SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Arun v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Criminal Appeals No. 4460 of 2024 and 6196 of 2024 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 5.3.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chhindwara in Special Case No. 7 of 2023; Decided on 25.8.2025

Advocates Appeared:
Manoj Kumar Singh and Yashowardhan Shukla for respective appellants;
Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Headnote:

(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 376(3) and 376(DA) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -- S. 3/4(2) and 5(g)/6 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – S. 3(2)(v) -- date of birth of prosecutrix recorded in school by estimation -- ossification test not done -- secondary sexual characters of prosecutrix fully developed -- prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age on date of offence -- DNA of appellants not found on vaginal slide, underwear and pubic hair of prosecutrix -- no sign of immediate injury -- on basis of medical examination, no information could be given about recent intercourse -- appellants acquitted -- order of compensation not interfered with. (2006) 1 SCC 283, 2023 SCC Online SC 846, (2012) 9 SCR 224, Criminal Appeal No. 3007 of 2025 decided on 16.7.2025, 1988 Supp. SCC 604 and (2011) 2 SCC 385 followed. Criminal Appeal No. 11320 of 2022 decided on 13.1.2023 relied on. [Paras 16, 20 & 24 to 27]

(2) Procedure -- reliance on precedent -- Court referring to judgments of Supreme Court or High Court should refer specific paragraphs where dictum of law is laid down -- one has to be careful to see what were the facts of case and whether they match with case at hand -- a little change in facts may change precedential value of judgment. (2008) 2 SCC 533 and (2003) 2 SCC 111 followed. [Para 22]

¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 376¼3½ rFkk 376¼?kd½ & ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 & /kkjk 3@4¼2½ rFkk 5¼N½@6 & vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 & /kkjk 3¼2½¼ik¡p½ & fo|ky; esa vfHk;ksD=h dk tUe fnukad vuqeku ls vfHkfyf[kr vfLFkHkou ijh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k & vfHk;ksD=h ds f}rh;d ySafxd y{k.k iw.kZr% fodflr & vfHk;kstui{k ;qfä;qä lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy fd vijkèk ds fnukad dks vfHk;ksD=h 18 o"kZ ls de o; dh Fkh & vfHk;ksD=h dh ;kSfud iV~Vh] varoZL= vkSj t?ku ds'k ij vihykfFkZ;ksa dk Mh,u, ugha ik;k x;k & rkRdkfyd {kfr dk dksbZ fpUg ugha & fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij gky gh ds eSFkqu ds ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nh tk ldh & vihykFkhZx.k nks"keqDr & çfrdj ds vkns'k esa gLr{ksi ughaA ¼2006½ 1 ,llhlh 283] 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 846] ¼2012½ 9 ,llhvkj 224] nkafMd vihy Øekad 3007 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 16-7-2025] 1988 lIyhŒ ,llhlh 604 rFkk ¼2011½ 2 ,llhlh 385 vuqlfjrA vihy Øekad 11320 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 13-1-2023 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16] 20 ,oa 24 ls 27½

¼2½ çfØ;k & iwoZ fu.kZ; dk voyacu & mPpre U;k;ky; ;k mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa dk funsZ'k djus okys U;k;ky; dks mu fofufnZ"V iSjk dk funsZ'k djuk pkfg, ftuesa fof/k vf/kdfFkr dh xbZ gS & ;g ns[kus dh lko/kkuh cjrkuk gksrh gS fd ml çdj.k ds rF; D;k Fks rFkk og gLrxr çdj.k ls esy [kkrs gSa ;k ugha & rF;ksa esa NksVs ls ifjorZu ls iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa mldk ewY; ifjofrZr gks ldrk gSA ¼2008½ 2 ,llhlh 533 rFkk ¼2003½ 2 ,llhlh 111 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22½

JUDGMENT

Singh, J. -- 1. The above mentioned two criminal appeals arise out of judgment of conviction dated 5.3.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chhindwara in SC No.07/2023 [State of M.P. v. Jitendra and another], therefore, they were heard analogously and are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix (PW.1) lodged repot on 3.1.2023 (Exhibit-P/1) that on 31.12.2022 at about 05.00 pm she was in her maternal grandmother’s house. Her father, mother, brother and sister had gone to the field. She knew Sahil Bhallavi for last one year. At about 07.00 pm Sahil called her on phone and asked her to accompany her to see ‘Kabaddi’ match at Jamuniya Jethu. Then she went with Sahil Bhallavi. At about 01.00 am Sahil took her to Mahavir Dhana and there he did wrong with her in a under constructed house situated behind the home of accused/Jitendra and thereafter left her alone at Mahavir Dhana and ran away. At about 09.00 am in the morning of 1.1.2023 accused/Jitendra called her on phone and then she told him that she is hiding near Mahavir Dhana. Then accused/Jitendra asked her to stay there. At about 7.30 p.m. accused persons (Jitendra & Arun) took her on motorcycle to hut situated in Arun Pawar’s field where accused/Jitendra did wrong with her. Thereafter, accused/Arun came and did wrong with her. Thereafter, accused-Jitendra took her on motorcycle and left her at Karaboha. From where she called Sagar (her brother in relation) to come there, Sagar came and took her to his home. Next day Sagar dropped her to her house. She told the entire incident to her family members.

3. FIR (Exhibit-P/1) was recorded by the Police Officer Ms.Deepa Thakur (PW.10), who obtained permission for medical examination from prosecutrix and her father. Alongwith Constable Suvita Markam (PW.6) she sent prosecutrix to Primary Health Centre, Parasia. Dr.Shashi Atulkar (PW.12) on 3.1.2023 examined her medically and prepared two vaginal slides and handed-over them to Constable, Constable-Suvita Markam (PW.6) handed over the slides to K.C.Patle who prepared seizure memo (ExhibitP/47). Police Officer Anil Shukla (PW.11) during investigation inspected the spot and prepared spot map (Exhibit-P/2). Statements of father, mother, Sagar & Raghuveer were recorded. Accused-Jitendra was taken into custody and his memorandum u/s 27 of Evidence Act was recorded vide Exhibit-P/9 and on that basis vide seizure memo (Exhibit-P/10) motorcycle bearing registration MP-28/NB-1681 was seized. Accused/Arun was arrested vide Arrest Memo (Exhibit-P/12). Both the accused persons were medically examined on the basis of forms (Exhibits-P/28 & P/29) by Dr.Navdeep Borkar (PW.9). Two semen slides were prepared, sealed and handed over to the concerned Constable Jai Prakash Inwati (PW.8) who seized slides and prepared seizure memo (Exhibits-P18 & 19). Police Officer Anil Shukla (PW.11) for blood samples of accused persons prepared medical examination forms (Exhibits-P/33 & P/34) and sent the same for examination through Constable No.733 Anil to Doctor Almuaaz Ahmad (PW.7) posted in District Hospital, Chhindwara who prepared identification forms (Exhibits-P/14 & P/16) and took blood samples, preserved the same in vial and handed over to the concerned Constable from whom PW.11 (Anil Shukla) seized them, prepared seizure memo (Exhibit-P/17) and alongwith other material, as narrated above, prepared draft (Exhibit-P/35) for sending material through Superintendent of Police for chemical investigation to FSL, Bhopal vide letter (Exhibit-P/37). Caste certificate (Exhibit-P/42) and proof of date of birth of prosecutrix Exhibit-P/44 was obtained and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed.

4. Case was put up for trial. Learned trial Court charged the accused under sections 363, 366(a) of IPC and sections 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 376(DA) IPC read with sections 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top