Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooran Singh Patle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
1 CRA-199-2024
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 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 199 of 2024
POORAN SINGH PATLE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shakti Prakash Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Though this matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.21503/2025,
an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
appellant/Pooran Singh Patle, however learned counsel for the appellant
submits that he does not want to press this interlocutory application and
prays for final hearing of the criminal appeal. The above prayer is not
opposed by learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Prayer is
allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard
finally.
2. This appeal is filed against judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajendragram, District Anuppur in
SC/30/2020 [State of M.P. Vs. Pooran Singh Patle and another] whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
2 CRA-199-2024
appellant No.1 (Pooran Singh) has been convicted for offences under
sections 363, 366, 342, 376(2)(N) IPC and sections 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act
and appellant No.2 (Ten Singh) has been convicted under sections 366A,
342, 376, 376(2)(N) IPC and section 16/17 of the POCSO Act as per
paragraph 59 of the judgment and they have been sentenced as below as per
paragraph 67 thereof:-
Appellant No.1-Pooran Singh Patle
Section Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
amount
363 IPC 05 years RI Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 03 months
366 IPC 05 years RI Rs.1000/- R.I. for 03 months
342 IPC 06 months RI Rs.500/- R.I. for 01 month
6 POCSO Act 20 years RI Rs.10000/- R.I. for 01 year
Appellant No.2- Ten Singh
Conviction Sentence
Section Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
amount
366A IPC 05 years RI Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 06 months
342 IPC 06 months RI Rs.500/- R.I. for 01 month
17 POCSO 20 years RI Rs.10000/- R.I. for 01 year
Act
3. As per paragraph 59 of the judgment appellant No.1/Pooran
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
3 CRA-199-2024
Singh has been acquitted from offence u/s 506 Part-II and appellant
No.2/Ten Singh has been acquitted of section 363 IPC.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.12.2017 PW.3
(grandfather of the prosecutrix) lodged an oral missing report at the Police
Station, Rajendragram that his grand-daughter (PW-2/prosecutrix) who was
studying in Class-Xth of High School Girari on 20.12.2017 left for school
while wearing school uniform alongwith school bag but she did not reach
school. When friend of the prosecutrix informed them that she had not
attended school then they made search in relatives and nearby vicinity of
village but her whereabouts could not be traced. They have suspicion that
some unknown person has allured and taken her away with ill-motive. On the
basis of above information Missing Person Report No.25/17 (Ex.P/5) and
FIR Crime No.251/2017 (Ex.P/4) were registered for offence u/s 363 IPC
against unknown person.
5. During investigation spot map of complainant's house was
prepared and his statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Prosecutrix
(PW.2) was recovered on 05.1.2018 under Police Station, Rajendragram and
accordingly, 'Dastiyabi panchnama' (Ex.P/2) was prepared. Statements of
prosecutrix were recorded who sated that on the date of incident
appellant/accused/Pooran gagged her mouth with cloth, took her to forest
and did wrong with her and kept her with him at his home. Appellant/Ten
Singh had locked the room from outside and appellant/Pooran Singh
committed wrong with her. He also taken her to Manendragarh, where also
against her will he committed wrong. Prosecutrix was medically examined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
4 CRA-199-2024
and according to her statement map of place of incident house of
accused/Pooran Singh was prepared and statement of prosecutrix were
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses were also
recorded.
6. During investigation 'Dakhil Kharij' register of the prosecutrix
was seized from the Headmaster of Government Primary School, Devara and
seizure memo (Ex.P/9) was prepared. The accused/appellant-Ten Singh was
arrested vide Arrest Memo (Ex.P/15) and accused/Pooran Singh was arrested
vide Ex.P/14. Appellant No.1 (Pooran Singh) was medically examined.
Vaginal slides of prosecutrix were prepared and sent for medical
examination and received from District Hospital, Anuppur and semen slide
of appellant/Pooran was received from Community Health Centre,
Rajendragram. They were sent to FSL, Sagar for examination. After
completing investigation charge-sheet against appellants under sections 363,
376, 506, 34 IPC and provisions of POCSO Act was filed in the Link Court,
Rajendragram.
7. When appellants were charged under sections as mentioned
above, they denied the charges. After prosecution evidence when they were
examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the prosecution evidence but
have not produced any defence evidence.
8. Against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence this
appeal has been filed on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. There are no independent witnesses. Medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
5 CRA-199-2024
evidence does not support the offence of rape. Hymen of the prosecutrix was
intact. In fact, out of enmity appellants have been falsely implicated in the
crime. Age of the prosecutrix regarding minority is not proved. Examination
of teeth and x-ray of bone was advised for determining the age but that has
not been done. There is no DNA report against the appellants. FIR is
delayed. Hence, prayer has been made for acquittal of appellants.
9. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of
instant appeal.
10. We have perused the record and considered the arguments of
learned counsel for the rival parties. PW.1 (aunt of the prosecutrix) stated
that she does not know the date of birth of the prosecutrix. PW.2
(prosecutrix) stated that on 16.5.2019 her current age is 19 years. At the time
of incident she was 16 years of age. She submitted that she had left her
studies for sometime because due to economic condition she could not attend
the school properly.
11. PW.5 (Sunita Singh) Headmistress of the concerned school has
stated in scholar register (Ex.P/8) the date of birth of the prosecutrix is
recorded as 10.5.2001. In paragraph 5 of her cross-examination she stated
that there is cutting in serial numbers in the scholar register at many places.
In paragraph 7 she stated that some application must have been given at the
time of admission. It is true to say that whatever date of birth is recorded by
the guardian that is normally entered into the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
6 CRA-199-2024
12. PW.7 (Dr.Soshan Khes) stated that secondary sexual characters
of the prosecutrix were fully developed.
13. Learned trial Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment has held
that on the date of incident the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years 07 months
and 10 days and she was minor under the provisions of POCSO Act being
less than 18 years of age. But looking to the evidence, especially in view of
the fact that no birth certificate is filed regarding date of birth of the
prosecutrix and PW.1-aunt of the prosecutrix stated that she does not know
the date of birth of the prosecutrix therefore we find that whatever date of
birth is mentioned it is recorded on the basis of estimation, there is no
reliable document on the basis of which date of birth of the prosecutrix is
recorded in school, the physical condition of the scholar register is not proper
as there is cutting at serial numbers, father & mother of the prosecutrix could
not be examined, who could be the best persons to verify the date of birth of
the prosecutrix as from the record it is seen that mother of the prosecutrix,
namely, Smt.Dhanoti Bai had expired 10-12 years ago and, therefore,
prosecutrix was living with her grandfather and father of the prosecutrix was
living separately and hence, he could also not be examined. Further, it is also
the case of the prosecution that mental condition of father of the prosecutrix
was not well. Accordingly, contrary to the findings recorded by the trial
Court regarding age of the prosecutrix, we hold that prosecution has failed to
prove that on the date of incident prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age.
14. In this case there is no DNA report, although in FSL report it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
7 CRA-199-2024
mentioned that on the vaginal slides of the prosecutrix there was male
sperms but the doctor (PW.7-Dr.Soshan Khes) has opined that after medical
examination of the prosecutrix she found that hymen of the prosecutrix was
not ruptured. There was no proof of sexual intercourse. In cross-examination
she again submitted that there was no sign of rape on the body of the
prosecutrix.
15. PW.2 (prosecutrix) in her examination-in-chief has stated that
both the accused abducted and raped her. In paragraph 8 of her cross-
examination she stated that she and her family members do not visit the
family of accused-Pooran Singh. She denied that she has falsely implicated
the appellant due to enmity. PW.3 (grandfather of the prosecutrix) in
paragraph 3 of his cross-examination has stated that accused persons are
relatives and before this incident he was not on talking terms with the
appellant/accused persons.
16. Therefore, when medical evidence is taken into consideration
coupled with the fact that appellants inspite of being relatives of family of
the prosecutrix, the family of prosecutrix was not on talking terms with their
relatives i.e. appellants, therefore, their evidence has to be evaluated very
carefully and when prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of offence
prosecutrix was minor and when there is no DNA report, considering the
medical evidence of prosecutrix as also the factor of enmity/strained
relations, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against the appellants by the trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52812
8 CRA-199-2024
17. For the reasons mentioned above appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellants are
acquitted of the charges levelled against them. If their custody is not required
in any other case, they be released forthwith. Property of the case may be
disposed of as per judgment of the trial Court.
18. In the result, appeal is allowed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
