Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
1 CRA-606-2025
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 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 606 of 2025
RAVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shula, learned counsel for the appellant
instead of pressing I.A. No.1048/2025, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C./430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Ravi
S/o Rajeshwar Raikwar, prays that this appeal be heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.1048/2025 is dismissed as not pressed and with the
consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the convicted appellant - Ravi being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Third
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
2 CRA-606-2025
Offences Act, 2012), Sagar (M.P.) in case No.SC/79/2023 ( State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Ravi), whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
366 I.P.C. R.I. for 5 years Rs.1,000/- R.I for 2 months
5(L) r/w 6 POCSO Act R.I. for 20 years Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 21 years.
363,
I.P.C. NIL NIL NIL
376(2)(n)
4. According to the prosecution story, the mother of the victim (PW-2)
lodged a report on 13.04.2022 stating that her husband, son, and daughter
had gone to a Dudhware to attend a lagan function. She was at home along
with her mother-in-law, another relative, and the girl. After having dinner,
they had slept in the courtyard. On 14.04.2022, at about 4:00 a.m., her
husband and children returned from the lagan and found that the victim (PW-
1) was not in her bed. She was searched for in the houses of relatives and
other nearby places, but when she could not be traced, a missing person
report (Ex.P-10) was lodged, registering Crime No.146/2022 under Section
363 IPC at the concerned police station. While recording her statements,
PW-2 mother of the prosecutrix expressed suspicion upon the present
appellant, Ravi Raikwar. On 07.07.2023, the victim was recovered along
with the appellant from a hotel room at Mandideep, District Raisen, for
which a recovery panchnama (Ex.P-1) was prepared. Her statements were
recorded. Subsequently, offences under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(1), 376(2)
(n), and 506 IPC; Sections 3/4 and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act; and Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
3 CRA-606-2025
3(2)(va), 3(2)(v), and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, were added. Investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was filed, and
the appellant abjured his guilt. Trial was conducted, and the appellant was
convicted as aforesaid.
5. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The DNA
report (Ex.P-31) reveals the samples was of low quality and uninterpretable,
and none of the articles of the victim revealed an Amplifiable Y-
chromosome STR DNA profile. It is further submitted that the victim was an
adult, as admitted by her mother. Thus, a consensual relationship has been
converted into a case of rape, and the appellant has been wrongly convicted
under Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and 366 of the IPC. It is further
submitted that though the date of birth of the victim is mentioned in the
school record (Ex.P-15C) as 04.06.2005, the same is contrary to the oral
evidence of PW-2 mother of the victim. Thus, it is submitted that at the time
of the incident, the victim was a consenting adult, and therefore, the
conviction under any of the aforesaid sections cannot be sustained in law.
6. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State,
in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits that no interference
is called for in the same.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that the victim (PW-1) stated in paragraph 9 of her cross-
examination that there is a Dhaba near the toll naka and several hotels are
there near Makroniya square. She admitted that she had never reported her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
4 CRA-606-2025
abduction to either the police or any of the passers-by. She travelled from
Sagar to Bhopal in a bus, and during the entire journey, she did not complain
to anyone regarding her alleged abduction. After alighting from the bus at
Bhopal, she did not inform any person that she had been abducted. In
paragraph 10, she admitted that her elder brother is two years older than her.
She denied that she had expressed any liking for Ravi in her Section 161
Cr.P.C. statements (Ex.D-1). She stated that if it is mentioned in Ex.D-1 that
she had a liking for Ravi and had become friends, then she cannot say as to
how it has been noted. However, a reading of Ex.D-1 clearly reveals that she
had mentioned that both she and Ravi loved each other. Ravi was her
brother's friend, and consequently, she also became friendly with him. Both
liked each other and, therefore, wanted to marry, for which they eloped
together.
8. PW-2, the mother of the victim, stated in paragraph 9 of her testimony
that her marriage was performed when she was 15 years of age. Two years
thereafter, her eldest son was born, and one year later, the victim was born.
PW-2 stated that her current age is 40 years. Thus, it is evident that her
marriage was performed around 25 years prior to the incident. Her elder son
was born two years thereafter, which means that at the time of the incident,
her son was aged about 23 years, whereas the victim was about 22 years old.
This witness also stated that all her children were born at home and,
therefore, she has no birth certificates for any of them.
9. PW-3, the father of the victim, stated in paragraph 6 that he does not
know whether the birth certificate of the victim was ever prepared. He stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
5 CRA-606-2025
that his age is 45 years and that his marriage was performed when he was
17-18 years old. Three to four years thereafter, a son was born, and two
years later, the daughter (victim) was born. Taking this chronology into
account, his marriage appears to have taken place about 26-27 years prior to
the incident. Even if this testimony is accepted, the age of his elder son
would come to about 22 years and that of the victim about 20 years. Hence,
the victim was an adult at the time of the incident.
10. PW-4, Smt. Lata Tiwari, a Primary Teacher, stated that the date of birth
of the victim is mentioned as 04.06.2005 in the school record. The father of
the victim had got her admitted to the school. She admitted that the date of
birth was not recorded on the basis of any documentary evidence. No
documentary evidence was produced at the time of admission, and if the
father of the victim had given the date of birth merely on assumption, she
could not say anything further.
11. PW-12, Dr. Deepshikha, stated that on 07.07.2023, she was posted at
the District Hospital, Sagar. She examined the victim. There were no injury
marks on the body of the victim, and her hymen was old torn. No definite
opinion could be given regarding the commission of rape. In cross-
examination, the doctor admitted that the secondary sexual characters of the
victim were fully developed and that she appeared to be an adult. The victim
did not inform her as to which medicine she had consumed for termination of
pregnancy. It is true that the victim remained in the company of the appellant
for over a period of one year.
12. When all these facts are taken into consideration, it is clear that as per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54896
6 CRA-606-2025
the evidence of the prosecutrix, she was a consenting party. As per the
evidence of her parents (PW-2 and PW-3), the victim was an adult, a fact
corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-12 Dr. Deepshikha and not
disputed by PW-4, the Primary Teacher. Thus, in the absence of any
clinching and unrebuttable evidence, it cannot be said that the victim at the
time of the incident was a minor. Once the aspect of minority is not proved,
then provisions of the POCSO Act will not be applicable and, therefore,
victim being a consenting adult as admitted by her, provisions of neither
POCSO Act nor of Section 375 of IPC will be attracted to uphold the
conviction. Therefore, impugned judgment dated 05.12.2024 passed by the
learned Third Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Sagar (M.P.) in case
No.SC/79/2023, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is hereby set
aside and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.
13. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed of.
Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The case
property be disposed off in terms of the judgment of the trial Court. Record
of the trial Court be sent back. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
