IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY ON THE 16^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6689/2025 RAKESH SEN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Manish Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms Shweta Yadav, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

J U D G M E N T

Per: Justice Ramkumar Choubey:

Albeit, the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.20869/2025, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, rather pressing on the said application, the learned counsel for the parties concur to argue the matter finally.

Thus, it is heard finally.

2. Appellant/accused has filed this appeal under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (quondam – Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C) assailing the judgment dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, designated under POCSO Act, Rewa, in Special Case No.78/2022, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively and also convicted under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 20 years within fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to a just decision of the present criminal appeal are that on 24.06.2021, the first informant, father of prosecutrix, made a verbal complaint that on 20.06.2021 in the night at about 9:00.o’clock had gone to Itora Bypass for performing marriage, leaving at home, his daughter aged 17 years and a younger son. Next day, when he came back, found that the prosecutrix was not at home and after being failed in search of prosecurtrix, he reported the matter to the police. On that basis, a missing person report (Ex.P/15) and FIR (Ex.P/17) were registered.

3.1 During investigation, on 29.04.2022 the prosecutrix was recovered and a panchnama (Ex.P/7) was prepared. Her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded. She was sent for medical examination and in sonography, it was detected that the prosecutrix was pregnant of five weeks.

3.2 Thereafter, the appellant and one Brajesh Sen were made accused and offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act was added. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/17 and P/25). Non-disclosure of motorcycle by the appellant led to adding of Section 201 of IPC against him and for the assistance given by co-accused Brajesh in taking away the prosecutrix on motorcycle led to adding the offence under Section 109 of IPC against him.

3.3 After completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted to the concerned Special Court, POCSO Act, being exclusive triable by it.

4. At trial, the appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Brajesh and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above, hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant sanguinely submitted that the incrimination of the appellant was completely unfounded. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was major as her actual date of birth is 02.03.2002, as is admitted by prosecutrix in her statement. He further submitted that the prosecutrix was consenting party and she has been declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution story. He also accentuated that the DNA report is negative. He further submitted that the mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded on estimation and there is manipulation in the