[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wasim vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6403
1 CRR-6078-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6078 of 2025
W
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushrut Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J. J. Act")
has been preferred challenging the legality of order dated 08.12.2025 by
Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) and Sixth Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratlam, whereby the prayer of revision petitioner to be treated as "child in
conflict with law" regarding the Crime No.661/2025 registered at police
station Industrial Area, Ratlam under sections 64(2), 64(2)(M), 89, 115(2) &
351(3), of BNS, 2023, 5L/6 & 5(J)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section
3/5 of M.P Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that a final report was submitted
against the present revision petitioner mentioning the age of the revision
petitioner as eighteen and half years on the date of arrest i.e. 10.09.2025. An
application was preferred on behalf of the revision petitioner, the copy of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6403
2 CRR-6078-2025
application has not been filed in the petition, but the facts are being gathered
from the impugned order and the revision petitioner claimed his date of birth
30.04.2007 and claimed to be "Child in Conflict with Law" as per Section
2(13) r/w 2(12) of the J.J. Act, 2015 submitting that he was only 17 years
and 10 months old on the date of incident i.e. 22.03.2025.
3. Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 accepted the claim of the
petitioner that his date of birth was 30.04.2007 but recorded the finding that
as per the contents of the F.I.R., the alleged offence continued since the
23.03.2025 to 03.06.2025 and as per the last incident dated 03.06.2025, the
age of the revision petitioner/applicant comes to 18 years 1 month and 4
days, accordingly, he cannot be treated as "Child in Conflict with Law"
regarding the incident of Crime No.661/2025.
4. Challenging the impugned order, this revision petition has been
preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
(I) Allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned
order dated 08.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/ 1) 'passed by the
learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) / Sixth Additional
Sessions Judge, Ratlam (M.P.), whereby the application filed by
the applicant under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been rejected;
(II) Hold and declare that' the 'applicant was a Child in Conflict
with Law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection ofChildren) Act, 2015, as on the date of the alleged
offence:
OR IN ALTERNATIVE
(III) Remand the matter to the Ld. Trial Court / Juvenile Justice
Board with a direction to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 9
read with Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, in the light of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and decide the claim of
juvenility afresh within a stipulated time;
(IV) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6403
3 CRR-6078-2025
case, in the interest of justice.
Heard
5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and prayed for
dismissal of this revision petition.
Perused the record.
6. Since the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Ratlam has decided the
application treating the date of birth of the revision petitioner as 30.04.2007
as claimed by the revision petitioner, so enquiry regarding the age of the
revision petitioner is not required. What is required to be decided in this case
is from which date the claim of the juvenility has to be considered and for
this purpose, the duration of the offence has to be examined. The narration of
the incident as mentioned in the final report submitted under Section 193 of
the BNSS, 2023 mentions that on 23.03.2025, revision petitioner
representing himself with a Hindu identity contacted the child victim and
committed penetrative sexual assault with a threat that the incident not to be
disclosed to anyone else. Thereafter, the revision petitioner called the child
victim on alternate days and continuously committed penetrative sexual
assault and caused the child victim pregnant. Thereafter, the religious
identity came to be known to the child victim through the sister of revision
petitioner and the sister of the revision petitioner caused the termination of
the pregnancy of the child victim by administering some medicines.
7. Child victim maintained the distance from the revision petitioner,
thereupon, the revision petitioner threatened the child victim on 03.06.2025
with a dire consequences and insisted the child victim to live with him and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6403
4 CRR-6078-2025
also for conversion of religion. Child victim denied, then revision petitioner
beaten the child victim. As per detail of date of birth claimed by the
petitioner, he attained the majority on 30.04.2025. The statements recorded
under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 on 10.09.2025 before the JMFC,
Ratlam, it is mentioned that on 07.08.2025 also, the revision petitioner called
her at his home and she was forced to wear Burqa and eat non vegetarian
food and, thereafter, she tried to commit the suicide.
8. In Vikas Chaudhary vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported
in (2010) 8 SCC 508 , the Apex Court observed that " offence of murder
coupled with abduction would be considered as a continuing offence and
held that "even after the death of victim every time a ransom call was made a
fresh period of limitation commenced. Accordingly, it would be the date on
which the last ransom call was made, i.e., 11th March, 2023, which has to be
taken offence, and accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Act was no longer
applicable to the petitioner, who had attained the age of 18 years by then".
9. The facts of this case reveal that this is not a case involving a single
incident of penetrative sexual assault upon the child victim which came to an
end thereafter. Rather, the allegations indicate that the acts of penetrative
sexual assault continued over a period of time, ultimately resulting in the
pregnancy of the child victim and its subsequent termination. The allegations
further disclose that the victim was being compelled to continue the
relationship and, for that purpose, was allegedly being pressurized to convert
her religion. In such circumstances, the first incident stated to have occurred
on 23.03.2025 cannot be segregated from the last incident alleged to have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6403
5 CRR-6078-2025
taken place after 30.04.2025 including dated 03.06.2025 and 07.08.2025, as
reflected in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of
the BNSS, 2023.
10. The above chronology of the events reveals that the offence
continued even after attaining the age of majority by the revision petitioner
on 30.04.2025 for considerable period. Applying the principles in Vikas
Chaudhary (supra), the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting
the claim of the revision petitioner. The impugned order is just and proper
and no case for interference is made out.
11. In view of above, criminal revision stands dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
