[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayyaz Mohammad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
1 CRA-9382-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9382 of 2022
AYYAZ MOHAMMAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on: 08/01/2026
Delivered on: 27/01/2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is filed by the
appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned
Third Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Deosar, District Singrauli (M.P.), in Special Case
No.59 of 2020, whereby appellant has been convicted for offences as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment in
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
lieu of fine
343 I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year Rs.500/- R.I. for 01 month.
363 I.P.C. R.I. for 05 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 03 months
366 I.P.C. R.I. for 07 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 03 months
368 I.P.C. R.I. for 05 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 03 months
376(2)(n) I.P.C. R.I. for 10 years Rs.5,000/- R.I. for
06 months
R.I. for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
2 CRA-9382-2022
376(3) I.P.C. R.I. for 20 years Rs.5,000/- R.I. for
06 months
3(k) read POCSO - - -
with 4
5(L) read POCSO - - -
with 6
2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.6.2019, a missing report was
lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix to the effect that on 25.6.2019, the
prosecutrix had gone to see a Baraat in the neighbourhood but did not come back.
On being enquired, a friend of the prosecutrix informed that the prosecutrix had
gone towards the river. Thereafter the prosecutrix was searched at various places
but could not be traced. On the basis of aforesaid report, an FIR was lodged
against unknown person vide crime no. 252 of 2019 under section 363 of the
Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jiyawan.
3. During course of investigation on 27.6.2019, the prosecutrix was recovered
from the house of the appellant at village Harra Chandel. On the said date, the
statements of the father of the prosecutrix and friend of the prosecutrix were
recorded. On 28.6.2019, after obtaining the consent of the parents of the
prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to District Hospital
Waidhan. On 28.6.2019, the police statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. On
investigation, it was found that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with
the prosecutrix under the false pretext of marriage on the back side of the house of
the prosecutrix and thereafter in the house of the appellant.
4. After due investigation, an offence was registered against the appellant and
his father namely Nazar Mohammad at Police Station Jiyawan under Sections 363,
343, 366-A, 368, 376(C), 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and charge-sheet was filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
3 CRA-9382-2022
before Special judge (POCSO Act, 2012).
5. The Special Judge framed the charges under Sections 363, 366, 343, 368, 376
(3), 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 3(A) read with Section 4 & 5 (L) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant and under Sections 343, 368 of
the IPC and Section 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act against the
father of the appellant namely Nazar Mohammad.
6. Both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded that they have been
falsely implicated in the case. The accused examined Ramakant Sharma (DW-1),
Head Master of Govt. Middle School, Harra Chandel, District Singrauli as a
defence witness.
7. The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence available on
record acquitted accused Nazar Mohammad of the offence under Sections 343,
368 of the IPC and Sections 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act and
convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this
appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to
appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record in its
proper perspective and has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the
aforesaid offences. It is contended that there is no cogent or plausible evidence to
establish the complicity of the present appellant in the alleged offence. There is no
evidence on record to indicate that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse
with the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was in a
continuous relationship with the present appellant.
9. Per contra , Shri Arvind Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State, supports the impugned judgment. He submits that after proper analysis of
the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
4 CRA-9382-2022
has rightly convicted the appellant under the aforesaid sections, and no error has
been committed in the findings recorded by the trial Court. He further submits that
the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case in her statement before the
Court, wherein she categorically stated that the appellant committed sexual
intercourse with her forcefully. She further stated that she shouted at the relevant
time, but since a marriage function was going on and loud music/DJ was being
played, her voice could not be heard by anyone. Taking advantage of the said
situation, the accused committed the act. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix
was a minor at the time of commission of the offence. The DNA report is positive,
and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. Hence,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the
record.
Determination of age :-
11. The victim (PW-1), in her testimony, stated that she was 13 years old and
studying in Class VII at Gayatri High School, Odgadi, Bargawan. In paragraph 11
of her statement, she again mentioned her age as 13 years. She stated that she does
not know her date of birth and that her father admitted her to Class I. In paragraph
12, she denied the suggestion that she had studied at Government Primary School,
Harra Chandel, Deosar. She herself stated that her grandmother used to go to the
said school for cooking mid-day meals and that she used to accompany her,
whereupon the school authorities enrolled her name on their own. In paragraph 13,
she stated that she was not aware that her date of birth was recorded as 12.09.2002
in the Government Primary School, Harra Chandel, Deosar. In paragraph 17, she
stated that she studied up to Class V at Navayug Bal Purva Madhyamik
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
5 CRA-9382-2022
Vidyalaya, Deosar.
12. The mother of the victim (PW-2) stated in her testimony that her daughter
was 14 years old and had studied up to Class VI. She further stated that her
husband admitted the victim to Navayug School, Deosar. In paragraph 7 of her
cross-examination, she stated that she does not remember the exact date of birth of
the victim. She further stated that it was her husband who got the victim admitted
to Class I, but she does not remember the year. In paragraph 8, she denied the
suggestion that the victim was admitted to Class I at Government Primary School,
Harra Chandel, where her date of birth (12.09.2002) was recorded on an estimated
basis.
13. The father of the victim (PW-3) stated that the victim was 14 years old and
had studied up to Class V. He stated that he admitted her to Navayug School,
Deosar. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he stated that the victim's date of
birth is 04.06.2006. In paragraph 7, he admitted that his mother had been working
as a cook at Harra Chandel School for about 15 years and that the victim's name
was also recorded in the Government Primary School, Harra Chandel, Deosar. He
himself stated that he did not enroll her name there and that the school authorities
did so on their own. In paragraph 9, he stated that no birth certificate was prepared
for the victim. He further stated that the victim studied up to Class V and
thereafter was not admitted to any other school.
14. Jitendra Sharma (PW-7) stated that he has been working as Headmaster of
Navayug Bal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Deosar, since 2004. He produced the
original scholar register maintained by the school for the period from 01.07.2010
to 10.04.2013, containing entries from registration number 346 to 626. The
relevant entry pertaining to the victim is at registration number 548, wherein it is
recorded that she was admitted to Class I on 03.07.2012 and her date of birth was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
6 CRA-9382-2022
recorded as 04.07.2006. In his cross-examination, he stated that the victim's father
was present at the time of admission but did not submit any birth certificate. He
further admitted that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of an estimated
date provided by the victim's father.
15. Ramakant Sharma (DW-1) stated that he has been working as Headmaster of
Government Primary School, Harra Chandel, Deosar, since 03.08.2019.
According to the scholar register maintained from the year 2007 to 2011, the
victim's name is recorded at registration number 1340 as having been admitted to
Class I. In the said entry, her date of birth is mentioned as 12.09.2002 and the date
of admission as 07.07.2008. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not
posted at the school on 07.07.2008 and therefore could not say who made the
entry. He further stated that there were no signatures of the Headmaster or any
authorized person against the entry. In Exhibit D-1, the victim's name at
registration number 1340 appears to have been struck out and rewritten without
any initials. He stated that he could not confirm who made these corrections or on
what basis the date of birth was recorded. He further stated that the register was
neither certified by any senior officer nor sealed with any name or designation,
and the page numbering was also incomplete. The scholar register was not
authenticated by any competent authority.
16. Thus, upon considering the entire testimony of this defence witness, it is
evident that the scholar register produced by him is itself doubtful. It is not clear
as to who made the relevant entries. Therefore, the date of birth of the victim
recorded in Exhibit D-1 as 12.09.2002 cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the
incident occurred on 25.06.2019, and even if the said date of birth is accepted, the
victim would still have been below 17 years of age on the date of the incident. On
the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
7 CRA-9382-2022
appears to be reliable. The testimonies of the victim, her parents, and Jitendra
Sharma (PW-7), Headmaster of Navayug Bal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Deosar, are consistent with each other. From the testimony of Jitendra Sharma
(PW-7), it is clear that the victim's date of birth was recorded on the basis of
information supplied by her father.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7
SCC 263 has propounded the following principles in paragraphs 23 and 24, which
reads as under:-
"23. Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to
determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of
the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the
basis for determining age, even of a child who is a victim of
crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference
insofar as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child
in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, it would be just and
appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine
the age of the prosecutrix VW, PW 6. The manner of
determining age conclusively has been expressed in sub-rule
(3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid
provision, the age of a child is ascertained by adopting the
first available basis out of a number of options postulated in
Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an
option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding
effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The
highest rated option available would conclusively determine
the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3),
matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the child
concerned is the highest rated option. In case, the said
certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon.
Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3)
envisages consideration of the date of birth entered in the
school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of
date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is
liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other
material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such
entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate
issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then
no other material whatsoever is to be taken into
consideration for determining the age of the child concerned,
as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
8 CRA-9382-2022
of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid,
that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the
child concerned, on the basis of medical opinion.
24. Following the scheme of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, it is
apparent that the age of the prosecutrix VW, PW 6 could not
be determined on the basis of the matriculation (or
equivalent) certificate as she had herself deposed, that she
had studied up to Class 3 only, and thereafter, had left her
school and had started to do household work. The
prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case, had
endeavoured to establish the age of the prosecutrix VW, PW
6 on the next available basis in the sequence of options
expressed in Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules. The prosecution
produced Satpal (PW 4) to prove the age of the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6. Satpal (PW 4) was the Head Master of
Government High School, Jathlana, where the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6 had studied up to Class 3. Satpal (PW 4) had
proved the certificate Ext. PG, as having been made on the
basis of the school records indicating that the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6 was born on 15-5-1977. In the scheme
contemplated under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules, it is not
permissible to determine age in any other manner, and
certainly not on the basis of an option mentioned in a
subsequent clause. We are therefore of the view that the
High Court was fully justified in relying on the aforesaid
basis for establishing the age of the prosecutrix VW, PW 6.
It would also be relevant to mention that under the scheme of
Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, it would have been improper for
the High Court to rely on any other material including the
ossification test, for determining the age of the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6. The deposition of Satpal, PW 4 has not been
contested. Therefore, the date of birth of the prosecutrix
VW, PW 6 (indicated in Ext. PG as 15-7-1977) assumes
finality. Accordingly it is clear that the prosecutrix VW, PW
6, was less than 15 years old on the date of occurrence i.e.
on 25-3-1993. In the said view of the matter, there is no
room for any doubt that the prosecutrix VW, PW 6 was a
minor on the date of occurrence. Accordingly, we hereby
endorse the conclusions recorded by the High Court, that
even if the prosecutrix VW, PW 6 had accompanied the
appellant-accused Jarnail Singh of her own free will, and
had consensual sex with him, the same would have been
clearly inconsequential, as she was a minor."
18. Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Anoop Singh (2015) 7 SCC 773 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 13 to 16, laid down guiding principles,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
9 CRA-9382-2022
which are as follows:
"13. In the present case, the central question is whether the prosecutrix
was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident? The prosecution
in support of their case adduced two certificates, which were the birth
certificate and the Middle School Certificate. The date of birth of the
prosecutrix has been shown as 29-8-1987 in the birth certificate (Ext. P-
5), while the date of birth is shown as 27-8-1987 in the Middle School
Examination Certificate. There is a difference of just two days in the
dates mentioned in the abovementioned exhibits. The trial court has
rightly observed that the birth certificate, Ext. P-5 clearly shows that the
registration regarding the birth was made on 30-10-1987 and keeping in
view the fact that registration was made within 2 months of the birth, it
could not be guessed that the prosecutrix was shown as underaged in
view of the possibility of the incident in question. We are of the view
that the discrepancy of two days in the two documents adduced by the
prosecution is immaterial and the High Court was wrong in presuming
that the documents could not be relied upon in determining the age of
the prosecutrix.
14. This Court in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 14 SCC
637 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 306] has held that Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, is applicable in
determining the age of the victim of rape. Rule 12(3) reads as under:
"12. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in
conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be
conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be,
the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates,
if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school
(other than a play school) first attended; and in
the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or
a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or
(iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will
be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board,
which will declare the age of the juvenile or child.
In case exact assessment of the age cannot be
done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may
be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded
by them, may, if considered necessary, give
benefit to the child or juvenile by considering
his/her age on lower side within the margin of one
year.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
10 CRA-9382-2022
and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into
consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical
opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and
either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or
in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the
age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law."
15. This Court further held in para 12 of Mahadeo [(2013) 14 SCC 637
: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 306] , as under : (SCC p. 641)
"12. ... Under Rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically
provided that only in the absence of alternative
methods described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii),
the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light
of such a statutory rule prevailing for
ascertainment of the age of the juvenile in our
considered opinion, the same yardstick can be
rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of
ascertaining the age of a victim as well."
(emphasis supplied)
This Court therefore relied on the certificates issued by the
school in determining the age of the prosecutrix. In para 13,
this Court observed : (Mahadeo case [(2013) 14 SCC 637 :
(2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 306] , SCC p. 641)
"13. In light of our above reasoning, in the case
on hand, there were certificates issued by the
school in which the prosecutrix did her Vth
standard and in the school leaving certificate
issued by the school under Ext. 54, the date of
birth of the prosecutrix has been clearly noted as
20-5-1990, and this document was also proved by
PW 11. Apart from that the transfer certificate as
well as the admission form maintained by the
Primary School, Latur, where the prosecutrix had
her initial education, also confirmed the date of
birth as 20-5-1990. The reliance placed upon the
said evidence by the courts below to arrive at the
age of the prosecutrix to hold that the prosecutrix
was below 18 years of age at the time of the
occurrence was perfectly justified and we do not
find any grounds to interfere with the same."
16. In the present case, we have before us two documents which
support the case of the prosecutrix that she was below 16 years of age at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
11 CRA-9382-2022
the time the incident took place. These documents can be used for
ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix as per Rule 12(3)(b). The
difference of two days in the dates, in our considered view, is
immaterial and just on this minor discrepancy, the evidence in the form
of Exts. P-5 and P-6 cannot be discarded. Therefore, the trial court was
correct in relying on the documents."
19. The main argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is that Dr. Aakriti
Jaiswal had examined the victim medically and had advised for conducting X-rays
of the right wrist, right elbow, right knee, and pelvic bone for determination of
age. In such circumstances, as per the principle propounded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Sunil vs. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 742 , not
conducting the ossification test would be a serious error. Paragraph 24 of the
said judgment is significant, which reads as follows:-
"24. Dr. Verma, PW 1, who had clinically examined the prosecutrix,
found that her secondary sex characters were well developed. The short
question in the facts and circumstances of this case that remains to be
determined is whether the prosecutrix was a minor? Dr. Sadhna Verma,
PW 1 who examined the prosecutrix referred her for verification to the
dental surgeon and the radiologist. The failure of getting the prosecutrix
examined from the dental surgeon or the radiologist despite the fact that
she was referred to them by Dr. Sadhna Verma, PW 1 is a serious flaw
in the prosecution version. We are not laying down as a rule that all
these tests must be performed in all cases, but in the instant case, in the
absence of primary evidence, reports of the dental surgeon and the
radiologist would have helped us in arriving at the conclusion regarding
the age of the prosecutrix."
20. On the basis of the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
appellant cannot derive any benefit, since the same paragraph itself clarifies --
"We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be conducted in all
cases." Hence, it is clear that while a medical expert recommends an ossification
test in cases, it is not mandatory.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
12 CRA-9382-2022
21. Thus, from the above it is clear that if the doctor conducting the medical
examination of the victim advises for an ossification test to determine her age, but
the ossification test is not conducted, it will not affect the prosecution's case --
provided that other documents such as the date of birth certificate issued by the
school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination board, if available, are produced. In the absence of these, a birth
certificate issued by the municipal or local body or panchayat authority may be
relied upon. Only in the absence of all the aforesaid documents can the age be
determined on the basis of an ossification test or any other latest medical
examination.
22. Apart from this, the case of Sunil vs State of Haryana (supra) has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), the
above point has been discussed in detail in paragraphs 21 and 25 as follows.
"21. In order to support his contention, that the prosecutrix was not a
minor at the time of occurrence, the learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Sunil v. State of Haryana
[(2010) 1 SCC 742 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 910 : AIR 2010 SC 392] .
Ordinarily, we would have extracted the observations on which reliance
was placed, but for reasons that would emerge from our conclusion, we
consider it inappropriate to do so.
25. Since the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant is distinguishable on facts. And since the judgment relied
upon had not made any reference to the 2007 Rules, we are of the view
that the same would not be relevant for the purposes of determining the
age of the prosecutrix VW, PW 6, specially in the background of the
evidence led by the prosecution through Satpal (PW 4) to establish.
In light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that in the case of Sunil vs. State of Haryana (supra), Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
13 CRA-9382-2022
was not taken into consideration; therefore, that judgment is irrelevant
in the present context.
23. In addition, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
M.P. vs. Anoop Singh ( supra) particularly in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are
noteworthy which reads as under:-
"16. In the present case, we have before us two documents which
support the case of the prosecutrix that she was below 16 years of age at
the time the incident took place. These documents can be used for
ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix as per Rule 12(3)(b). The
difference of two days in the dates, in our considered view, is
immaterial and just on this minor discrepancy, the evidence in the form
of Exts. P-5 and P-6 cannot be discarded. Therefore, the trial court was
correct in relying on the documents.
17. The High Court also relied on the statement of PW 11 Dr A.K.
Saraf who took the x-ray of the prosecutrix and on the basis of the
ossification test, came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix
was more than 15 years but less than 18 years. Considering this the
High Court presumed that the girl was more than 18 years of age at the
time of the incident. With respect to this finding of the High Court, we
are of the opinion that the High Court should have relied firstly on the
documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) and only in the absence,
the medical opinion should have been sought. We find that the trial
court has also dealt with this aspect of the ossification test. The trial
court noted that the respondent had cited Lakhanlal v. State of M.P.
[2004 SCC OnLine MP 16 : 2004 Cri LJ 3962] , wherein the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh said that where the doctor having examined
the prosecutrix and found her to be below 18½ years, then keeping in
mind the variation of two years, the accused should be given the benefit
of doubt. Thereafter, the trial court rightly held that in the present case
the ossification test is not the sole criterion for determination of the date
of birth of the prosecutrix as her certificate of birth and also the
certificate of her medical examination had been enclosed.
18. Thus, keeping in view the medical examination reports, the
statements of the prosecution witnesses which inspire confidence and
the certificates proving the age of the prosecutrix to be below 16 years
of age on the date of the incident, we set aside the impugned judgment
[Anoop Singh v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 924 of 2006,
order dated 10-7-2008 (MP)] passed by the High Court and uphold the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
14 CRA-9382-2022
judgment and order dated 24-4-2006 passed by the Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Satna in Special Case No. 123 of 2003."
24. Accordingly, considering the above principles, it is concluded that merely
because the doctor conducting the medical examination advised ossification
testing to determine the victim's age and such a test was not conducted, the
prosecution's case is not affected on that ground. The ossification test becomes
necessary only in cases where documents mentioned under sub-section (2) of
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are
not available. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant carries
no weight. Hence, the trial court's conclusion that on the date of the incident, i.e.,
25.06.2019, the victim's age was below 18 years, which is specifically 12 years,
11 months, and 21 days is found to be free from any error.
On Merit
25. The victim (PW-1) has stated that she had gone to her grandmother's house in
Village Harra Chandel to attend her aunt's wedding ceremony. On 25.07.2019 at
about 10:00 p.m., she went for nature's call with her friend Reena Yadav. At that
time, two persons arrived, picked her up, and took her to the house of the accused,
Ayyaz Mohammad. She screamed, but no one heard her due to the loud DJ music.
The two persons locked her inside the house of accused Ayyaz Mohammad, who
forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. On the third day of
the incident, the police arrived, recovered the victim from the house of accused
Ayyaz Mohammad, and took her to the District Hospital, Baidhan for medical
examination. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate (Ex. P/1). Nothing
emerged in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony.
26. The mother of the victim (PW-2) testified that on the date of the incident, the
victim was missing from the house. The family searched nearby but could not find
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
15 CRA-9382-2022
her. The victim's friend Reena later informed her that two men, with their faces
covered by cloth, had taken the victim away. In the morning, she lodged a report at
Jiawan Police Station (Ex. P/2). On 27.06.2019, when the victim met her, she
narrated that the accused persons had forcibly confined her in their house and that
accused Ayyaz Mohammad had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The
witness further stated that when the victim was rescued, her clothes were soaked in
blood, and she was extremely distraught. The police recovered the victim from the
accused's house and handed her over to the witness.
27. The father of the victim (PW-3) corroborated that when he met his daughter,
she told him that the accused persons had forcibly confined her in their house and
that accused Ayyaz Mohammad had committed sexual intercourse with her two or
three times. The police took the victim to the hospital for medical examination, for
which he gave consent. He also confirmed that the police prepared a scene map
(Ex. P/3) in his presence.
28. Reena Yadav (PW-4), the victim's friend, stated that on the date of the
incident, she and the victim had gone to Krishna Yadav's house to see the marriage
procession. Around 10:00 p.m., they went to the Kothari Nala ground for nature's
call when accused Nazar Mohammad and Ayyaz Mohammad arrived and grabbed
the victim. She shouted, but her voice was drowned out by the DJ music. She then
ran to Krishna Yadav's house and informed the victim's mother that accused Nazar
Mohammad and Ayyaz Mohammad had taken the victim. The next day, the police
inquired about the incident, and she accompanied them to describe the scene.
Nothing in her cross-examination warrants discrediting her testimony.
29. The grandfather of the victim (PW-5) corroborated the statements of the
victim's mother and father. He stated that when the victim met him, she narrated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
16 CRA-9382-2022
that while going for nature's call, accused Nazar Mohammad and Ayyaz
Mohammad grabbed her, took her to their house, and accused Ayyaz Mohammad
forcibly raped her against her will.
30. Sarnam Singh Baghel (PW-9), the Investigating Officer, testified that during
the investigation, he visited the place of incident, inspected it, and prepared the
spot map (Ex. P/3) at the instance of the victim's mother. On 27.06.2019, he
recorded the statements of the victim's father and witness Reena Yadav. On
05.07.2019, he recorded the statements of the victim's mother, grandfather, and
witness Jitendra Tiwari. On 27.09.2019, he searched the house of accused Nazar
Mohammad in the presence of witnesses Anil Kumar Dwivedi and Ashish
Dwivedi. During the search, the victim was found inside the house. He prepared a
search panchnama (Ex. P/9) and a seizure panchnama (Ex. P/10). Thereafter, the
victim was brought to the police station, her parents were called, and in the
presence of witnesses Smt. Rama Yadav and Shrinath Yadav, she was handed over
to her mother. A delivery panchnama (Ex. P/5) was prepared. A medical
examination form (Ex. P/11) was prepared, and the victim was sent with a lady
constable to the District Hospital, Baidhan for medical examination. On
28.06.2019, he arrested accused Mohammad Ayyaz (arrest memo Ex. P/12) and
accused Nazar Mohammad (arrest memo Ex. P/13).
31. Roopa Agnihotri (PW-10) recorded the victim's statement on 28.06.2019.
32. Dr. U.K. Singh (PW-11) examined accused Ayyaz Mohammad and opined
that he was capable of sexual intercourse. He sealed two semen slides and the
accused's underwear, handing them over to the concerned constable for chemical
testing. The medical examination report is Ex. P/18. He further stated that Dr.
Akriti Jaiswal medically examined the victim on 28.06.2019. She prepared two
slides of the victim's vaginal discharge, her green panty, and pubic hair, which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
17 CRA-9382-2022
were handed over to the concerned female constable for chemical examination. In
cross-examination, suggestions put to him on behalf of the accused were denied,
and no material emerged to benefit the accused.
33. From the evidence of PW-9, it appears that for DNA examination, an EDTA
vial containing the victim's blood sample, vaginal slide, pubic hair, and
underwear, along with an EDTA vial containing the accused's blood sample,
semen slide, and underwear, were sent to FSL, Sagar (letter Ex. P/20). The DNA
report (Ex. P/22) confirms a positive DNA match with respect to accused Ayyaz
Mohammad.
34. Upon analyzing the prosecution evidence, it is evident that the victim (PW-
1) clearly stated that accused Ayyaz Mohammad forcibly committed sexual
intercourse with her against her will. She was recovered from his house on the
third day of the incident, as documented by the Investigating Officer through the
search memo (Ex. P/9) and seizure panchnama (Ex. P/10). This fact is
corroborated by the victim's mother (PW-2) and father (PW-3). The fact that
accused Ayyaz Mohammad took the victim to his house while she was going for
nature's call with her friend Reena Yadav (PW-4) stands proved. The scientific
evidence, particularly the positive DNA report, further implicates accused Ayyaz
Mohammad. In the cross-examination of the victim, her mother, and father, the
defence suggested that accused Ayyaz Khan had supplied 100-200 truckloads of
soil to his field without payment, leading to this false case when he demanded his
money. This defence is untenable against the overwhelming prosecution evidence,
including the victim's recovery from the accused's house on the third day. The
accused's alternative plea that the victim was in love with him and went to his
house willingly also fails, as the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7082
18 CRA-9382-2022
35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
found to be credible. This Court is of the considered view that prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences
charged. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, warranting
interference by this Court. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
36. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rao
