The prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH st ON THE 21 OF AUGUST, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13179 of 2024 SAGAR @ YOGESH NAMDEV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Umesh Kumar Vaidya - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Nitin Gupta - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

J U D G M E N T Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A. No.9038 of 2025, which is first application under Section 430 (1) of B.N.S.S. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.9038 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final disposal at motion stage.

The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chaurai, district Chhindwara, (M.P.) in S.C. No.64 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR

2. It is submitted that victim is a consenting major and, therefore, she being a major conviction under Section 5L/6 of Protection of children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and under Section 506-II of IPC cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

3. It is pointed out that DNA report (Ex.C-1) is uninterpretable. It is further submitted that school teacher, parents of the victim have admitted that there was no documentary evidence in support of age of the victim and PW-10 in medical examination has observed that victim was having well developed secondary sexual characters. There was no injury marks on her internal or external on her body. Her hymen was old torn. Therefore, it is submitted that it is a case of consent between two consenting adults and will not fall under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR

4. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that doctor PW-10 found victim to be pregnant and that is sufficient evidence of violation of her privacy.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has come on record that victim in her cross-examination admitted that the appellant-Sagar is resident of Chhapara, which is at a distance of 35 k.m. She admitted that they were treating each other like brother and sister. Sagar was known to her for last 2 to 3 years because both studied upto 5th class together. Her maternal grand parents are residing at Chhapara. She admitted that Police had not seized any birth certificate from her. She further stated that her eldest sister is 25 years of age, second sister is 23 years of age then her brother is 21 years of age and she is younger to her brother by 2 to 3 years. Her eldest sister was married in 2018. She admitted that while giving her earlier statement in the court, she had not stated anything as to Sagar violating her privacy.

6. PW-3, maternal uncle of the victim admitted that he has no proof of the age of the victim. He admitted that the age of the victim was 19 years.

7. PW-2 father of the victim has admitted that after two months of the incident victim was recovered from Nagpur alongwith appellant-Sagar. Victim was brought by her brother-in-law. This witness admitted that he has not studied much. He cannot give the date of the incident. Age of the eldest daughter is 24 years, second daughter is 22 years, son next to her is two years younger and the prosecutrix is two years younger to her brother. This witness