Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra @ Sonu Ukey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
1 CRA-3417-2025
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 8th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3417 of 2025
VIRENDRA @ SONU UKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sharma - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/ State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(P.O.C.S.O. Act), Baihar, Disrict Balaghat in S.C. No. 26 / 2019
whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(L)/6 of the
P.O.C.S.O. Act and sentenced to R.I. for life with fine of Rs.2,000/-,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
2 CRA-3417-2025
Section 366 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulations. Though appellant has also
been convicted under Section 376(2)(Dha) of IPC but no separate
sentence has been awarded to him.
2. In short, the prosecution story is that on 26.01.2015 the
prosecutrix was a student of Middle School, Pondi and she did not
return back home after participating in a school function. Her father
made search of her in the nearby vicinity. Kunwarlal, resident of the
village informed him that prosecutrix was in love relationship with the
appellant. When mother of the prosecutrix went to the house of appellant
in search of her daughter, she came to know that appellant is also not in
his house. Meanwhile, Mahipal informed that on 26.01.2015, appellant
and prosecutrix were roaming in fair of village Dongariya. Thereafter,
Yashwant informed that appellant and prosecutrix came to him and took
Rs.100/- from him as transport fare to go to Pondi. When prosecutrix
could not be traced, her father lodged report at Police Station: Ukawa,
Thana Rupjhar. Ex. P/9 is the First Information Report, on the basis of
which Crime No. 13/2015 was registered at Thana Rupjhar in relation to
offences under Sections 363, 366 of IPC.
3. On 05.11.2019, Assistant Sub Inspector Durga Prasad Bhagat
prepared Dastyabi Panchmana Ex. P/1 in relation to recovery of the
prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before
Judicial Magistrate First Class. Medical examination of the prosecutrix
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
3 CRA-3417-2025
was conducted. The accused was arrested. Vaginal slide of the
prosecutrix, semen slide of accused and undergarments of both were
seized. The blood samples of the accused, prosecutrix and their two
minor sons aged 2 years and 09 months were taken and sent for forensic
and DNA examination. After investigation, charges were levied against
the accused under Sections 366, 376(2) of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the
POCSO Act, which he denied. In his statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., the accused/ appellant pleaded non-guilty, however, he has not
produced any evidence in his defence.
4. Learned Trial Court on the basis of documentary evidence
available on record held the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences
and convicted & sentenced him, as has been stated hereinabove.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecutrix
was not less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident and was a
consenting party. Therefore, impugned judmgent of conviction is liable
to be set aside and appellant be acquitted of the charges levied against
him.
6. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the submission
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
record.
8. P.W.1 prosecutrix has stated that accused Virendra @ Sonu is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
4 CRA-3417-2025
her husband. Her date of birth is 23.05.1998. Since her father used to
beat her when drunk, therefore, she went to Nagpur in the year 2015.
There she met the accused and when she was of 18 years of age, she
married the accused in a temple and started living as husband and wife.
She delivered two children out of the wedlock. Subsequently, after four
years she went back to her in-laws house at village Pondi. There police
recovered her by Dastyabi Panchnama Ex. P/2 and handed over to her
husband by document Ex. P/2. She was medically examined. Her
statement was made before the Magistrate Court. Article A-1 is her
mark-sheet but date of birth is wrongly mentioned. She was declared
hostile. In paragraph 3 she stated that whatever was recorded in C.D.
about her age, she stated as per the direction of the police. She made
physical relationship with the accused on her own consent. She also
denied that her date of birth is 23.05.2001. In cross-examination she
stated that when she went to Nagpur, at that time she was 18 years of
age. Her date of birth is 23.05.1998.
9. P.W.2 - father of the prosecutrix has stated that his daughter
had went away somewhere. After four years she came back. He had
lodged a report in police. This witness was declared part hostile.
In cross-examination in paragraph 3, P.W.2 stated that he does
not know about the date of birth of his daughter. In school date of birth
of the prosecutrix was recorded on the basis of estimation by the teacher.
Police pressurized him to record date of birth of his daughter as 14 years,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
5 CRA-3417-2025
therefore, in complaint he mentioned age of the prosecutrix as 14 years.
It may be possible that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 23.05.1998.
10. P.W.6 - mother of the prosecutrix has stated that prosecutrix
is her eldest daughter. She has one son and three daughters. This witness
was declared hostile by the prosecution.
In cross-examination in paragraph 3, P.W.6 stated that it is
correct to say that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 23.05.1998.
11. P.W.9 Mahipal Singh, head master has stated that in school
date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 23.05.2001. In cross-
examination, he admitted that date of birth of the prosecutrix was
recorded on the basis of T.C. and there was no birth certificate.
12. When we look to the evidence on record as narrated above, it
is seen that P.W.6 - mother of the prosecutrix has admitted that date of
birth of the prosecutrix is 23.05.1998. In school there is no birth
certificate on the basis of which date of birth in the school is recorded,
therefore, it is not proved that on the date of the offence i.e. 26.01.2015
prosecutrix was minor being less than 18 years of age.
13. P.W.14 Dr. Geeta Baghmare has stated that on medical
examination she did not find any proof of rape on the body of the
prosecutrix.
14. Looking to the DNA report dated 2.1.2021 (Ex.P/23) in
which it is mentioned that prosecutrix delivered two child out of physical
relationship with the accused and then looking to the statement of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50849
6 CRA-3417-2025
prosecutrix in the Court, it is seen that physical relationship was made
with her consent as she was of age to give consent. Therefore, no
offence is made out.
15. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2025 is set aside. The
appellant be released from jail, if he is not required in any other case.
16. Case property be disposed of as per the orders of the learned
Trial Court.
17. Record of the Trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VSG
