IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

(VISHAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 09-01-2026

Santosh Solanki - Advocate for the appellant.

Prashant Jain appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed in SC No.162/2024 by Special Judge, POCSO Act/21st Additional Sessions Judge,

Indore.

An application I.A. No.15455/2025 for suspension of execution of jail

sentence of the appellants is preferred on the ground that they have been convicted under Section 354 of IPC and under Section 8 read with Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced only under Section 8 read with Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012 for a period of three years R.I. with fine of

Rs.2,500/- each with default stipulation of three months R.I.

Counsel for the State submits that notice is required to be served upon

the victim child PW-1 through her father PW-2 and also further submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in para no.40 of the

judgment regarding the conduct of the appellants.

The findings recorded in para no.40 of the Judgment are reproduced

below as under:-

''40. उपरो(cid:5)ानुसार अिभलेख पर (cid:16)व(cid:18)मान सम(cid:20) सा(cid:21)य के (cid:16)व(cid:24)ेषण उपरांत (cid:29)यायालय का यह िन(cid:31)कष (cid:32) है (cid:34)क अिभयो(cid:35)(cid:36)ी अ.सा.-01 क(cid:39) मौ(cid:41)खक सा(cid:21)य, (cid:41)जसक(cid:39) संपु(cid:16)(cid:43) अिभयो(cid:35)(cid:36)ी के (cid:16)पता अ.सा.-02 एवं अ(cid:16)वलंब दज (cid:32) कराई गई

(cid:49)थम सूचना (cid:53)रपोट(cid:32) (cid:49)दश (cid:32) पी-01 से भी होती है। अत: यह (cid:49)मा(cid:41)णत है (cid:34)क घटना (cid:34)दनांक 09.06.2024 को अिभयु(cid:5) र(cid:16)व, (cid:16)वशाल व (cid:16)वकास ने अवय(cid:58)क अिभयो(cid:35)(cid:36)ी का बुर(cid:59) िनयत से हाथ पकड़ा, उसक(cid:39) ट(cid:59)-शट(cid:32) के अदं र हाथ डाला व सीने म(cid:62) हाथ लगाया। इस (cid:49)कार एकांत म(cid:62) अिभयु(cid:5)गण (cid:64)ारा अवय(cid:58)क अिभयो(cid:35)(cid:36)ी के सीने व पीठ म(cid:62) हाथ लगाकर (cid:66)ी सुलभ ल(cid:67)जा का भंग (cid:34)कया

जाना तथा ल(cid:68)िगक हमला का(cid:53)रत (cid:34)कया जाना (cid:49)मा(cid:41)णत है।''

It is submitted by counsel for the State that the learned trial Court has recorded the aforesaid findings, but did not adverted to the applicability of Section 9(g) of POCSO Act, 2012 in which minimum sentence is 05 years.

Provisions of Section 9(g) of POCSO Act, 2012 is reproduced as below:-

"9. Aggravated Sexual Assault;

(g) Whoever commits gang sexual assault on a child.

Explanation-When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang sexual assault within the sexual meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone;"

In view of the aforesaid, notice be served upon the child victim PW-1 through her father PW-2 by the State.

An explanation be also called from the concerned court through concerned Principal District Judge, Indore as to why the Provisions of Section 10 read with Section 9(g) of POCSO Act, 2012 has not been considered when three accused persons have been convicted for sexual assault with child victim.

Till the next date of hearing, the order of suspension of jail sentence of the appellants by the learned trial Court is extended on the same terms.

List the matter on 21.01.2026.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE amit