[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Majeed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-2591-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2591 of 2024
(ABDUL MAJEED AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 15-01-2026
Shri Pritinker Diwakar, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Shailendra Singh Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.233/2026, which is third application under Section
430(1) of the BNSS/389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant No.1-Abdul Majeed, S/o Rehmat Khan Mansoori.
The appellant No.1 is aggrieved of the judgment dated 08/02/2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkushnagar, Distt.
Chhatarpur (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.SC/09/2019 whereby the
appellant No.1 stands convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
376(2) R.I. for
(jha) IPC Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 02 year
20 years
3/4 POCSO Nil NIL NIL
It is submitted that firstly victim has turned hostile. Victim has not
supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that there was delay in
2 CRA-2591-2024
sending the samples as were collected for forensic reporting. It is further
submitted that age of the victim is doubtful and thirdly, it is submitted that as
per Islamic tradition, appellant, if releases, then marry the victim and that
will be better for both the victim and accused to have a free and fair life.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State,
in his turn, submits that DNA report available on record, is positive qua both
the accused persons. As per the DNA report, the samples which were drawn
on 16/04/2019, were promptly received at the FSL Laboratory on 22/4/2019.
Admittedly, I.O. of the case Juber Khan (PW-10) was not confronted with
this aspect of delay in handling of the samples, therefore, now at this
appellate stage, this argument is not available to the appellant's counsel.
As far as age is concerned, D.N. Sharma (PW-5), Headmaster,
deposed that date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 05/01/2005 at serial
No.1321 of admission register (Ex.P-11-C) and this evidence of the
prosecution has remained unrebutted, therefore, admittedly, at the time of the
incident, victim was hardly of 14 years of age, therefore, victim, being a
minor, DNA report being positive, it is submitted that there is no ground to
show indulgence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
So far as the plea of non-examination of author is concerned, in this
regard judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi
Vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 is relevant wherein Hon'ble Supreme
3 CRA-2591-2024
Court has held that an entry if is made in public or other official book,
register or record and it states a fact in issue or relevant fact and if it is made
by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, then such document is
admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Hence, we are of the
opinion that merely non-examining the author who was present at the time of
admission of the victim in the school, is not a sufficient circumstance to
discard the school record.
Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that since the victim was a minor, her turning hostile under adverse
social circumstances is not a sufficient reason to show indulgence when
DNA report (Ex.P/23) is positive qua both the appellants-Abdul Majeed and
Raju alias Abdul.
Accordingly, I.A. No.233/2026 fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
