NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH st ON THE 21 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 67 of 2022 MR. X (APPELLANT)

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vivek Agrawal – learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Manas Mani Verma – learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.

JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh This appeal was heard on 10.07.2025 and reserved for orders /

judgment.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned 18^th A.S.J./ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhopal in S.C. No. 123/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(3) of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section 376(2)(f) r/w Section 5(n)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 376(2) (n) r/w Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO. Act and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulations. The name of the appellant/ accused is not mentioned in the judgment to protect the identity of the minor prosecutrix in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and another Vs. Union of India and others;

2019(2) SCC 703

3. As per the prosecution case on 12.02.2020, P.W.1 made a written complaint to police station, Bajaria, Ex. P/1 alleging that the appellant who is her father, on 23.07.2019 at about 11 p.m., came to her in drunken state, removed her and his clothes and committed wrong with her. She narrated the entire incident to her mother who asked her husband regarding the incident but appellant threatened to kill them. Thereafter, on other occasions also, appellant used to touch her with bad intention and after two days again he committed the same wrong with her and this continued for about two more days and on 08.02.2020 he also rubbed his hands on her body. On 12.02.2020 she narrated the entire incident to her teacher P.W.4 in school, who brought her to police station and written complaint was submitted. FIR Ex. P/2 was lodged. The matter was investigated, statement of witnesses were recorded. P.W.1 prosecutrix was medically examined, medical report is Ex. P/4, swab samples were collected, sent to F.S.L. for examination. F.S.L. report is Ex. P/12 after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial Court framed charges against the accused/ appellant as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the judgment. The accused denied the charges. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case because he used to drink alcohol, therefore, there was dispute at home but he has not examined any witness.

4. It is submitted by learned appellant counsel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are contradiction and omission in prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly held that prosecutrix is minor. As P.W.2, mother of the prosecutrix stated that she does not know the age of the prosecutrix, she was declared hostile, therefore, as Aadhar Card is not proof of age, therefore, conviction could not be based under POCSO Act or I.P.C. Even otherwise the FIR was lodged because prosecutrix started weeping in the school in front of her teacher who initiated the complaint by prosecutrix, prosecutrix was intimidated by police.

P.W.8 Sunil Kumar Gupta, has stated that he has recorded the age on the basis of Aadhar Card, however, no reliance could be placed on Aadhar Card to determine the age of the prosecutrix. Even P.W.1 prosecutrix stated that while she was crying in the school because father had scolded then teacher got her signature on application Ex. P/1 without informing her and FIR Ex. P/2 was registered on the basis of Ex. P/1, therefore, entire case is doubtful. It is further stated