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

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5185 of 2017 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus JAGDISH Appearance:

Shri Mayur Gulati - Advocate for appellant/State. Shri Deonath Pandey - Advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.05.2017 passed in Special Sessions Case No.120/2015 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 7 & 8 of POCSO Act.

2. As per the story of prosecution, on 06.10.15 at 05:00 in the evening, the complainant (PW-5) was going home via her well, after cutting fodder from the field of Raghav of the village. She met the accused on the way. The accused caught hold of her hands with bad intentions and started taking her towards the mansion. Then she shouted. On the shout of the complainant/prosecutrix (PW-5), Dassu Kushwaha (PW-1) and her mother (PW-4) came, the accused ran away after seeing them. Thereafter the complainant came to her house. She narrated the incident to her brother (PW-6) and her mother (PW-4). Thereafter she along with her mother (PW- 4) and her brother (PW-6) came to Police Station, Garhi Malhara, where she got the FIR (Ex.P/8) of the incident registered, which was recorded by Constable Sikandar Khan (PW-9). During investigation, ASI, Ramji Sharma (PW-8) prepared the spot map (Ex.P/7). Statements of the witnesses related to the incident were recorded. The accused was arrested, whose arrest panchnama is Ex.P/9. A certificate regarding the age of the complainant (PW-5) was obtained from her school. Thereafter investigation got started.

3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused by the Police Station, Garhi Malhara under Section 354 IPC and Section 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Statement of the witnesses got recorded. Charges were framed; read out and explained to the accused. He denied to commit the crime and sought a trial. During his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.

4. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses, namely, Uncle of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Kaushal Kishore Bajpai (PW-2), Patwari- Naval Kishore Tripathi (PW-3), Mother of the prosecutrix (PW-4), Prosecutrix (PW-5), Brother of the prosecutrix (PW-6), Inspector- Dileep Pandey (PW-7), ASI- Ramji Sharma (PW-8) and ASI- Sikandar Khan (PW-9) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/9 the document on record whereas the accused in his defence examined himself as DW-1 and placed Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2, the documents on record.

5. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties acquitted the accused, hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State that the prosecutrix (PW-5), her mother (PW-4) and her brother (PW-6) have categorically supported the story of prosecution and stated that the accused has used criminal force against the prosecutrix and at the time of the offence, the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age at the time of offence, but erroneously has not find out the offence made out from the record. Keeping in view the statements of mother of the prosecutrix (PW-4), prosecutrix (PW-5) and brother of prosecutrix (PW-6), the alleged offence is proved against the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal the respondent/accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid offence.

7. Per contra, learned appearing