IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1197 of 2021 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus RANJEET @ ANJU KOL Appearance:

Shri Aditya Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant/State. Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER Heard on I.A. No.1856/2026, which is an application for change in counsel on behalf of respondent.

2. For the reasons stated therein, I.A. No.1856/2026 is allowed.

3. The counsel is permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent.

4. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.09.2019 passed in S.T. No.12/2017 (State of M.P. vs Ranjeet @ Anju Kol) by learned Special Judge (POCSO) District Katni (M.P.) whereby respondent - Ranjeet @ Anju Kol (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 7, 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act').

5. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.03.2017 at about 5:00 pm, the the prosecutrix, a minor girl, aged below 18 years, resident of Village Bhula, was returning home from the village market along with her younger sister. While on the way, the accused Ranjit Kol stopped her and asked her to halt. When the victim did not stop, the accused caught hold her with a wrongful intention and attempted to pull her. On raising alarm, several people present nearby came to stop upon which the accused fled away. Thereafter on 06.03.2017 at about 11:00 am the victim lodged an oral report at Police Station Sleemnabad. On the basis of her statement, Crime No.106/2017 was registered against the accused under Section

354 of the IPC and Sections 7, 8 of the POCSO Act.

6 . During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/2) was prepared, the victim was sent for medical examination, her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded before the Court and age related documents were collected to establish that she was a minor. Statements of witnesses were also recorded.

7. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted.

8 . The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of IPC. The accused abjured his guilt. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication.

9. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 05 witnesses, which are prosecutrix (PW-1), prosecutrix's mother (PW-2) brother Anari Kol (PW-3), to prove the age of victim, Headmaster of the school Anil Kumar Haldkar (PW-4) and I.O. Rakhi Pandey (PW-5) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/7 the documents on record.

10. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

1 1 . It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has supported the prosecution story in toto and mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has supported the statement of prosecutrix. The age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years and in that respect the observation of learned Trial Court is correct. But as far as the observation in respect of point for consideration no.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned trial Court's observation is perverse and not liable to be maintained. Since the prosecutrix and her mother has supported the story of prosecution, which is further supported by the statement of Rakhi Pandey (PW-5), who has lodged