to Deosar, without informing
her parents. Thereafter, she stated that she and Chiranjit had performed
marriage in a temple and then she returned to her house.
11. Thus, this statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. is contrary to the court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
5 CRA-3414-2023
statements as given by her in her capacity as Prosecution witness No.1. In
court statements, she admitted her signatures on Ex.D-1. Thus, her
statements before the court that Chiranjit is not known to her, is factually
incorrect. Though the victim has turned hostile and has not supported the
prosecution case, but her statement that she was 19 years of age, is not
corroborated through any connecting evidence given by PW-2 and PW-3,
who are respectively father and mother of the victim.
12. As far as PW-2 father of the victim is concerned, he stated that about 5
months back, his wife had scolded the victim and then when he came back
from the office, the victim was not available at home. When she did not
return till evening, then she was looked for in the neighbourhood, so also at
the places of her relatives, but no clue could be gathered about her. After 4-5
days of search, a missing person report (Ex.P-5) was lodged, on the basis of
which FIR (Ex.P-6) was registered and they contained his signatures. 6-7
days later, the victim had returned back to her home. This witness, contrary
to the prosecution record, stated that no medical examination of the victim
was conducted, which is contrary to MLC report (Ex.P-26). Lady doctor
PW-11 Dr. Sushma Sahu admitted examining the victim at Community
Health Center, Sarai on 01.03.2021.
13. Similar statements have been given by PW-3 mother of the victim.
14. However, the fact of the matter is that the victim had gone missing. She
admitted her relationship with the appellant, but the only contentious issues
are twofold, namely, date of birth of the victim as proved by school teacher
PW-4 Vibhuti Pratap Narayan and not disputed by the defence and,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
6 CRA-3414-2023
secondly, positivity of the DNA, as contained in the DNA report (Ex.P-31C)
wherein it is mentioned that (Y) STR DNA profile obtained from the leggy
of the victim (Article 'C') and pubic hair (Article 'E'), was similar to the (Y)
STR DNA profile obtained from the blood sample (Article 'B') of the
appellant.
15. When this aspect is examined in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Gujarat in case of Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya (supra),
wherein it is mentioned that "when such report is positive, it shall look for
other evidence, particularly when such other evidence does not fall in line
with the result in the positive DNA report or when such other evidence is in
direct conflict with the opinion expressed in such positive report."
16. In the present case, we have observed that corroborative evidence is
that of the lady doctor PW-11 Dr. Sushma Sahu, who in her MLC report
(Ex.P-26), instead of giving any definite opinion for rape, had asked for
corroboration through the forensic examination as well as bio-chemical
examination. DNA report (Ex.P-31C) is since positive that corroborates the
findings of the lady doctor, PW-11 Dr. Sushma Sahu, as contained in Ex.P-
26, judgment of High Court of Gujarat in case of Premjibhai Bachubhai
Khasiya (supra), appears to be distinguishable on its own facts. Therefore,
we have no material to take any other view than that taken by the learned
trial Court.
17. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. The
case property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the trial Court.
Record of the trial Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if any, also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56212
7 CRA-3414-2023
stand disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
