Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
1 CRA-10963-2023
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 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10963 of 2023
RAMSWAROOP SAKET
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State .
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.
No.20566/2023, which is first application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.20566/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parities, this appeal is
heard finally.
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the
judgment dated 25/07/2023 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act,
2012), Rewa in Special Sessions Case No.18/2021 whereby learned trial
Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
2 CRA-10963-2023
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
deposited in lieu of fine
363 IPC R.I. for 03 years Rs.200/- R.I. for
06 months.
366 IPC R.I. for 07 years Rs.200/- R.I. for
06 months.
376(2) IPC R.I. for 11 years Rs.200/- R.I. for 06
(n) months
376(3) IPC R.I. for 21 years Rs.200/- R.I. for
06 months
5/6 POCSO R.I. for 21 years Rs.200/- R.I. for
Act 06 months
2. Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, submits
that appellant is innocent. Victim is a consenting adult. It is submitted that
lady doctor i.e. Dr. Shriyanvi Singh (PW-6) had advised x-ray with lead
shield of elbow both, wrist both, hip bone and dental x-ray for age
determination as is mentioned in Ex.P/9. This x-ray was actually conducted
and is available on the record of the trial Court. Its report is also available
on record which makes mention of the fact that the girl is of age between 17-
18 years.
3. Thus, it is pointed out that the prosecution story is that victim was
minor, is not made out. Advantage of this x-ray report as was required to
have accrued in favour of the appellant, was dishonestly not marked as an
exhibit and even trial Court became a party to such intellectual dishonesty by
not referring to the x-ray report and the x-ray film which is available on
record by marking them as Court exhibits.
4. It is also submitted that father of the victim (PW-3), in his cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
3 CRA-10963-2023
examination, admitted in para-4 that different dates of birth are recorded in
the school admission form, Aadhar Card and Ration Card. This witness
further admitted with a folded hand before the trial Court that he is illiterate
and whatever is mentioned, is mentioned as he had not seen the certificate
again. We are also constrained to note that in the record available with the
trial Court, there is a Pragati Patrak of Class-4th in which date of birth of the
victim is mentioned as 02/03/2004 contrary to the Dakhil/Kharij Register
which is Ex.P/6-C on which date of birth is mentioned as 02/03/2005. Thus,
it is evident that there are different dates of birth mentioned on different
documents available on record itself and the trial Court turned a blind eye to
such anomaly which goes to favour the accused.
5. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor, supports the impugned
judgment and submits that DNA report (Ex.P/17) is against the appellant and
it says that DNA profile received from the underwear of the victim matches
with the Y-DNA profile obtained from the blood samples of the appellant-
Ramswaroop Saket, therefore, no indulgence can be shown in the matter.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. As per prosecution story, victim had gone missing since 10/11/2020.
Missing person report was lodged by the mother of the victim (PW-2) at
Police Station Kotwali. Thereafter FIR was also registered registering at
Crime No.911/2020. Victim was recovered on 01/02/2021. In the school
Dakhil/Kharij record, date of birth is mentioned 02/03/2005 but the fact of
the matter is that there is a tacit admission of the victim going to Delhi and
staying in the company of appellant Ramswaroop Saket at Delhi for about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
4 CRA-10963-2023
three months. There is also a tacit admission that she had gone to the house
of Ramlali and Ramlali had dispatched her to Delhi along with another
person giving him Rs.500/-. Thus, victim was knowing this fact that she was
being taken to the house of Ramswaroop at Delhi despite having knowledge
that he was already married to Ramlali.
7. As far as age is concerned, father of the victim (PW-3) admitted
anomalies in the different dates of birth. This witness admitted that he
did not know date of the birth of the victim. Rekha Tripathi (PW-4), school
teacher, admitted that she cannot say as to on what basis date of birth was
recorded on Ex.P/6. This witness also admitted certain cutting on the
scholar register Ex.P/6 whereby subsequent entries at serial No.2028 and
2029 were admittedly erased and no countersigns have been put or reasons
have been given for such manipulation. Thus, such act of the school
authorities makes the school register (Ex.P/6) doubtful entity.
8. Dr. Shriyanvi Singh (PW-6) deposed that there was no external or
internal injury, hymen was ruptured, no definite opinion can be given in
regard to violation of privacy. Victim was physically and mentally well
oriented. Her secondary sexual characters were well developed.
9. When evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, Rekha Tripathi (PW-4) and
Dr. Shriyanvi Singh (PW-6) is taken into consideration and also taking this
fact into consideration that victim while giving her first statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 02/02/2021 as are available on record as Ex.D/3,
then it reveals that she did not state anything against the appellant,
however, on the contrary she had only stated that since her mother had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
5 CRA-10963-2023
beaten her, she had gone to the house of her Mausi.
10. Since ossification test report is available on record and it is
mentioned in the ossification test report that age of the victim, on the date of
ossification test, was 17 -18 years i.e. on 23/03/2021, therefore, in light of
the judgment of Division Bench of Indore Bench of this High Court in the
case of Lallusingh, S/o Jagdishsingh Samgar, 1996 MPLJ 452 , such
document can be used in favour of the accused and, thus, we have no
hesitation in using this document in favour of the accused/appellant which
was arbitrarily overlooked by the trial Court despite the fact that it is
available on record and when this document is taken into consideration, then
conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be
sustained and the same is hereby set aside.
11. As far as conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and
376(3) of IPC is concerned, that too cannot be sustained because victim
being a consulting adult, there cannot be said to be any ingredient of
abduction, kidnapping or violation of privacy against her will especially
when victim admitted that she resided in Delhi and had not narrated anything
to anybody in the neighbourhood. Thus, conviction of the appellant cannot
be sustained and it is set aside.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
conviction is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
The appellant is in jail, he be released immediately, if not required in any
case.
13. Case property be disposed of as per the directions of the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44260
6 CRA-10963-2023
trial Court. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
14. Before parting, we would like to observe that both i.e. the Public
Prosecutor before the trial Court and the trial Court itself failed to discharge
their duties in a proper manner. Public Prosecutor became a party and
instead of naming the truth to the knowledge of the Court, tried to suppress
the evidence by not exhibiting the x-ray report available on record and the
trial Court turned applying eyes towards the x-ray report which prima facie
reflects that both had become party with the prosecution and had failed to act
as an independent agency.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
