IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8915 of 2025 YASHWANT AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikas Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Jayesh Yadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

HEARD ON : 17.10.2025 POSTED ON : 16.12.2025 ORDER This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in SCATR No.138/2025 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dewas District Dewas (M.P.) whereby the charges under Section 126(2), 115(2), 115(2) r/w section 3(5), 64(1) alternatively 70(1), 137(2) & 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3(2(v) & 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989 have been framed against the appellants.

02. Facts of the case in brief are that the Crime No.689/2024 was registered at Police Station Kannod, Dewas, on 08.10.2024. The prosecutrix, belonging to the scheduled caste community, has submitted the written complaint dated 27.09.2024 against the appellants, who do not belong to the SC or ST category. The written complaint dated 27.09.2024 was preferred regarding allegations of physical assault, gang rape and criminal intimidation at 09:00 PM of 25.09.2024 and case was registered on 08.10.2024 at Police Station Kannod, Dewas as Crime No.689/2024. Completing the investigation, the final report under Section 193 of the BNS was submitted to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Dewas and after taking cognizance, the charges were framed as mentioned in para 1 of the order.

03. Challenging the framing of charges, this appeal is preferred on the ground that on 24.06.2024 one F.I.R. was lodged against the brother and one other relative of the prosecutrix under Section 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC as Crime No.399/2024 at Police Station Kannod by complainant Anshul Rai, who work as a salesman at liquor shop of the appellant no.4 Dinesh Rathore (Annexure-A/2). On 25.09.2024, one F.I.R. was also lodged under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Crime No.145/2024 was registered at Police Station Harangaon, District Dewas, against the son of the prosecutrix who was caught red-handed and arrested on 24.09.2024 at 09:30 pm and the husband of the prosecutrix was arrested on 25.09.2024 (Annexure-A/3). On 25.09.2024, one another F.I.R. was lodged against the brother and relative of the prosecutrix on the instance of salesman of liquor shop of appellants no.3 and 4 under Section 323, 324(4), 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as Crime No.657/2024 (Annexure-A/4). On 30.09.2024, the prosecutrix has submitted a written complaint (Annexure-A/5) to the Station House Officer of Police Station Kannod regarding the kidnapping of her son Sohit in the night of 25.09.2024 by appellants namely Dinesh Parmar and Dinesh Sahu (Rathore, Ayum @ Kayum and one Anil.

04. It is submitted that on 27.09.2024 again prosecutrix submitted another complaint in which she alleged that the present incident of rape, in which she mentions her son to be present with her. This shows that the prosecutrix forgot that her son was kidnapped on 24.09.2024. The son of the prosecutrix and her husband was arrested on 25.09.2024 for the offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which shows the demeanor of the prosecutrix indicating how desperate she was to falsely implicate the present appellants in any of the case, whereas the son of the prosecutrix was arrested since 24.09.2024. Accordingly, the theory of kidnapping and rape is false. In the year 2002, the prosecutrix has lodged an F.I.R. against some other persons for the offence of gang rape and all those persons were acquitted in the year 2005. The trial court overlooked all those facts and material while deciding the prayer for discharge and failed to consider the fact that while framing of the