Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram Anuragi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-2346-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2346 of 2023
(RAJARAM ANURAGI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 24-11-2025
Shri Ranjan Banerjee - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yash Soni- Dy. Advocate General for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.3483/2023, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant Rajaram Anuragi.
Appellant- Rajaram Anuragi is aggrieved of the judgment dated
04.01.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act/4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur (MP) in Special Case No.04/2022,
whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
5(n)(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years Rs.10,000/- R.I for 2 years.
Reading evidence of the victim (PW-1), learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the victim has denied the incident. PW-2 is the mother
of the victim and she stated that though her age was 40 years at the time of
her deposition on 29.3.2022, but her elder daughter was 30 years of age,
second daughter was 25 years of age and the age of the victim was 20 years.
Similar statement has been given by PW-3, and therefore it is submitted that
the victim being an adult, it is a case of acquittal, as it was a consensual
relationship.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
2 CRA-2346-2023
case of Rahul Vs. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and another,
reported in 2023 CRI.L.J. 1, and our attention is drawn to para 30 and 31
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with lacunas/defects in DNA
sampling. Thus, it is pointed out that mere positivity of the DNA report
(Ex.P-20) it says that appellant Rajaram Anuragi is the biological father of
the new born child and the victim is the biological mother of the new born
child is not sufficient to uphold the conviction in absence of other
corroborating evidence.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
supports the impugned judgment and submits that the relationship between
the victim and the accused is that of sister-in-law and brother-in-law (Jeeja-
Saali). The appellant is already married to elder sister of the victim and
taking advantage of her relationship of trust, he has violated the privacy of
the victim, therefore, no indulgence is called for.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, as far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Vs.
State of Delhi (supra) is concerned, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the DNA
Profiling giving incriminating findings was assailed even by the Amicus
Curiae and in that backdrop it was held that DNA report is in the nature of
opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and like
any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case.
However, in the present case, there is no suggestion even to the doctor, who
collected the samples in regard to tampering and we find that on 24.12.2021
3 CRA-2346-2023
the lady doctor had conducted the MLC and noted that there was an ante-
mortem delivery of a baby. The sample of Rajaram Anuragi was collected on
28.12.2021 and these samples were sent on 29.12.2021. The report was
furnished by the FSL, Bhopal on 9.5.2022 in which it is clearly mentioned
that six sealed packets A, B, C, D, E and F were received through Constable
No.73 Qauzi Syuddin, Police Station Garhimalhara District Chhattarpur on
30.12.2021 and all the samples were sealed and their seal was intact. In view
of such report, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Vs. State of Delhi (supra) will not be
applicable, but that of Sunil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2017)
4 SCC 393 will be applicable where it is held that a positive result of the
DNA test would constitute clinching evidence against the accused, if
however, the result of the test is in the negative i.e. favouring accused or if
DNA profiling had not been done in a given case, the weight of other
materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered.
When the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sunil (supra) is taken into consideration, then when there is no suggestion
to any of the witnesses in regard to tampering of the samples and also taking
into consideration the fact that cover note of the FSL report clearly provides
that all the seals were intact, there was no delay in transmission of samples
and DNA profiling was done promptly showing that the appellant is the
biological father of the child born out of the relationship, when the
circumstances are taken into consideration, then the victim being sister-in-
law i.e. Saali of the appellant, it is not a case of consensual relationship to
4 CRA-2346-2023
show any indulgence. The aforesaid application for suspension of sentence
fails and is hereby dismissed.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ansari
