[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Umesh Jaiswal on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
1 MCRC-16976-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16976 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
UMESH JAISWAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri K.S. Dwivedi - Investigating Officer is present in person.
Reserved on : 10/03/2026
Delivered on : 16/04/2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen
The appellant/State has filed this appeal/petition under Section
378(III) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2021
passed by the learned Trial Court in S.C. No.35/2021 whereby the
respondent No.1 Umesh Kumar Jaiswal and respondent No.2 Anju @
Phoolwanti Singh Gond have been acquitted from the offences under
Sections 363 (two counts), 366‑A(two count), 370(3)(two count) or 372
(two count) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989
and respondent No.3 Kalulal Loda from the offences under Sections
343(two count), 376(1), 370A(two count) and 373(two count) of IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
2 MCRC-16976-2022
and Section 3(2)(v) of 3(2)(v) and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for appellant/State
submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2021
suffers from serious errors of law and fact, inasmuch as the learned
Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the cogent and consistent
evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the material
documentary proof of the victim's age and the chain of events disclosing
kidnapping, trafficking and sexual exploitation, and has instead rendered
the acquittal on conjecture and misplaced notion of benefit of doubt,
thereby occasioning grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference
in appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., with leave of this Hon'ble
Court. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has gravely
mis‑appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix (Victim X) and Victim
Y, who have deposed in a clear and consistent manner that they were
lured by Respondent No. 1 under the false pretext of showing a fair,
taken away from their place of residence, transported through several
towns--Bargawan, Nigri, Katni, Bhopal and finally to Ghatoli in
Rajasthan, kept confined for about seven days and ultimately sold to
other persons. Their testimony is corroborated by the route‑traced
movement, recovery of vehicles and mobile phones, FSL reports, and
the circumstances of their escape and subsequent rescue by the
Rajasthan Police at Ghatoli. In such a case, where the chain of events is
established and the victims are minor girls belonging to the Scheduled
Tribe category, the acquittal cannot be sustained on the basis of an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
3 MCRC-16976-2022
imagined or fanciful doubt. In these circumstances, it is the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 06.12.2021 be set aside and the respondents
be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law for the offences
proved on record. Counsel appearing for appellant/State also relied on
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar
Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750, and Abuzar
Hussain Umar Ghulam Hussain v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2013 SC
1020.
3. Heard the counsel appearing for appellant/State and perused the
record.
4. The victim X (PW-1) deposed that she and victim Y (PW-5)
had gone to Singrauli to work as labourers and on the day of the incident
at about 11:00 a.m., while they were waiting for a bus at the Singrauli
bus stand, accused Umesh Jaiswal approached them and asked them to
show the fair, when she refused, he forcibly took both of them on a red
motorcycle to Maidholi, where accused Anju was present. She stated
that thereafter both accused took them in a trailer to Morwa, then to
Bargwan, and from there by bus to Nigri, where they were kept
overnight. On the following day, they were taken by train from Nigri to
Katni, then to Bhopal, and thereafter by bus to Rajasthan. She further
stated that they were taken to village Ghatoli in Rajasthan and confined
in a house belonging to accused Kalulal, where she and victim Y were
made to stay in one room while accused Umesh and Anju stayed
separately; thereafter, Anju told them that they were going for medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
4 MCRC-16976-2022
treatment and would return, but both accused left and never came back.
The witness further deposed that she and victim Y remained in that
house for about eight days, during which accused Kalulal told them that
Umesh and Anju had sold them and that they would not be allowed to
leave, and further called a young man to the house who raped with her,
though Kalulal himself did not rape. She stated that during their stay
they had to go outside for basic necessities such as toilet and bathing
and were not allowed to return home. She further deposed that she and
victim Y eventually found an opportunity to escape, after which they
met an unknown woman who took them to her house and informed the
police, then the police took them to Ghatoli Police Station and upon
receiving information, her brother (PW-6) and Nandlal Mistry came and
took them back home. She stated that thereafter she went with her
mother to Morwa Police Station and lodged a written report (Ex.P-1).
The police obtained her consent for medical examination (Ex.P-2),
underwent medical examination and her statement was recorded by the
police and later before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she
also identified her signatures on the site plan (Ex.P-3) prepared by the
police. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and
asked the leading question and she admitted that she gave statement
before the Magistrate and voluntarily she herself stated that Kala's
husband had got a wrong act (rape) done on her by another man. Hence,
she got it written that Kala's husband had raped her. In para 15 of her
cross-examination she admitted that she did not mention her age as 18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
5 MCRC-16976-2022
years and 5 months in her statements (Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2). In para 17
she admitted that she did not know the old man, who appeared via video
conferencing, by name, but when he was produced in Court and his
name was mentioned, she knew him by the name Kalulal. Prior to the
main examination in Court, she never told the police that Kalulal had
committed any crime. In para 24 she admitted that when the police
brought her to the Magistrate's Court for recording her statement, then
she was sitting outside of the Court and after completion of her
statement she signed only. In para 26 she stated that accused Umesh
forcibly took her in her reports (Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-6) in her statements
(Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5). If did not mention in the report and statements, she
cannot explain why. In para 28 she admitted that she was unable to tell
the police exact location of the incident and the place where she was
detained. She did not provide the dates of the incident in her report and
police statement. If dates were mentioned, she cannot explain why.
5. Victim Y (PW-5) deposed that she belongs to the Gond
Scheduled Tribe community and she know the victim X (PW-1), who is
the daughter of elder father. She stated that she went to Singrauli along
with victim X (PW-1) to collect wages from a contractor on the date of
incident. After taking money they/victims were waiting at bus stand for
bus. Near about 10:00 a.m., while they were waiting for a bus at the bus
stand, accused Umesh Jaiswal approached them and informed them that
accused Anju had called both of them. Thereafter, Umesh took them on
his motorcycle to Anju's residence at Maidholi, where Anju told them to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
6 MCRC-16976-2022
accompany her to a fair and assured them that she would bear the
expenses. Although they initially expressed reluctance due to lack of
money, they were persuaded by the accused. She further deposed that
thereafter Anju and Umesh took them by various modes of transport,
including a vehicle and buses, from Maidholi to Morwa railway station,
and when the train was not available, they were taken by bus to
Bargawan and then to Sarai, where they stayed overnight at the house of
Anju's sister. On the next day, they were taken to Sarai railway station
and made to board a train to Chopan, and thereafter another train
journey ultimately led them towards Rajasthan. From a railway station
in Rajasthan, they were taken by bus and thereafter to the house of a
person later identified as Kalulal, who was present in Court via video
conferencing. She stated that all the accused persons namely Anju,
Umesh, she herself and victim X (PW-1) initially went to the said house,
where they stayed for a day and spent the night. On the following
morning, accused Anju told them to prepare food and stated that she and
Umesh were going to a hospital; however, both of them left and did not
return, thereby abandoning her (victim Y) and her companion victim X
at that place. She deposed that thereafter she and victim X (PW-1)
remained at the house of Kalulal for about four to five days, during
which Kalulal told them that they would not be allowed to leave,
although she expressed lack of knowledge as to why he said so. She
further stated that during this period, victim X informed her that she had
been subjected to rape, though she did not disclose the identity of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
7 MCRC-16976-2022
person who committed the act. She stated that after a few days, they
managed to escape from the house of Kalulal and went towards a nearby
village, where they stayed for some time and sought help from a local
woman, who informed the police. The police from the concerned police
station arrived and took them and thereafter they were sent back to their
native place in Singrauli. She further deposed that the incident was
reported to the police, her statement was recorded during investigation,
and subsequently her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her statement is Ex.P-11. This witness has
been declared hostile and asked the leading question by prosecution,
then she admitted in para 9 that accused Anju and Umesh locked her and
victim X (PW-1) in one room and Anju and Umesh were stayed in
another room. It is also admitted that a dark-skinned woman present at
the VC is Kala and she and victim X was stayed in her house. After
Anju and Umesh left Kala's husband came to them and told them that
Umesh and Anju had sold both of them and left, they would stay here.
Kala's husband Kalu forcibly raped the Victim X in the room in front of
her, she stated that she was refusing, but he did not listen. Accused Kalu
had kept them locked in a room for seven days, then when they got a
chance, they ran away from his house while. While escaping from his
house, they met a woman on the way and told her the whole story and
asked her to call the police, then the woman called the police station,
then the police from Ghatauli Police Station along with her and victim X
came to Village Basaniya. She told the entire incident to her parent. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
8 MCRC-16976-2022
para 13 she admitted that she had told the police of Ghatauli Police
Station that her aunt Anju Bai brought them to see the fair and she got
separated from them on the way. She stated that she does not know
mobile number of Anju Bai. They want to go home. She also stated in
para 16 of her statement that it is not a case that accused Umesh forcibly
took Victim X and her on his motorcycle. She also admitted that Kalulal
Loda did not rape Victim X(PW-1) in front of her. She also admitted
that Victim X (PW-1) never told the matter regarding the rape with her.
She also admitted in para 21 that she and victim X (PW-1) never stayed
in the house of Kalawati and also admitted that husband of Kalawati did
not tell them that Umesh has sold them and had gone.
6. Mother of Victim-X (PW-2) stated that her daughter went to
Singrauli with Victim-Y for labour work, but did not return home that
evening. After about four days, her daughter phone call came from
Rajasthan over the mobile of Nandlal Mistri, then Mistri told her that her
daughter has gone to Rajasthan, then her son (PW-6) and Nandlal had
gone to Rajasthan and brought her daughter back. Her daughter told her
that she and Victim Y had been enticed and taken away by accused
Umesh and Anju. The witness further stated that her daughter informed
her that the accused had taken her through various locations and
eventually to Rajasthan, where, under the pretext of medical treatment,
they abandoned and sold her to persons at a place identified as Kala's
house, where she was kept concealed for a few days. This witness has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and asked the leading question
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
9 MCRC-16976-2022
and in reply she denied that her daughter told her that Kalulal raped her
forcibly. In para 13 of her statement she admitted that Umesh belongs to
Jaiswal Caste and Anju belongs to Gond Caste. Umesh Jaiswal had kept
Anju, therefore, they angers with Umesh. There was enmity between
both of them.
7. Father of Victim-X (PW-3) also stated in his examination-in-
chief like (PW-2), who is his wife. This witness has been declared
hostile by the prosecution and he denied that Victim X (PW-1) told him
that the husband of Kalawati raped with her. He admitted in para 20 of
his cross-examination that after missing of his daughter and before
returning her home, he did not lodge the report regarding the missing of
his daughter and he voluntarily said that after coming back Victim X
(PW-1) lodged the report.
8. Father of Victim Y (PW-4) deposed that his daughter victim-Y
and her friend Victim-X went to Singrauli for labour work but did not
return home, after which he searched for her and later came to know
through Nandlal that she was in Rajasthan. He arranged for travel
expenses and sent Nandlal along with brother of Victim X to bring the
girls back. Upon her return, his daughter informed him that accused
Umesh had taken her on the pretext of visiting a fair and subsequently
transported her to Rajasthan, where she was confined in a room. He
further states that his daughter told him that she and her friend Victim-X
were sold and kept locked in a house belonging to persons referred to as
Kala and her husband, and that they escaped when they found an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
10 MCRC-16976-2022
opportunity and informed a local woman, who contacted the police.
During cross-examination, the witness admitted that his daughter had
informed him about being taken to Rajasthan and confined, and that
Kala's husband had told them they were sold. In para 12 of his cross-
examination he stated that his daughter did not tell that she and Victim-
X were sold by whom. His daughter also did not tell him that who is
raped with Victim-X.
9. Brother of Victim-X (PW-6) deposed that on 22.01.2018, he
went to Renukoot and was there. On 07.02.2018, at 02:00 P.M., he
received a call on his mobile phone asking if he knew Victim X and
victim Y, then he replied that Victim X is his sister, then the caller said
he was calling from Jhalawar Police Station and girls are sitting in the
Police Station and asked come and bring them., then he went to Police
Station Jhalawar, Rajasthan along with Nandlal, where his sister Victim-
X and his sister's friend Victim-Y met them. This witness has been
declared hostile by the prosecution and asked the leading question and in
reply to the question he admitted that his sister Victim-X told him that
Umesh and Anju had taken them through bus to Ghatauli in the house of
Kala and both are locked in a room and Umesh Jaiswal and his wife
Anju stayed in another room. He also admitted that her sister told him
that Anju and Umesh left after saying they were going to get medical
treatment. Kala's husband came and said that Umesh and his wife Anju
has sold both of them and left. He stated that his sister also told him that
Kala's husband raped with her forcibly, she had refused, but he did not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
11 MCRC-16976-2022
stop. He admitted in para 7 of his cross-examination that her sister
Victim X has got Rs.3 lakh regarding this case and also Victim Y has got
Rs.3 Lakh. He also admitted in para 8 of his cross-examination that after
going to fair in Rajasthan, his sister Victim X and Victim Y got
separated from Umesh and Anju. His siter Victim X and Victim Y had
also filed a report at Police Station Ghatauli, Rajasthan. He admitted in
para 9 of his cross-examination that personally he had no knowledge of
the incident.
10. Mother of Victim-Y (PW-13) deposed that on the date of
incident her daughter had gone to Singrauli for labour work with
Victim-X. On the date of incident, they did not get the work, due to
which, they both were going to Morwa Bus Stand for returning their
home at 12:00 p.m., then accused Anju came and told them to go to see
the fair, then Anju had took her daughter and Victim-X in the fair, then
took to Rajasthan. She further stated that after 2-3 days of the incident,
she came to know that accused Anju and Umesh had taken her daughter
and Victim X to Rajasthan. Brother of Victim X and Nandlal had gone
to Rajasthan to take the victims. Her daughter Victim-Y nothing told
about the incident. This witness has been declared hostile by the
prosecution and asked the leading question. In para 7 of her cross-
examination she denied that her daughter Victim Y told her that accused
Umesh took them by his motorcycle and she also denied that her
daughter already know to Anju. In para 9 of his deposition she admitted
that her daughter Victim Y told her that she and Victim X both were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
12 MCRC-16976-2022
locked in aroom. In para 10 she admitted that Victim Y told her that the
husband of Seema @ Kala had told that Umesh and Anju had sold them
and left. She also admitted that when Anju left, Victim Y and Victim X
went to Police Station in Rajasthan. She also admitted that her daughter
Victim Y and her friend Victim X informed the police that Anju had
brought them to the fair and then left them there. She also admitted in
para 17 that her daughter Victim Y went to the Rajasthan fair. She also
admitted that her daughter Victim Y did not mention that she and Victim
X were being sold or being bought by anyone. Her daughter Victim Y
did not mention that anyone sold or bought her.
11. Nandlal Saket (PW-17) deposed that Victim X and Victim Y
used to work at his site, but on 27th they both did not come to work.
After one week he received a phone call on his mobile number
7225085305 from Rajasthan police informing him Victim X and Victim
Y were at a police station there. He stated that he informed their families
and along with Rajesh went to Rajasthan and brought the girls back,
then went to Morwa Police Station to lodge a report. He further stated
that Victim X told him that accused Umesh and Anju had taken them to
Rajasthan and sold them to a woman named Kalavati, where they were
kept confined for about a week, after which they escaped and informed a
local woman, leading to police intervention. He also stated that the
accused were arrested in his presence and arrest memos Ex.P-23 and
Ex.P-24 were prepared and certain articles, including mobile phones and
a motorcycle, were seized and seizure memos Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
13 MCRC-16976-2022
prepared. Victim P told him that accused Kala raped with her. He has no
knowledge that on which date Victim X and Victim Y had gone to
Rajasthan from Singrauli.
12. Ishwardeen Singh (PW-18), deposed that he was posted as In-
charge Headmaster at Government Primary School, Basania, since
01.01.2020 and he was posted as a Grade-II Contract Teacher at the
school since 2003. He stated that he appeared before Court with the
original admission register, wherein the date of birth of Victim-X is
recorded as 01.02.2000 with Registration No.483. She had taken
admission in Class 1st on 13.07.2005. He stated that the relevant entries
were made in the regular course of official duties and are reflected in
Ex.P-25 and P-25C, bearing the signatures of the then headmaster. The
certificate regarding date of birth of Victim X is issued by School as
Ex.P-26.
13. Umesh Kumar Sahu (PW-9) did not support the prosecution
story and has been turned hostile and the prosecution asked the leading
question, but he did not say anything in support of the prosecution.
14. Dr. Kapil Singh (PW-12) has medically examined the accused
Kallulal Lodha regarding the competency of sexual intercourse and he
stated that in his examination he found that accused is competent to
sexual intercourse and he also prepared the two semen slides of the
accused and after sealed he handed over to the Contable 326 Rajeev
Rawat. His medical report is Ex.P-19.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
14 MCRC-16976-2022
15. Dr. Anamika Singh (PW-11) stated that she was posted as
Medical Officer at C.H.C. Morwa on 24.02.2018. On the said date, she
examined the Victim X. Upon medical examination, the urine pregnancy
test was found to be negative. No external injuries were observed on any
part of her body. On genital examination, pubic hair was present, and the
labia majora, labia minora, vestibule, and fourchette were found to be
healthy and free from injuries. The hymen was met ruptured presently.
No injuries were observed in the anal or perineal regions. Two vaginal
slides were prepared from the vaginal discharge of the victim and were
duly sealed. Additionally, a magenta-coloured undergarment was also
sealed. Both the samples were properly sealed and handed over to the
police personnel on duty. As per her opinion no evidence of recent
forceful sexual intercourse was found; however, the possibility of sexual
violence could not be ruled out. It was recommended that the samples be
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for further examination.
The medical examination report was prepared as Ex.P-18. In para 9 of
her cross-examination she admitted that the victim did not tell her the
date or time of the physical and sexual violence.
16. Rajvardhan Singh (PW-10) deposed that on 30.03.2018, he
was posted as Head Constable (Writer) at Police Station Morwa. On said
date, he received a sealed packet containing two semen slides belonging
to accused Kalulal Lodha along with a sample sealed from the
Community Health Centre (CHC), Morwa from Constable Ravi Dutt
Pandey. The said packet was seized in the presence of witnesses R.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
15 MCRC-16976-2022
Subodh Singh and R. Rajiv Rawat, and a seizure memo (Ex.P-15) was
prepared. Aforesaid version was also corroborated by Ravidutt Pandey
(PW-8).
17. Shashibala Singh (PW-7) deposed that on 24.02.2018, while
she was posted as a Female Constable at Police Station Morwa, the
witness accompanied the victim for medical examination at CHC
Morwa. After the examination, she received two sealed envelopes--one
containing the victim's undergarments and the other containing two
vaginal slides. These were later seized from her by Head Constable
Bhola Prasad at the police station in the presence of witnesses Ganesh
and Sunil Mishra, and a seizure memo (Ex.P-14) was prepared. The
aforesaid fact was also corroborated by Bhola Prasad (PW-14). He was
posted as Head Constable in Police Station Morwa on 24.02.2018.
18. Sheetla Yadav (PW-16) deposed that on 24.02.2018, while
she was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Morwa, she had
received a written complaint (Exhibit P-01) from the Victim-X. On the
basis of said complaint, she registered a Crime No. 102/2018 under
Sections 363, 366A, 376, 370, 372, 373, 342, and 34 of the IPC, along
with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the
POCSO Act, against the accused persons. The FIR was marked as
Exhibit P-06. She also prepared a certificate under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act (Ex. P-23) and an application for medical examination
(Ex. P-18). The victim was then sent for medical examination
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
16 MCRC-16976-2022
accompanied by Constable Shashibala. On the said date, she seized
certain mobile phones and a motorcycle from the accused persons in the
presence of witnesses, as detailed in seizure memos Ex.P-16 and P-17,
and handed them over for safekeeping in the police station storeroom.
19. Umesh Kumar Namdeo (PW-15) deposed that on 23.04.2018,
while she was posted as Patwari, she prepared a site plan and panchnama
(Ex.P-21) of the alleged place of occurrence under instructions from the
Tehsildar in Crime No.102/2018 registered at Police Station Morwa. He
marked the site in red ink and submitted his report (Ex.P-22) to
Tehsildar.
20. Dr. Kripa Shankar Dwivedi (PW-19) deposed that on
24.02.2018, while he was posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer
(SDOP), he received the case diary of Crime No.102/2018 of Police
Station Morwa for investigation. He called the victim X to SDOP
Office, Morwa and recorded her statement as per her version and also
recorded the statements of witnesses namely Manbasia, Lalan Singh
Gond as per their version. Thereafter he visited the Morwa Bus Stand
along with witnesses and victim and in instance of Victim X, he
prepared a spot map (Ex. P-03). The witness stated that he seized
documents including the victim's caste certificate and mark sheet of
high school of year 2016 (Ex.P-07). On 25.02.2018, accused Umesh
Jaiswal was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was
recorded as Ex.P-8. On the same date, accused Anju Singh was taken
into custody and her memorandum was recorded as Ex.P-9. On the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
17 MCRC-16976-2022
date, on finding the crime prima facie proved, accused Umesh Jaiswal
and Anju @ Phoolwati Gond were arrested in front of witnesses. During
the investigation, he recorded the statement of witness Nandlal Saket on
28.02.2018. He also recorded the statement of Victim Y as per her
version. On 16.03.2018, accused Kalulal was also taken into custody
and his memorandum statement was recorded as per his statement. On
the same date, accused Kala @ Seema @ Kalavati was taken into
custody and her memorandum statement was recorded in front of
witnesses in which she had stated that her mobile number is
7426084752. Her memorandum statement is Ex.P-30. On the basis of
said memorandum, Kalavati produced before him an old used mobile
phone of Airtel Company, white yellow in colour, in which Airtel SIM,
mobile No.7426084752 was seized in front of witnesses, which is Ex.P-
31. He also stated that on 18.04.2018, he recorded the statement of
brother of Victim X as per his version. On 13.05.2018, he recorded the
statement of witness Smt. Bhagwanti Devi as per her version. He further
stated that he sent seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Sagar (FSL Sagar) for chemical test through Superintendent of Police,
District Singrauli, vide memorandum No.125/18 dated 16.04.2018
through Constable Vipin Tomar. The memo is Ex.P-32 and deposit
receipt is Ex.P-33. FSL report is Ex.P-34. On 14.03.2018, ASI Vinod
Singh arrested accused Kalulal Lodha and accused Seema Bai Lodha.
The arrest memo is Ex.P-35 and Ex.P-36. In this case a certified copy of
general diary of Ghatoli Police Station, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
18 MCRC-16976-2022
dated 09.02.2018, which is Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 were produced.
21. Upon analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it
appears that the trial court assessed the age of Victim X as being above
18 years on the date of the incident i.e. on 26.01.2018. However, as per
the marksheet (Ex.P-28), the date of birth of Victim X is recorded as
01.02.2000. Accordingly, on the date of the incident, her age would be
17 years, 11 months, and 25 days. Despite this, the trial court, finding no
reliable basis for the said date of birth and relying upon the testimony of
the parents of Victim X, concluded that she was above 18 years of age.
22. It is further noted that the alleged incident occurred on
26.01.2018, whereas the report was lodged on 24.02.2018, i.e., after a
delay of 29 days. Victim X (PW-1), in paragraph 13 of her cross-
examination, admitted that she returned home seven days after leaving
Singrauli. However, in the written complaint (Ex. P-1), it is stated that
she returned on 17.02.2018. Similarly, the father of Victim X (PW-3), in
paragraph 17 of his cross-examination, stated that she returned home
after about one week. Victim Y (PW-5), in paragraph 13 of her cross-
examination, stated that she returned exactly five days after leaving
Singrauli. Likewise, the mother of Victim Y (PW-13), in paragraph 15
of her cross-examination, admitted that Victim No. 2 returned home
approximately one week after leaving Singrauli.
23. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it emerges that both
victims returned home within about one week of leaving Singrauli.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
19 MCRC-16976-2022
Additionally, the written complaint (Ex. P-1) mentions that Victim X
returned home on 17.02.2018. It is also significant that Exhibits D-1 and
D-2, being photocopies of the general diary (Roznamcha Sanha) of
Police Station Ghatoli, Rajasthan, indicate that both victims reached the
said police station on 09.02.2018 and were under police custody.
Despite this, no report was lodged until 24.02.2018. Furthermore, the
FIR (Ex. P-6A) records the distance of the police station as merely one
kilometer. Notably, no missing person report was lodged by the parents
or any relatives during the period when the victims were allegedly
missing. These circumstances raise serious doubts regarding the
credibility of the prosecution's case.
24. From the testimony of Victim X (PW-1) and Victim Y (PW-
5), it appears that the journey from Singrauli to Rajasthan took
approximately four days and was undertaken using public transport,
during which they also consumed meals at hotels. In such
circumstances, had they been taken forcibly or under false pretenses,
they had sufficient opportunity to resist, seek help from the public, or
report the matter to authorities. The absence of any such attempt
suggests that they were not taken against their will by the accused
Umesh and Anju.
25. As far as the question regarding committing rape by accused
Kalulal Loda with Victim X (PW-1) is concerned, at this point the
testimony of Victim X (PW-1) is materially contradictory. In paragraph
5 of her examination-in-chief, she stated that Kalulal called another boy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
20 MCRC-16976-2022
to his house and that it was that boy who committed rape, while Kalulal
himself did not commit any wrongful act. When confronted by the
prosecution after being declared hostile, she denied the suggestion that
Kalulal had committed rape. However, in her written complaint (Ex.P-1)
and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, she had alleged that Kalulal committed rape. In view of these
contradictions, the allegation against Kalulal remains unproved.
26. Similarly, the testimony of Victim Y (PW-5) is inconsistent.
Initially, she stated that Victim X had informed her about the occurrence
of rape but did not specify the perpetrator. Later, upon being declared
hostile and questioned by the prosecution, she stated that Kalulal had
committed rape in her presence. However, in paragraph 16 of her cross-
examination by the defence, she admitted that Kalulal did not commit
rape in her presence and further stated that Victim X had never informed
her about any such incident. These contradictions render the allegation
against Kalulal unreliable and unproved.
27. As regards the FSL report (Ex. P-34), which indicates the
presence of human spermatozoa on the vaginal slide of Victim X, it
merely establishes that sexual intercourse had occurred prior to the
medical examination. However, it does not establish the identity of the
person responsible. The prosecution failed to conduct DNA testing to
link the biological evidence to any accused. Moreover, considering that
the alleged incident occurred on 26.01.2018, the victim returned within a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29103
21 MCRC-16976-2022
week, and the report as well as medical examination were conducted
only on 24.02.2018, the delay further weakens the evidentiary value.
The fact that the victims were already under police custody at Police
Station Ghatoli on 09.02.2018, as per Ex. D-1 and D-2, further deepens
the doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
28. Upon a comprehensive examination of the trial court's
judgment, it appears that both documentary and oral evidence were duly
analyzed in detail and on the basis of that analysis, the conclusions have
been drawn.
29. In view of aforesaid it appears that there is no merit in this
miscellaneous case and no interference is called for in the judgment
passed by the trial Court, therefore, this miscellaneous criminal case is
dismissed and the judgment passed by trial Court is hereby affirmed.
30. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
