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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY ON THE 19^th OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11451 OF 2024 MUKESH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Brijendra Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

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

J U D G M E N T

Per: Justice Ramkumar Choubey:

Albeit, the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.5949/2025, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, rather pressing on the said application, the learned counsel for the parties concur to argue the matter finally. Thus, it is heard finally.

2. This appeal under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS 2023’) has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Deori, District Sagar (M.P.) in Special Case No.08/2021, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the present appellant under Sections 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for three years & fine of Rs.2000/- and Section 5L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (in short “POCSO Act”) and sentenced to undergo R.I for 20 years & fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that in the night of 23.12.2020, the prosecutrix and her parents were sleeping after having dinner and at about 01:00 P.M in the night, the brother of the prosecutrix, who is allegedly below 18 years of age informed his father that the prosecutrix is not on her bed. When not found at home, they tried to call her through mobile, which was found switched-off. At the dawn of next morning, they made search in the locality as well as inquired from near relatives and when all efforts went in vain, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing person report No.50/2020 with the Police Station Kesli and pointed a finger of doubt towards the appellant stating he might have abducted the prosecutrix. After a sufficient time, i.e. on 28.02.2021 the prosecutrix was found at a hostel of Simplex Company, Pithampur District Dhar from where she was recovered and brought to the Police Station Kesli. The prosecutrix stated before the police that the appellant had taken her to Pithampur, District Dhar, where they resided in a rented house and the appellant had established physical relationships on the pretext of the marriage with her. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. After completion of the investigation a final report was submitted.

At trial, the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 22.08.2024 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant sanguinely submits that it is a clear-cut case of consensual relationship. It is submitted that the prosecutrix herself left her parental house and compelled the appellant to go along with her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix resided with the appellant for a period of more than two-and-half months, during which, she never resisted the appellant for anything. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix was not a minor inasmuch as she had completed 18 years of age, therefore, being a consenting party no offence is made out against the appellant. On these premise, he implores that the appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him.

4. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that it is apparent from the evidence adduced before the trial Court that the actual date of birth of the prosecu