Madhya Pradesh High Court
R vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502
1 CRA-12886-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12886 of 2024
R
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Mayank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the objector.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed in S.C. No.27/2022 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Begamgunj, District Raisen (M.P.) whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC, so also under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and has sentenced the appellant in the following terms:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
R.I. for 20 R.I for 03
5(L)/6 POCSO Rs.3000/-
years months
R.I. for 05 R.I for 02
366-A IPC Rs.2,000/-
years months
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 16-12-2025
11:54:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502
2 CRA-12886-2024
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Jafar Khan submits that prosecution story, in short, is that on 31.05.2022, father of the victim (PW-2) lodged a report with Sub Inspector, Makran Singh (PW-6), at Police Station Begamgunj that on 30.05.2022 his second daughter, PW-1, had gone to her Girls School at 11:00 AM to look for her result. She was 17 years of age, when she did not return till 04:00 then she was searched for at Girls School and in the neighbourhood, but when nothing could be found about her, then report was lodged.
3. It is also mentioned that victim (PW-1) was maintaining a keypad mobile but when she was called she did not respond, as a result of which missing person report against unknown person was recorded.
4. It is submitted that victim is a consenting adult. It's a case of false implication. The whole chronology of events reveals that the present appellant has been falsely implicated. Victim was in a consensual relationship with somebody else but to suppress this fact she has tried to falsely implicate the present appellant.
5. It is submitted that before the trial Court not only appellant was an accused but his parents too were made an accused and trial was conducted but parents of the appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and their bail bonds were released whereas appellant has been convicted as above.
6. It is pointed out that, in fact, appellant is a cousin brother of the victim. He is Mausera brother of the victim. As per statements of the victim, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 3 CRA-12886-2024 recorded on 02.06.2022, it is mentioned that when she was going to the school to look for her result, when she had reached bus stand, then the appellant had met her and stated that his mother was not keeping good health and, therefore, had taken her in a bus to Sagar. He had kept her in his house at Sagar and there violated her privacy on 3-4 occasions. When she informed her Mausi and Mausa about the incident, then Mausa stated that since they have to marry, therefore, there is no problem in establishment of said relationship. Thereafter, all of a sudden her parents had reached Sagar to pick her up when appellant had ran away. Thereafter, she had narrated her story to her father and mother when they had taken her to the police station.
7. Unfortunately, though this statement is available on record but it was not exhibited by the prosecution.
8. Thereafter, a videography Panchnama (Ex.P-1) was prepared. Dastiyabi Panchnama (Ex.P-2) was prepared on 02.06.2022 at 16:40 hours. Thereafter Supurdgi Panchnama (Ex.P-3) was prepared at 18:50 hours and, thereafter, statements of the victim were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C where she narrated the same facts as were narrated by the victim in her 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
9. Missing person report is Ex.P-6 and FIR recorded under Section 363 of IPC is Ex.P-7. Spot Map is Ex.P-8 whereas 7th Class marksheet of the victim is available as Ex.P-9 in which her date of birth is mentioned as 25.04.2005.
10. Vide Ex.P-10, this marksheet was seized and thereafter appellant was arrested on 04.06.2022 vide Ex.P-11 and, thereafter, other co-accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P-12 and P-13 respectively.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 4 CRA-12886-2024
11. Vide Ex.P-14, mother of the victim had given consent for her medical examination. Ex.P-14 bears date of 02.06.2022 and has been signed by the mother of the victim from 'A to A' part.
12. Thereafter, Ex.P-15 is the MLC report of the victim, in which her age is mentioned as 17 years. It is mentioned that she was studying in 10th standard, this examination was carried out on 03.06.2022. On internal page of this report, it is mentioned that on 30th May appellant had taken her and after closing her in a room violated her privacy. Appellant was identified as son of her Mausi. She has also stated that her face and hands were tied and then her privacy was violated. However, in the report, it is mentioned there was complete absence of injuries.
13. It is also mentioned that X-ray was advised on 03.06.2022, UPT was done twice and it was positive. Ultra Sonography was advised for noting gestational period. This MLC was carried out by PW-3, Lady Doctor. MLC report is Ex.P-21 whereby vaginal slide, underwear and semen slide of victim and appellant were sent for forensic examination and it was found that human sperms were found on all the three articles. Thereafter vaginal slide of the victim was matched with the blood sample of the appellant and because of very low male (Y) Chromosomal STR DNA profile detected, no definite opinion was given by the scientist as can be seen from the DNA reporting, Ex.P-22.
14. In X-ray, doctor had opined that age of the victim was less than 17 years. This report is Ex.P-28.
15. Victim was subjected to Obstetric Sonography on 10.06.2022. Report is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 5 CRA-12886-2024 Ex.P-31 carried out by Dr. Rajnish Singhai (PW-13). Doctor found that uterus was empty and bulky. Endometrium was open. Impression is mentioned as bulky uterus with cervix (? post abortional uterus).
16. When these facts are taken into consideration and evidence of the victim, who has been examined as PW-1 in the Court, is taken into consideration, then victim has narrated the story as per the stand taken in various documents starting from beginning and her 164 statements. But, in para 13, she stated that --- is known to her. He is son of Athya, aged about 17-18. He is my brother but not my real brother but stated that she ties Rakhi to him. --- Chadar stays at home and runs a shop, she keeps on going to his shop to purchase goods. His parents also sit at the shop. She denied that mobile was purchased by --- Athya's son and also denied that she and this --- who is other than the appellant were caught in a compromising position. She denied that colony mates had beaten --- and then said that nothing of this sort had happened. She denied another suggestion that her parents were keeping an eye on said relationship.
17. It has also come on record that PW-2, father of the victim, admitted that his daughter had carried her mobile with her. He stated that accused are not related to him. Victim had never gone to the house of the accused. Police had informed her that his daughter was at the house of his relatives when he and his wife had gone to Sagar to pick her daughter. Police had not accompanied them. Similar statements have been given by PW-3, mother of the victim. In para 7, PW-3, admits that victim was tying Rakhi to Master ---, she had made
--- as her Guru Bhai. But there is a tacit admission about son of Athya to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 6 CRA-12886-2024 friends with the victim. The son of Athya is a local person.
18. Dr. B.S. Shilpi (PW-4) stated that she had examined the appellant, there were no external injury marks on her body. Ram Kumar Kurmi (PW-
5) proved date of birth of the victim as 25.04.2005. Dr. Vijay Laxmi Nagwanshi (PW-10), stated that on 03.06.2022 she had examined the victim at community Health Center, Begumganj where she was working as Chief Medical Officer. She had narrated her story that appellant who is son of her Mausi had taken her, closed her in a room and violated her privacy. Victim was not knowing her date of birth. On examination, no external injury marks were found. Victim had informed that she was taken on 30.05.2022 and for the last time intercourse was performed on 30.05.2022. There was no complaint of pain nor there was any discharge, hymen was absent, she had changed her clothes, she was subjected to UPT test twice which was found to be positive and she was carrying pregnancy of one month. Victim was advised Sonography to determine the age of the fetus. She had prepared certain slides and handed over for age determination, X-ray was advised, X- ray report is Ex.P-28 which contains her signatures, victim was habitual of intercourse. When victim had given her history then except for appellant she had not stated anything about anybody else i.e. his parents. Victim though had given date of intercourse as 30.05.2022 but on examination which was conducted by this doctor on 03.06.2022 victim was found to be one month pregnant.
19. What is intriguing is that when victim was abducted on 30.05.2022, then she could not have been carrying the pregnancy of one month on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 7 CRA-12886-2024 03.06.2022.
20. In fact Dr. Ritesh Singhai (PW-13), Radiologist at District Hospital Raisen, stated that he had carried out Sonography, his report is Ex.P-31, film is Article 3, no pregnancy was found and it is possible that victim may have undergone abortion as there was swelling on her uterus. Her uterus was enlarged and, therefore, he is stating that she may have undergone abortion because such status is achieved after abortion. He has also admitted that if victim would have given birth to the product of conception, then DNA matching would have been possible and also stated that abortion prior to marriage without the permission of the Court is an offence.
21. Thus, it is evident that firstly victim (PW-1) has though denied her relationship with somebody from her colony, but her mother (PW-3) has indirectly admitted the said liaison while admitting in para 3 that victim had made --- as her Guru Bhai and she was going to his shop to take goods. She has though also denied that colony mates had seen her travelling with the said boy --- and had also denied the aspect of pregnancy but fact of the matter is that Dr. Rajnish Singhai (PW-13) clearly admitted that victim had undergone abortion before he had conducted Sonography on 10.06.2022. This abortion was admittedly carried out between 03.06.2022 when PW-10 had found UPT test positive on two occasions and had asked for Sonography and when Sonography was actually conducted on 10.06.2022. What was the provocation to get the abortion carried without obtaining consent of the concerned court and then suppressing this fact, inasmuch as, PW-3, mother of the victim, has categorically denied that she has no information in regard Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 8 CRA-12886-2024 to the Sonography report attached with the documents of the case. Similarly, victim too has admitted that she had undergone medical examination and thereafter she was examined at Raisen also and, then stated that she has no information that during medical examination she was stated to be used to physical relationship, leads to a conclusion that, firstly, victim and her parents did not allow the medical evidence to crystalize and come on record, secondly, when PW-10 had pointed out that victim was used to sexual relationship and had also found her Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) to be positive twice and had asked for sonography then before undergoing sonography victim had undergone abortion as has been opined by Dr. Rajnish Singhai (PW-13), Sonologist/Radiologist . This fact has been suppressed by the victim and her family members and thirdly, when victim stated that she had established relationship with the appellant on 30.05.2022 then there could not have been a pregnancy of one month as was pointed out by PW-10 on 03.06.2022 when she had examined the victim. Thus, it is evident that victim may be pregnant with somebody else. To save that somebody else victim has falsely implicated the present appellant. There is no corroborative or scientific evidence. Thus, it is evident that prosecution has very cleverly tried to suppress the real facts and instead of taking action against the victim and her parents for undergoing illegal abortion without the consent of the court, have tried to implicate the present appellant so to shield and save some unknown culprit .
22. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Premjibhai Bachubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2009 Cri.L.J. 2888 , has held that positive DNA Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 16-12-2025 11:54:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65502 9 CRA-12886-2024 report can be of great significance where there is supporting evidence. However, such report cannot be accepted in isolation i.e. as sole piece of evidence to record conviction in rape case.
23. In the present case, DNA report is uninterpretable. Ocular testimony is full of loopholes as mentioned above. A relationship established for the first time on 30.05.2022 could not have resulted in pregnancy of about one month on 03.06.2022.
24. Thus, under such facts and circumstances, impugned judgment of conviction cannot be upheld. It is set aside as benefit of doubt is required to accrued in favour of the appellant. Oral testimony of the victim is contrary to the scientific evidence.
25. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is in jail, he be released immediately, if not required in any other case.
26. Appellant will be free to lodge a case of malicious prosecution against the victim and her parents if he so desires.
27. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
28. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 16-12-2025
11:54:09