Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hiralal Banshal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 11TH NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8690 OF 2025
HIRALAL BANSHAL.
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Singh- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Shrivastava- Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal:
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.24667/2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.24667/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is heard
finally.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C./415 of BNSS is filed by the
appellant being aggrieved of judgment dated 23/08/2025 passed in Sessions Trial
No.09/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge Sidhi (MP) whereby appellant- Hiralal
Banshal has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
450 I.P.C. R.I. for 07 years Rs.2,000/- R.I for 06 months
376(2)(f) I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs.5,000/- R.I for 01 year.
376(2)(n) I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs.5,000/- R.I for 01 year.
506(Part-II) I.P.C. R.I. for 02 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 06 months.
2. As per the story of the prosecution on 31.10.2023 at about 15:38 hours the
victim had appeared before the SHO of Police Station Amiliya District Sidhi along with
her mother orally stating that she is resident of Village Titli. About last one-and-half-
year back she lost her husband due to illness. She is residing with three of her children
separately from her in-laws and is bringing up her three children.
3. On 28.8.2023 at about 8:00 PM the victim had closed gate of her home and
had gone to the hand-pump to take bath. After returning from the hand-pump, she had
taken her meals and then gone to sleep. At about 2:00 AM her Chacha Sasur Hiralal
Banshal came to her, threatened her to not to raise any alarm and then violated her
privacy, and on account of threat to the life to her children, she did not say anything but
the appellant violated her privacy again and again. On 20.10.2023 at about 7:00 PM
when her children were playing on road and she was cooking meals, the appellant had
come to her house, thrown her on floor and violated her privacy. Again she was
threatened. On 22.10.2023 being afraid and also being under fear she had taken her
children and gone to her mother's house at Village Pahadi. Then along with her mother
report (Ex.P-9) was lodged on 31.10.2023 at about 15:40 hours at Police Station
Amiliya District Sidhi under Sections 450, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly the appellant was in a
consensual relationship with the victim, the age of the appellant is 35 years. Ex.D-2 is
the marriage agreement, which was entered into between the appellant and the victim.
This marriage agreement was executed on 20.9.2023. This marriage agreement is not
disputed. Thus it is pointed out that after so-called first incident took place on 28.8.2023
the victim had voluntarily entered into a marriage agreement wherein her age is
mentioned as 31 years and that of the appellant is 37 years. Thereafter on account of
non-fulfillment of certain customary obligations and also bride price, this FIR came to
be recorded, which is not based on any substantial aspect. It is also submitted that the
evidence on record is not in favour of the victim. The FSL report (Ex.P-28) reveals that
no human sperm was found on the vaginal slides (Ex.A). Thus, it is submitted that
conviction of the appellant is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence
therefore it is liable to be set aside.
5. PW-1 is mother of the victim. She has admitted that her son-in-law died.
Her daughter has three children. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that her
daughter had informed her that Hiralal, who is her father-in-law in relationship had
violated her privacy. However, she stated that when and on how many occasions her
privacy was violated was not informed by her daughter. Thereafter PW-1 was declared
hostile and leading questions were put to her. In the cross-examination she has feigned
ignorance as to whether the victim had given her affidavit for obtaining bail of appellant
Hiralal before the High Court or that Hiralal was maintaining the victim. PW-2 is sister-
in-law (Nanad) of the victim. She has turned hostile. She has not supported the
prosecution case.
6. Constable Dinesh Rawat (PW-3) had taken the samples for examination to
the FSL, Sagar. Balmil Vishwakarma (PW-4) had prepared the trace Naksha and Sthal
Panchanama. Constable Kiran Shukla (PW-5) stated that she had taken the victim to the
District Hospital for medical examination. After medical examination lady doctor had
given her vaginal slides in a sealed condition along with seal sample of the hospital.
7. Dr. Ankita Singh (PW-6) stated that on 31.10.2023 she was posted as Lady
Medical Officer at District Hospital, Sidhi. Woman Constable 198 Kiran Shukla had
brought the victim for medical examination. In history, the victim had informed that
Hiralal aged about 35 years, who is her uncle-in-law had violated her privacy about one
month back. Thereafter the appellant was continuously violating her privacy. She
informed that she had become a widow about one-and-half-year back and has three
children, who were born through normal delivery. In internal and external examination,
no mark of injury, swelling, pain or any blood loss was found. She had prepared two
vagina slides. The lady doctor had opined that there may be possibility of forceful
intercourse, but that opinion can be given only after FSL reporting. In the cross
examination Dr. Ankita Singh (PW-6) admitted that during the examination, she had not
discovered establishment of any physical relationship through violent means.
8. Sub-Inspector Indraj Singh (PW-13) stated that he had prepared spot map
(Ex.P-16) and had seized 7th class mark-sheet of the victim vide Ex.P-17. On Ex.P-17
the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 10.6.1986.
9. On 1.11.2023 appellant Hiralal was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P-20).
In the cross examination this witness admitted that the victim is married and has three
children. She had reported the matter with delay of about two months. He feigned
ignorance to a suggestion that the appellant had married the victim and their consent
affidavit was executed in a Court at Sidhi. He admitted that the victim was absconding
and there is no information about her whereabouts.
10. Thereafter the victim was examined on 29.7.2025 as PW-14. She stated
that she was residing in Delhi and working as labourer. She further admitted that her
first marriage was performed when she was 15 years of age. Out of that wedlock three
children are born. Her husband had died 3-4 years prior to her giving deposition. Her
father-in-law is alive. Her mother-in-law died long back. Her father-in-law contracted
second marriage but she too died. She has one younger brother-in-law and one elder
brother-in-law. There are 50-60 houses of her community in the vicinity. She admits
that the appellant is residing close to her house in the same village. She stated that she
does not know the date when for the first time the appellant had established physical
relationship with her, then on her own she stated that for the first time the incident took
place when she had gone to fill water at a public tap. The appellant is her neighbourer
whereas her father-in-law stays at some distance. In para 7 this witness admits that she
had not narrated the incident to anybody under threat of life to her children. She further
stated that the appellant had violated her privacy at 7:00 PM. In para 8 this witness
states that she had executed the marriage document in the chamber of learned Sessions
Judge himself. She admitted that before lodging report, she and Hiralal had visited the
District Court, Sidhi and had jointly purchased a stamp paper on 20.9.2023 and
executed an agreement. However, later on she said that she was forced to execute that
document by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/-. She admitted the contents of the document
(Ex.D-2) and also admitted her signatures from A-A part on Ex.D-2. She admitted that
on 29.4.2024 a social panchayat was convened and proceedings of which are mentioned
in Ex.D-3 and it contains her signatures from A-A part. She admitted that the person
shown in Ex.D-1 is the person with whom she has contracted marriage at Delhi and is
residing with him at Delhi. She stated that, that person has accepted her and her
children. She admitted that she had performed the marriage with the said person 6-7
months prior. In para 10 she admits that in her community expenses for marriage are
borne by groom side.
11. The learned trial Court has held that under Section 48 of the Indian
Evidence Act no adverse inference can be drawn in regard to chastity of a person on the
basis of her previous physical experience. It also noted a fact that the documents
prepared after the first incident are not relevant.
12. Section 48 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that in a
prosecution for an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section
68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77
or section 78 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or for attempt to commit any such
offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the
victim or of such person's previous sexual experience with any person shall not be
relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.
13. A finding has also been recorded that though the plea of consensual
relationship has been taken by the appellant, but where there is allegation of threat
being meted out to the victim and the condition of victim is weak, then there cannot be
any presumption of consent.
14. Appellant Hiralal in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
has taken a specific defence that the victim was residing with him as a wife and had
obtained a notarial affidavit. Thereafter she had travelled to Delhi along with the
appellant, but victim got entangled with his friend Sonu resident of Chhattarpur, who
was working with the appellant and established physical relationship, but when this fact
came to the knowledge of everyone, then she came to Village Titly and lodged report in
connivance with her parents to falsely implicate him.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 has held that a probable defence raised by
the accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, time and again has emphasized importance of
putting all relevant questions to accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It is also noted
that delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt about the truth and veracity of allegations.
16. In the present case when the facts of the present case are examined in the
aforesaid backdrop, then it is evident that though the victim had reached house of her
mother on 21.10.2023 but report was lodged on 31.10.2023. The allegation is that her
privacy was being violated since August, 2023 and no explanation is given for delay in
the FIR. Secondly, the victim (PW-14) has admitted that she is not literate. This fact is
stated in para 8 of her deposition. She admits that she has not narrated the incident
when for the first time her privacy was violated. Despite admitting that her father-in-
law and Jeth are residing at a very close proximity to her house, she did not state that as
to why she had not narrated this fact to her father-in-law and Jeth. In the FIR (Ex.P-9)
under the column 8, reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant, it is
not mentioned that she was under threat and therefore could not lodge the report in
time, but it is mentioned that the report was lodged when the complainant visited the
police station. Secondly, the victim has admitted in her cross-examination that expenses
of marriage in their community are borne by the groom side. She admitted that in case
of second marriage, the expenses are taken by the society. Though she has denied a
suggestion that her parents had taken Rs.25,000/- from the appellant, but in para 8 she
has admitted that she had taken Rs.10,000/- for execution of document (Ex.D-2). She
has also admitted that she was residing at Delhi and returned back from Delhi for
lodging of report. She also admitted her liaison with the person whose photograph is
contained in Ex.D-1. Thus, when defence of the appellant is taken into consideration,
then in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maheshwar Tigga (supra) there appears to be substance in the probable defence raised
by the accused to rebut acquisition without requirement of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The relevant paras 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment are as under:-
"8. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be
excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of
the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of
natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish
his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances
against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient
to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance
of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, it was held to be an
essential part of a fair trial observing as follows:
"5. The questioning of the accused under Section 313 CrPC
was done in the most unsatisfactory manner. Under Section
313 CrPC the accused should have been given opportunity to
explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him. At least, the various items of evidence, which
had been produced by the prosecution, should have been put
to the accused in the form of questions and he should have
been given opportunity to give his explanation. No such
opportunity was given to the accused in the instant case. We
deprecate the practice of putting the entire evidence against
the accused put together in a single question and giving an
opportunity to explain the same, as the accused may not be in
a position to give a rational and intelligent explanation. The
trial Judge should have kept in mind the importance of giving
an opportunity to the accused to explain the adverse
circumstances in the evidence and the Section 313
examination shall not be carried out as an empty formality. It
is only after the entire evidence is unfurled the accused would
be in a position to articulate his defence and to give
explanation to the circumstances appearing in evidence
against him. Such an opportunity being given to the accused
is part of a fair trial and if it is done in a slipshod manner, it
may result in imperfect appreciation of evidence."
17. Thus, it is evident that not only there is delay in lodging the FIR but also
the defence of the appellant is probalized and is corroborated from Ex.D-2 on which the
victim accepts her signature. There is a suggestion though denied but indirectly
corroborated that the victim was in relationship with the accused and later on for a
brighter future she established liaison with another person. Therefore, the conviction
merely on the statement of victim without there being any corroboration to the
allegation of force and coercion and there being no rebuttal to the defence theory, which
appears to be probable in terms of the acceptance of the victim that in their community
expenses of the marriage are borne by the groom side and she had taken a sum of
Rs.10,000/-, but conviction on the basis of surmises and conjunctures in the matter of a
consensual relationship cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal appeal deserves to be and
is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is
hereby set aside. At present the appellant is in jail. It is directed that he be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
19. The record of the Court below be sent back along with the copy of this
judgment.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
MANZOOR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=ad2ac8e0b9d73797d7e446287ba5e706a07577c5a07e2372cfe20f
cae57ca829, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR,CID -
AHMED
7057308, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=3f5abbc4d66a4fa65feffcfa77b0475b40db19901ba46a4686
739a8406ebbe50, cn=MANZOOR AHMED
Date: 2025.11.14 16:46:23 +05'30'
Ansari
