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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY ON THE 8^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 176 of 2025 BHURA @ MOHAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Sweta Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This Criminal Appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012)/ 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Damoh in SCATR No. 87 of 2022, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the present appellant Bhura @ Mohan Singh S/o Angad Singh Lodhi aged about 33 years under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, 5(ड )/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and has sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment deposited in lieu of fine

363 IPC R.I. for 03 years Rs.1000/- R.I. for 01 month

366 IPC R.I. for 07 years Rs.1000/- R.I for 01 months IPC

376(क)

No separate sentence has been awarded.

(ख)

POCSO R.I. for Life Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 06

5(ड) read Act, months with Section 6

3(2)(v) SC/ST R.I. for life Rs.5000/- R.I. for 06 (PoA) months Act, 1989

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, prosecution story in short is that, father of the victim had appeared before Police Station Jabera on 24.03.2022 and lodged a report, stating therein that on 23.03.2022 complainant, his wife and children had gone to sleep after having their dinner. His elder and younger daughters were sleeping with their grandmother in the open courtyard when at about 03:00 a.m. somebody had abducted his daughter and violated her privacy after taking her behind Manoranjan Bhawan. Victim returned to her home at about 04:30 a.m. narrated her story and she was taken to the Jabera Hospital from where she was referred to the District Hospital, Damoh.

3. On the basis of said narration, Crime No. 106 of 2022 was registered against unknown person under Section 363, 376 & 376A, B of IPC and Section 3, 4, 5m, & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Matter was investigated. Statements of the victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She was subjected to MLC then her statements under Section

164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed under Section 363, 376, 376DB, 506 IPC, under Section 3, 4, 5M, 6 & 5(g)(झ ) of POCSO Act, 2012 so also under Section 3(1) (w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant abjured his guilt. Co-accused died during trial, but appellant has been convicted as above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Test Identification Parade (TIP) is negative qua the present appellant. It is pointed out that in Ex.P-6 which is Test Identification Parade (TIP) pertaining to present appellant Bhura @ Mohan Singh, in Column 11, it is mentioned that juvenile victim had not identified the accused i.e. present appellant. This TIP was carried out by PW-1 but it was subjected by concerned Niab Tehsildar namely Ms. Ranjana Yadav (PW-17) who even did not deem it proper to refer to Ex.P-6. She only exhibited Ex.P-5 which is TIP in relation to the co-accused (Now deceased).

5. It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim (PW-

1) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-1) which were recorded on 28.03.2022, victim stated that the boy who had violated her privacy was seen by her on 23.03.2022 when she was returning home after appearing in a paper at Bichhiya Colony and if she will see that boy again, she will be able to identify him. Later on in her statements again recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2022, contained in Ex.P-2, victim stated that Bhura Lodhi had picked her up and had taken her behind Manoranjan Bhawan, where her privacy was violated. She further stated that, accused was working on the Harvester Machine at her vill