Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
1 CRA-5050-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5050 of 2024
ROHIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijendra Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Neelu Khetra appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
JUDGMENT
1. Since, the appellant/accused is in custody, hence, the delay of 31
days in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
2. With the consent of parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. The appellant/accused has undergone a period of 02 years and 11
and half months out of his total incarceration of three years.
4. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989 is preferred challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by
Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 Rajgarh, Biora M.P. in ST.
Nos.109/2022 as below:-
Default
Section Imprisonment Fine
Stipulation
Sec.7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 03 Years Rs.2,000/- 30 Days
Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 01 Year Rs.1,000/- 15 Days
Section 354-D of IPC 01 Year Rs.1,000/- 15 Days
Section 3(10(W)(i) of SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989 02 Years Rs.1,000/- 15 Days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
2 CRA-5050-2024
5. As per the prosecution story, Victim/P/W-1 born on 13.10.2005
belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and studying in Class 12th was
subjected to stalking since four to five months by the appellant/accused who
does not belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. On the fateful day
of 11.01.2022, at about 5:30PM, victim PW-1 was returning to her home
from local market. The appellant/accused saw the victim PW-1 alone and
caught her right hand near Milan Gardan, Rajgarh and asked that he likes
her, he also asked why she does not involve in conversation with him. When
the victim/PW-1 objected then the appellant/accused extended warning that
her parents used to go office and she lives in the house alone then who will
save her. He further extended the threat of life to the parents. PW-1/Victim
intimated the incident to parents and thereafter fled an application Ex.P/3 to
the Police Station Rajgarh and a report Ex.P/4 was lodged and Crime
No.18/2022 was registered. After investigation, the final report was
submitted to the Exclusive Special Court.
6. The appellant accused was put to trial under Section 354, 354(D),
509, 506-II of IPC, section 7/8, 11/12 of the POCSO Act,. 2012 and under
Section 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
7. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
8. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined the child victim
PW-1, her father as PW-3, her mother as PW-4, Ramesh Medha PW-5,
Sandhya Raghuwanshi PW-6, Yogesh Kumar Goyal PW-7, Arvind Singh
Chouhan PW-2 and Investigating Officer Rajpal Rathore PW-8.
9. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
3 CRA-5050-2024
appellant/accused either denied all the facts and circumstances of the case or
innocence was pleaded. He advanced the defense that Victim PW-1 also
wanted to marry with him, but parents were not ready and this report has
been lodged.
10. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court recorded the
finding that date of birth of victim PW-1 is 13.10.2005 and on the date of
incident i.e. on 11.01.2022, the victim PW-1 was minor and below the age of
18 years. The learned trial Court further recorded the finding that the victim
belongs to the Scheduled Caste whereas the appellant does not belong to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and further recorded the
finding that the appellant/accused has followed/stalked the victim PW-1 and
also used criminal force and the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced
the appellant/accused as mentioned in para no.4, but acquitted the
appellant/accused from the charges under Section 354A(i), 506-II of IPC and
section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and ordered that all the
substantive sentence shall run concurrently and awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the victim PW-1 under M.P. Victim of
Crime Compensation Scheme, 2015.
11. Challenging the conviction as well as the quantum of sentence, this
criminal appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial Court
has recorded the finding ignoring variations, contradictions and omissions in
the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the investigation was tainted and
partial, there was no evidence on record to convict the appellant under the
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the learned trial Court also ignored
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
4 CRA-5050-2024
the fact that the appellant was a boy of only 22 years of age and he ought to
have granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
12. Heard.
13. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that
neither the conviction nor the sentence required any interference.
14. Perused the record.
15. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the
testimony of victim/ PW-1 inspires confidence of this Court enabling
conviction of the appellant or whether there is a manifest error in the
conclusion of the trial, leading to miscarriage of justice.
16. Child victim/PW-1 has stated that at the time of incident, she was
studying in Class-12th. Her date of birth is 13.10.2005. In her statements, she
stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 11.01.2022, at about 5:30PM, she
returned into her home from the local market, the appellant/accuse saw her
alone and caught her right hand near Milan Gardan, Rajgarh and asked that
he likes her, he also asked why she does not involve in conversation with
him, she objected then the appellant extended warning that her parents used
to go office and she lives alone in the house then who will save her. The
appellant further extended threat of life to the parents.
17. The prosecutrix/PW-1 has been supported by PW-2 and the age of
the victim was found proved through PW-2 on the strength of scholar
register Ex.P/10 and there is nothing on record to discard the evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
5 CRA-5050-2024
regarding the age of the victim PW-1, hence, the finding recorded in para
no.15 of the impugned judgment regarding the age of the victim does not call
for interference. The finding regarding the Caste of victim PW-1 and the
fact that the appellant/accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe category also does not call for interference in the light of
Caste Certificate of Victim Ex.P/1 which is proved through Yogesh Kumar
PW-7 and the Caste certificate of appellant Ex.P/11 proved through Ramesh
Meena PW-5 to the effect that the appellant accused does not belong to
SC/ST category.
18. The statements of the Victim PW-1 is further corroborated by
lodging the FIR on the same day. The cross examination of the victim PW-1
is expanded in 13 paragraphs i.e. para no.6 to 19 and no material has been
extracted in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of PW-1 regarding
the incident and nature of offence committed by the appellant/accused. The
above statement proved that the appellant/accused was not only stalking, but
he also used criminal force on the date of incident i.e. on 11.01.2022 coupled
with the words that when she would be alone in her home then who will save
her and that he likes her and the act of caughting hold hand of the victim
PW-1 in the light of explanation appended to Section 11 and the
presumption under Section 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012, it is proved that the
appellant/accused used criminal force on the victim PW-1 with sexual intent.
Accordingly, the learned learned trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant and hence, the finding of conviction is hereby affirmed. The
appellant/accused was aged about 22 years but we have to appreciate in fact
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33012
6 CRA-5050-2024
that due to the act of the appellant/accused, the victim PW-1 missed her
education for a continuous period of one month. The sentence of three years
R.I. is proportionate and it does not call for interference. The appeal preferred
by the appellant challenging the conviction as well as the sentence is devoid
of merits and is hereby dismissed.
19. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the appellant/accused
through concerned Superintendent of Jail for information.
20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the record to learned
trial Court concerned for necessary information and immediate compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
