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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8494 of 2023 VINOD @ SURAJ PANIKA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sharad Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

JUDGEMENT Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.

No.20514/2023, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant - Vinod @ Suraj Panika.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.20514/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, case is heard finally.

4. This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Sidhi (M.P.) in ST No.37/2019 whereby learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant Vinod @ Suraj Panika in the following manner:-

Conviction Sentence Imprisonment Section Act Imprisonment Fine in lieu of fine R.I. R.I for 6

363 I.P.C. Rs.1,000/-

for 3 years months

366 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 1 year

506 I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year - -

R.I. for R.I. for

5(l)/6 POCSO Rs.5,000/-

20 years 2 years

5. It is submitted that prosecutrix in her 161 of Cr.P.C. statements as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. statements, Ex.D-2 and Ex.P-7 respectively, has admitted that at 3:00 am Vinod had knocked her door, when she came out he had taken her to some distance from her house and asked her to run away with him. He stated that they will live happily. Victim has accepted in her 164 statements, Ex.P-7, that willingly she had accompanied Vinod. This fact is also mentioned in Ex.D-2, her 161 case diary statements. Thus, it is prima facie evident that victim had left her home on her own volition at 3:00 am along with the appellant. As far as DNA report is concerned, that is available on record as Ex.C-1 and says that the profile was uninterpretable low.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has produced Dakhil Kharij of prosecutrix taking admission in the 6th Class and has not exhibited the T.C. on the basis of which date of birth of the victim was recorded in the Dakhil Kharij of 6th Class. Prosecution did not produce Dakhil Kharij for the 1st Class.

7. It is further submitted that PW-3, father of the victim, in para 12 of his cross-examination, admitted that at the time of his cross-examination i.e. 14.11.2019, victim was 18 years of age. He has admitted that he had produced a birth certificate at the time of admission of the victim but if that certificate is not enclosed then he cannot give any reason for such omission. This witness also admitted that he was working as a Cook in the house of SDOP Police Kusmi.

8. PW-4, victim, was confronted with her 164 and 161 of Cr.P.C.

statements and could not explain omissions mentioned therein.

9. PW-8 stated that she is sister of the victim. Incident took place on 4th or 5th. It is pointed out that PW-8 has admitted that after 8-9 days of elopement of the victim they had come to know that she was residing in the house of Mama of Vinod. She admits that they had gone to the house of Mama of Vinod along with police personnel in search of the victim. It is pointed out that though victim had eloped on 05.04.2019 but she was recovered on 02.07.2019. Thus, it is evident that even parents and family of the victim were knowing the fact that victim was in the company of Vinod Panika and was residing in the house of Mama of Vinod Panika, yet police did not made any attempt to retrieve her from the house of Mama of Vinod for a good period of three months.

10. It is also submitted that lady doctor, Dr. Rashmi Soni (PW-11) stated that secondary sexual characters of the victim were well developed, there were no external injury marks. There were no abrasions on her body and there was no bony tenderness found on the body. In his