Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhatarpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
1 CRA-7015-2025
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 17th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7015 of 2025
CHHATARPAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Shukla - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/ State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press I.A. No.
17510 of 2025, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the sole appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 17510 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard
finally.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O.
Act), Banda, District Sagar in S.C. No. 35/2020 whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
2 CRA-7015-2025
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 5(L)/ 6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and sentenced
to R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default stipulations.
Though appellant has also been convicted under Sections 376(3) of IPC and
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, but has not been separately sentenced. Learned
Trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 506 Part II of IPC.
3. As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) is a resident
of village Bagrohi and the appellant/ accused, resident of the same village,
had been committed wrong deed with her for about 9 days without her
consent, but out of fear she did not disclose this to her family members. On
08.02.2020 at about 5 p.m., she was going from her Mausi's house toward her
home, then near school she met with accused Chattrapal. He asked her to
accompany him, which she refused. Then accused dragged her behind the
school. She shouted. Then accused pressed her mouth with her hand and
started committing wrong deed with her. He threatened that if she disclose
this incident to her family members, he would kill her. The accused disclosed
this incident to her mother and father. Her brother went to the house of
accused Chattrapal to complain then accused committed marpeet with him,
which resulted in an injury on the left side of neck of her brother. On
complaint made by the prosecutrix, FIR Ex. P/2 was lodged at Police Station:
Shahgarh in Crime No. 34/2020 against the accused/ appellant for the
offences under Sections 376(2)(I), 376(2)(n), 323, 506 of IPC and Section 5/
6 of the POCSO Act.
4. During investigation, spot map Ex. P/3 was prepared. The
statements of the mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.4), father of the prosecutrix
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
3 CRA-7015-2025
(P.W.3), brother of the prosecutrix (P.W.7) were recorded. The statement of
the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was
conducted. Vaginal slide, pubic hair and underwear of the prosecutrix were
sent to laboratory for DNA examination. The accused was arrested and sent
for medical examination. His blood sample was sent to laboratory for DNA
examination. The certificate regarding prosectrix being minor was prepared
from the concerned School. After complete investigation, charge-sheet
against the accused was filed before the Court. The accused denied the
charges and sought trial. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the
accused took the defence that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in this case. He has not produced any evidence in his defence.
5. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant has mentioned
above, against which the appeal has been filed on the ground that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are
serious contradictions and omissions. The appellant has been convicted only
on the basis of DNA report. There were no injury on the body of the
prosecutrix. It is not proved as to on what basis the date of birth of the
prosecutrix was recorded in school, therefore, prayer is made to acquit the
appellant.
6. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Government
Advocate for the State supports the impugned judgment and prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. P.W.1 prosecutrix has stated that currently she is 19 years of age.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
4 CRA-7015-2025
In the year 2019 she had given examination for seventh class. Her date of
birth is 20.07.2006. In paragraph 3 she stated that about 1 year ago when she
was going to her aunt's house, she collided with the accused but she thought
that the accused had given her a push. She did not narrate this incident to
anyone but she went to police Didi and gave Ex. P/1 application, A to A
portion bears her signature. In para 5 she stated that there was only "Dhakka
Mukki" (collision) and no other incident happened. Her report is Ex. P/2. She
was declared hostile.
In para 8 she stated that there was only collision ( Dhakka Mukki) and
complaint about rape is false. She stated that there is a compromise between
the families of accused and herself but it is wrong to say that because of the
compromise she is not stating the truth. In para 13 she stated that on the same
date there was a marpeet with her brother. In para 16 she stated that she got
admitted in school at the age of 8 years. Her elder brother is 25 years old and
she is about 3-4 years younger than her brother.
8. P.W.2 Babulal Yadav, school teacher has stated that date of birth
of the prosecutrix is recorded as 20.07.2006. Certificate is Ex. P/8. In cross-
examination in para 4 he stated that in register it is not mentioned as to on
what basis date of birth was recorded.
9. P.W.3 father of the prosecutrix has stated that incident is of last
year. The age of the prosecutrix, who is second child is 19 years. This
witness was declared hostile. In para 4 he stated that at the time of the
incident prosecutrix was 14 years of age. In cross-examination in para 9 he
stated that when the school teacher asked him what age should be recorded in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
5 CRA-7015-2025
school, he asked him to record the age as per his sweet will. He does not
know what age was recorded in the school. He also stated that the prosecutrix
went to school when she was 8 years old. She failed for 2 years.
10. P.W.4 mother of the prosecutrix has stated that her eldest child -
son is of 22 years. Prosecutrix is her second child. Prosecutrix is 2 years
younger than the eldest child. She was admitted in the school at the age of 8 -
9 years. She does not know the date of birth of the prosecutrix. No incident
of rape happened with the prosecutrix.
11. P.W.8 Dr. Shushila Yadav stated that she examined the
prosecutrix. There was no injury mark on the body of the prosecutrix.
Hymen was old torn. No opinion could be given about recent intercourse
with her. Medial report is Ex. P/21.
12. Although DNA report Ex. P/25 is positive in the sense that on
the underwear of the prosecutrix Article B male DNA of the appellant was
obtained from his blood sample but looking to the oral and documentary
evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, it is seen that prosecution has
failed to prove that on the date of the incident i.e. 8.2.2020, prosecutrix was
minor as the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.4) was recorded
on 6.4.2021 in Court i.e. about 15 months after the incident and in that,
P.W.4 mother of the prosecutrix stated that her daughter is 2 years younger
than his eldest son who was of 22 years age, that would make her daughter
20 years of age on the date of the statement and accordingly on the date of
the incident i.e. 8.2.2020, the prosecutrix cannot be held to be minor being
less than 18 years of age. The age has been recorded just by estimation in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53010
6 CRA-7015-2025
school, as even admitted by the father of the prosecutrix (P.W.3), who has
stated that he asked the school teacher to mention the date of birth of the
prosecutrix as per his sweet will, therefore, there is no basis on which the age
has been recorded in school. The medical evidence does not support the
offence of rape, therefore, simply on the positivity of the DNA report (Ex.
P/25) offence cannot be said to be proved against the appellant, as
prosecutrix is not held to be minor on the date of the incident and relation
between two consenting adults cannot be held to be crime.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we find that the learned Trial
Court has wrongly recorded a finding of conviction and sentence against the
appellant. Accordingly, instant appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted
of all the charges for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the
learned Trial Court.
14. Let the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he is not
required in any other case.
15. The disposal of the case property be as per the judgment of the
learned Trial Court.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VSG
