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 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5084 of 2024 CHITTAL SINGH TEKAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri R.S. Mehndiretta - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

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

No.11163/2025, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.11163/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

4. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the convicted appellant Chittal Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.08.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, District Dindori (M.P.), in S.T. No.97/2021, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Section Act Imprisonment Fine if deposited Imprisonment in lieu of fine

363 IPC R.I.for 3 years Rs.5,00/- R.I. for 1 month 366 IPC R.I. for 5 years Rs.5,00/- R.I. for 1 month 343 IPC R.I. for 1 year Rs.5,00/- R.I. for 1 month 3/4 POCSO R.I. for 20 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 2 months 5(tha)/6 POCSO R.I. for 20 years Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 2 months

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that present is the case of consensual relationship between two adults. Father of the victim (PW-1) has tacitly admitted that victim was adult at the time of incident, so also the victim herself, therefore a consensual relationship between two adults will not fall either under the provisions of POCSO Act or under section 376 of IPC.

6. Shri R.S. Mehnidiretta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution story in short is that on 23.08.2021, complainant had gone to graze his animals. His wife was at home. When he returned back to his home at 06.00 p.m., then his wife informed him that victim had gone towards shop but did not return. She was searched for in neighborhood and at the place of relative but no whereabouts could be discovered when missing person report was registered as Crime No.19/2021, on the basis of which police had recorded FIR registering crime No.239/2021 against unknown person under Section 363 of IPC.

7. It is submitted that FSL report was negative and therefore there was no question of any DNA report. School records are doubtful in view of the evidence of father of the victim (PW-1), victim herself (PW-2), therefore, victim being a consenting adult, conviction be set aside and acquittal be recorded.

8. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate submits that in the school records Ex.P/17C, date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 22.12.2006. Date of admission is mentioned as 16.06.2017. Victim had taken admission in 6th class and therefore, it is submitted that since date of birth of victim is mentioned as 22.12.2006 in the school records, no indulgence is called for.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that firstly prosecution did not produce the first school register of the victim. Prosecution even did not bother to produce the Aganwadi record where prosecutrix (PW-2) admitted that she studied from the age of 3-4 years for about a period of 3 to 4 years before taking admission in first class, where she was admitted by her father.

10. Father of victim (PW-1) has admitted that he has five daughters.

One of the daughters is already married. She has two years old child and she is again pregnant. This witness stated that he does not know as to what date of birth is recorded in the birth certificate of the victim. This witness admits that he had gone to the school to record the name of the victim in the school. This witness admits that after 3-4 years of bi