IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH th ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13572 of 2024 RAVI AHIRWAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Aseem Kumar Dixit - learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Shweta Yadav - learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/

State.

Mr. Jafar Khan - learned counsel for the objector.

JUDGMENT Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This case is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 31888 of 2024, which is an application on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is dismissed as withdrawn.

This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (under POCSO Act, 2012), Sagar in S.C. No. 97/2023 whereby the Signature Not Verified appellant has been convicted under Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default 2 years' additional R.I. The appellant has also been convicted under 376(2)(n) of IPC, but not separately sentenced.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. She was an adult at the time of the incident. The appellant and the victim have performed their marriage. As admitted by the victim and her mother her correct date of birth is 23.12.2004 and incident is of 22.07.2023, therefore at the time of the incident age of the victim was over 18 years. It is submitted that it's a case of consensual relationship between two consenting adults, therefore, provisions of Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) of IPC will not be attracted.

3. Ms. Shweta Yadav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State and Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the objector, vehemently oppose the prayer.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that P.W.1 victim has admitted that her date of birth is 23.12.2004. She further admitted that on 22.07.2023, without informing anybody, she had left her home as she was continuously taking to the accused and they had liking for each other. She stated that she was taken to Makronia by appellant in an auto and from Makronia railway station she was taken to Bina and from Bina to Bhopal where they stayed as husband and wife after performing marriage. This witness admitted that at the time of the incident her age was above 18 years and this is what she had informed the Signature Not Verified appellant, as a result of which they had performed marriage. The appellant was treating her well. The mother of the victim (P.W.2) in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination admitted that when victim had left her home, she was above 18 years of age. She further accepted that victim had performed marriage with the appellant with her consent. She stated that in the school she had reduced the age of the victim by one year and recorded it. She admitted that actual date of birth of the victim is 23.12.2004. Thereafter, in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination this witness admitted that exactly after one year, another daughter was born to her at Dafrin Hospital, Sagar who died after 6 months. The third child was born on 19.03.2008. Even witness was confronted by the Public Prosecutor and she was informed that if she fails to give correct information then she can face the consequences including imprisonment, yet in cross-examination she has supported the claim of the victim that her date of birth is 23.12.2004.

5. P.W.3 Anil Kumar Sen, Headmaster of the concerned school has admitted that he cannot say as to whether mother of the victim had given date of birth of the victim as 23.12.2004 or not. He has admitted that he was not posted at the time of preparation of Dakhil Kharij Panji (Ex. P/12). 6. P.W.7 Dr. Pratibha Goel stated that she had examined the victim.

The victi