[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bittu @ Reetesh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19132
1 CRA-1622-2016
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 10th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1622 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BITTU @ REETESH
Appearance:
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State.
None for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
(DICTATED IN OPEN COURT)
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of the judgment dated
30.10.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshangabad in S.T. No.48/2015 whereby learned trial Court has acquitted
the accused Bittu @ Reetesh from the charges under Section 450, 376(2)(i)
(n), 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. It is submitted that age of the victim is doubtful. Therefore, the trial
Court erred in recording the finding of acquittal from the aforesaid charges.
3. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate for the State,
submits that as per the prosecution story, victim (PW-3), her mother (PW-2)
and father (PW-4) were residents of village Sirwad. On 14.01.2015, victim
(PW-3) appeared before Police Station Babai and gave a report to the effect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19132
2 CRA-1622-2016
that during last year in the month of Ashadh, she was alone at home. Her
parents had gone to their fields whereas her brother had gone to school,
when Bittu Sahu entered her home and started talking dirty. Thereafter, he
had violated her privacy. On account of fear for her life and lives of her near
and dear ones, she did not say anything. After eight days again accused had
violated her privacy, as a result of which she became pregnant. When her
mother asked her as to the reason for bloating of her stomach, then she had
given her narration to her mother and father.
4. Thus, it is submitted that present is a fit case to reverse the finding of
acquittal and record a finding of conviction.
5. After hearing learned Government for the State and going through the
record.
6. DNA report is available on record. It is clearly mentioned that accused
Reetesh is not a biological father of the fetus, which was subjected to DNA
reporting. It is further mentioned that victim is the biological mother of the
fetus, Exhibit-B.
7. Another glaring auditee in the record is that, as per Ex.P-1, date of birth
of the victim is mentioned as 20th June but year of birth has been
manipulated and there is overwriting in the record.
8. Shri Pramod Kumar Purohit (PW-1), Headmaster, has admitted in cross-
examination that neither the records, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, are in his
handwriting nor it were prepared in front of him. He admits that there is no
such proof enclosed along with Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 to support the date of
birth of the victim. As far as, manipulation in Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19132
3 CRA-1622-2016
concerned, it is evident to the naked eyes. It appears that year 1996 has been
altered to 1998.
9. When this fact is taken into consideration and date of birth of the victim
is taken to be 20.06.1996, then at the time of the incident, she was major.
Thus, the consensual relationship between two consenting adults will not fall
within the definition of Section 450 or 476(2)(i)(n) of IPC. Since victim was
an adult, provisions of POCSO Act will definitely not be attracted. In fact,
PW-2, mother of the victim, admitted that she has eight children. Two
daughters were born but after birth they had died. She has one son and five
daughters who are surviving. She admits that her marriage was performed at
the age of 14 years. Her apparent age in the deposition-sheet is mentioned as
55 years, that means that her marriage was performed 41 years prior to her
deposition. She admitted that after 4-5 years of her marriage, first child was
born. There is age gap of 2 years amongst all her children. Even if victim is
treated to be seventh child, as narrated by PW-2. Then also the fact of the
matter is that age of the victim will be somewhere around 20 years as has
been admitted by the mother of the victim.
10 Father of the victim (PW-4) has also admitted that age of his daughter
i.e. victim was 20 years at the time of the incident.
11. Dr. Shobhna Chouksey (PW-8) stated that on examination of the
victim, she had found her secondary sexual characters to be fully developed.
Hymen was old ruptured. Head of the fetus was visible. Victim was pregnant
for about 7-7 1/2 months. In cross-examination, she stated that if the police
personnel would have asked her when she would have ordered for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19132
4 CRA-1622-2016
radiological examination.
12. However, looking to the fact that parents of the victim admit that
victim was adult. DNA, qua the present appellant, is negative, the trial Court
has not committed any error in recording a finding of acquittal and giving
benefit of doubt to the appellant, especially in view of the fact that fetus was
found to be not fathered by the appellant. When these facts are taken into
consideration, then the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.
Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
