IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 2443 of 2014 (HYALLE @ HALKE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 11-02-2026 Shri Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Pramod Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State. This court while hearing on applications bearing I.A. No.3732/2020 and I.A. No.7083/2023 on 16/08/2023 which were second applications for suspension of sentence filed by appellant nos. 1 and 2 noticed that the Government Advocate, by filing written objections has not raised the ground that the trial court has not convicted the appellants under Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act. Therefore, by passing a separate order on the very same day, issued show-cause notice to the concerned Government Advocate. The relevant context of the order is reproduced as under :-

" The learned Public Prosecutor to show cause as to why the ground regarding non-sentencing of the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act has not been raised in the statement of written objection nor such an argument has even been advanced during the course of argument. He is also directed to place on record material with regard to the opinion by the prosecution or anyone else with respect of filing of an appeal in such a case in view of the fact that the sentence as provided is for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as under Section 376D of IPC."

Shri Alok Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate by filing reply submitted that inadvertently due to an error or oversight, the ground of non- sentencing the appellants under Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act could not be raised and for that purpose, he tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for the same mistake. He further submitted that in respect of filing of an appeal or opinion sought by the prosecution, communication was made to the competent authority vide letter dated 22/08/2023 and 24/08/2023. In response to said letter, the concerned authority informed him that the prosecution has not sought any opinion or not sent any proposal for filing of an appeal against non-sentencing of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act. The relevant context of the reply is reproduced as under :-

"The undersigned most respectfully submits that one of the colleague/Public Prosecutor of the undersigned who has drafted the written objection to the application for suspension of sentence (I.A. No.3732/2020 in Cr.A. No.2443/2014 & I.A. No.7083/2023 in Cr.A. No.3283/2017), on account of inadvertent error and oversight, has not raised the ground of non-sentencing of the accused/appellant for the offences under Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act. However, since the undersigned is the part of the same office, undersigned tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for the same.

It is further humbly submitted that in order to ascertain as to whether at the relevant time any opinion by the concerned prosecution was given for filing of an appeal as regards non- sentencing of the appellants under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, a letter dated 22.08.2023 was written by the undersigned to the concerned authorities and in reply whereof, the undersigned vide communication dated 24.08.2023 has been informed that no such opinion was given by the prosecution or anyone else at the relevant point of time. The copy of the letter dated 22.08.2023 is annexed herewith as Document-A. The copy of the letter dated

24.08.2023 is annexed herewith as Document-B.

It is further submitted that now the office of undersigned has written a letter dated 25.08.2023 to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and further consider sending a proposal to the State Government to file an appeal for enhancement of punishment in the instant matter. The copy of the letter dated

25.08.2023 is annexed herewith as Document-C."

We have carefully perused the reply filed by Shri Alok Agnihotri, Government Advocate as well as the document attached with the reply. On