Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51859
1 CRA-3200-2024
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 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3200 of 2024
KAMLESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press
I.A.No.21192/2024, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.21192/2024 is dismissed as not pressed.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard
finally.
This appeal under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 is filed by the appellant-
Kamlesh, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15/06/2023 passed by the
learned III Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bhopal,
District Sagar (M.P.), in SC No.110/2021, whereby the appellant has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51859
2 CRA-3200-2024
convicted and sentenced as under :-
Imprisonment Fine amount
Conviction u/s In lieu of (RI)
(RI) (Rs.)
additional RI for 2
376(1) IPC RI for 10 years Rs.5,000/-
years
additional RI for 2
342 IPC RI for 1 years Rs.500/-
months
additional RI for 2
506 (Part-II) IPC RI for 5 years Rs.500/-
months
additional RI for 2
3(1)(w)(i) SC/ST Act RI for 3 years Rs.500/-
months
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Life additional RI for 2
Rs.5,000/-
Act imprisonment months
3(2)(v-a) SC/ST additional RI for 2
RI for 5 years Rs.500/-
(POA) Act months
4 of POCSO Act ---- ----- -----
2 . It is submitted that victim is a consenting adult. She was in love
relationship with appellant-Kamlesh Patel. They had gone together and,
therefore, the positivity of DNA report is not a sufficient circumstances to
maintain and upheld the conviction.
3. Reading from the evidence of mother of the victim (PW-2) and
elder sister (PW-3), it is submitted that victim at the time of incident was an
adult. It is further submitted that sister of victim (PW-5) has also
corroborated the evidence of PW-2 & PW-3 to some extent. Ms. Monika
Maravi, School Teacher (PW-7) has though stated that in school record, date
of birth of the victim is mentioned as 16/06/2002 but in cross-examination,
she has admitted that at the time of admission of the victim neither birth
certificate or any document from hospital or Aaganwadi was produced nor
any affidavit of the parents was given. School Teacher (PW-7) has admitted
that in rural setup, the date of birth of the child is recorded as per estimation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51859
3 CRA-3200-2024
4. Dr. Sushila Yadav (PW-4) as in her cross-examination stated that
as per the physical appearance of the victim, her age was 18-19 years. Dr.
Sushila Yadav further stated that there were no internal or external injury
marks on the body of the victim. Thus, it is submitted that victim being a
consenting adult, acquittal of the appellant be recorded.
5. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supports
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
record, it is evident that victim (PW-1) admitted that Kamlesh is known to
her. She has admitted that there are four brothers and sister and she is the
youngest. She has further stated that she belongs to Scheduled Castes
community whereas appellant-Kamlesh is 'Patel' community. She admitted
that Kamlesh used to tell her that he has liking for her and wants to marry
her. She was declared partly hostile and leading questions were put to her.
7. Mother of the victim (PW-2) has admitted that she has one son
and four daughters. Son is the eldest and she does not know date of birth of
any other children except the victim. She stated that without seeing the
marksheet she cannot state the date of birth of any of her children.
Thereafter, she further stated that her third child was born in the year 1997
and fourth one was born in 1998. In Para-3 she stated that date of birth of the
victim is not known to her.
8. Sister of the victim (PW-3) in Para-2 admitted that her date of
birth is 12/01/1997. Sister elder to her is three years elder. She has two
younger sisters just after her was born in 1998. Victim is younger to this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51859
4 CRA-3200-2024
sister born in 1998. Age difference between all the sisters is one to one and a
half years. She further admitted that date of birth of the victim is recorded
differently in two different marksheets.
9. Another sister of the victim (PW-5) has also admitted that her year
of birth is 1994. Her brother is elder to her and is about 30 years. She further
stated that sister younger to PW-5 is three years younger to her and thereafter
sister born after this third child has date of birth is of 1998. Thus, she has
corroborated the statements of PW-2 & PW-3 to a large extent to
demonstrate that date of birth of the victim is somewhere in the year 2000, a
fact which too has been stated by PW-4 lady doctor.
10. Thus, when it has come on record that victim was major at the
time of the incident and there is an admission to the effect that there was an
element of consent in the relationship between the victim and appellant then
the consensual relationship between two consenting adults will not
constituted an offence neither under Section 375 of IPC nor under Section
3/5 of POCSO Act calling for sentence as handed over to the appellant. Even
the provisions of SC/ST Act will not be applicable so to upheld conviction of
the appellant. The victim has admitted that neither she has informed the
appellant about her caste nor the appellant had any knowledge about her
caste.
11. When all these facts taken into consideration then we have no
hesitation to hold that the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned
Trial Court only on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51859
5 CRA-3200-2024
12. Accordingly, the appeals is allowed. The impugned judgment
dated 15/06/2023 passed by learned trial Court is set aside.
13. Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case property be disposed off in terms of the orders of the learned trial
Court.
14. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
mc
