[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11906
1 CRA-14179-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14179 of 2024
ABHISHEK RAIKWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tausif Ahmed - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Public Prosecutor for State.
JUDGMENT
Dictated in open Court
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Learned counsel for the appellant instead of pressing I.A. No.22152 of
2025, which is first application under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant, prays that this appeal be heard finally.
Accordingly, I.A. No.22152 of 2025, is dismissed as not pressed and
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard
finally.
2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved of the judgment dated
06.07.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh (M.P.), in SC ATR No.161 of 2022,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11906
2 CRA-14179-2024
whereby learned trial Court has convicted the present appellant for offences
under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/4(1) of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)
(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 11 years and fine
of Rs.2,000/-, R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for Life and
fine of Rs.6,000/- respectively with default stipulations of R.I. for 01 month,
R.I. for 01 month, R.I. for 02 months, R.I. for 06 months and R.I. for 06
months, respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that
present is a case of consensual relationship between two consenting adults.
At the time of the incident, age of the appellant was 22 years. Victim was 19
years. They were in consensual relationship which can be seen from the
statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as
contained in Ex.P-2, wherein victim has admitted that she was talking to the
appellant for last three years. They were in love with each other. Last year
during Holi festival her parents had seen her talking to the appellant on
mobile. Thereafter, she had not talked to appellant for about six months then
again they started their conversation. They were meeting behind the back of
her parents, but had not established any relationship. Her father threatened to
kill Abhishek Raikwar. On 30.07.2022 she had gone to Dauni Mandir along
with Abhishek. When on the way her father had tried to intercept them, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11906
3 CRA-14179-2024
Abhishek had not stopped his vehicle. They had gone to Damoh and from
Damoh to Sagar, where they had stayed at the house of relative of Abhishek
and with consent they had established physical relationship.
4. It is submitted that mother of the victim (P.W.4) admitted that victim
was adult at the time of the incident. School teacher has not been examined.
Birth certificate of the victim is Ex.P-10, which is available on record. DNA
report (Ex.P-26) is uninterpretable.
5. There is element of previous rivalry between the parties. Dr. Priyanka
Chabra (P.W.6) has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, it is submitted
that victim being a consenting adult, conviction under the provisions of
POCSO Act or with the aid of provisions contained in SC/ST (POA) Act is
not made out. It is also submitted that since victim was in love with the
appellant for last three years provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act will not be
attracted.
6. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor, in his turn,
opposes the prayer and supports the impugned judgment. It is submitted that
Abhishek Soni (P.W.7), Reader from the office of Sub Divisional Officer,
Tendukheda has been examined. He has proved caste certificate Ex.P-15.
Similarly, Surendra Singh Rajput (P.W.16), Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Amdar, Police Station Jabera, District Damoh has proved the birth certificate
(Ex.P-10). Therefore, it is submitted that no indulgence is called for.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record. Victim (P.W.1) has admitted that she had given her statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Magistrate. She has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11906
4 CRA-14179-2024
corroborated the statements given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in
paragraph-17 of her cross-examination where she stated that when she was
travelling with the appellant on motorcycle, her father had seen and called
her. She also admitted that appellant had given her a mobile one year prior to
the incident. She also admitted that she had given statements to the police
personnel that she was in love with the appellant for last three years. She also
stated that marriage of her parents was performed 25 years prior to the date
of incident. Victim (P.W.1) also admitted that out of the three children, she is
the eldest child.
8. Father of the victim (P.W.2) admitted that victim is his eldest child.
After four years of his marriage victim was born, then stated that eldest child
has died but admitted that he had not given any documentary evidence in
regard to death of first child.
9. Mother of the victim (P.W.4) admitted that her marriage was
performed 20 years prior to the incident and victim was born after one year.
10. When all these facts are taken into consideration, then admittedly
victim was an adult at the time of the incident. No school teacher has been
examined. Dr. Priyanka Chabra (P.W.6) stated that secondary sexual
characters of the victim were well developed. On external examination there
were no injury marks. On internal examination also, there were not injury
marks. Hymen was torn, but there was no pain. She has sealed
undergarments of the victim along with slides etc. In opinion, doctor stated
that without forensic report she cannot state as to whether there was
symptoms of immediate violation of privacy or not. Thus, when evidence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11906
5 CRA-14179-2024
victim (P.W.1), her father (P.W.2), her mother (P.W.4) and Dr. Priyanka
Chabra (P.W.6) is taken into consideration, then it is evident that victim was
a consenting adult. Her parents have indirectly admitted that her age was
above 18 years at the time of incident and, therefore, when victim was not a
child, her conviction could not be sustained under Section 3/4(1) of the
POCSO Act. Her conviction can also not be sustained under Sections 363,
366 and 376 of the IPC especially in view of the fact that she has stated that
she had consensually admitted to have physical relationship. Therefore, when
conviction under any of the substantive provisions of the IPC/POCSO Act is
not sustainable, then conviction with the aid of Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act will also not made out, therefore, impugned judgment of
conviction needs to be and is set aside.
11. In the result, appeal is allowed. Appellant if not required in any other
case be released forthwith.
12. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
THK
