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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12886 of 2024 R Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri Mayank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the objector.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed in S.C. No.27/2022 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Begamgunj, District Raisen (M.P.) whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC, so also under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and has sentenced the appellant in the following terms:-

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Jafar Khan submits that prosecution story, in short, is that on 31.05.2022, father of the victim (PW-2) lodged a report with Sub Inspector, Makran Singh (PW-6), at Police Station Begamgunj that on 30.05.2022 his second daughter, PW-1, had gone to her Girls School at 11:00 AM to look for her result. She was 17 years of age, when she did not return till 04:00 then she was searched for at Girls School and in the neighbourhood, but when nothing could be found about her, then report was lodged.

3. It is also mentioned that victim (PW-1) was maintaining a keypad mobile but when she was called she did not respond, as a result of which missing person report against unknown person was recorded.

4. It is submitted that victim is a consenting adult. It's a case of false implication. The whole chronology of events reveals that the present appellant has been falsely implicated. Victim was in a consensual relationship with somebody else but to suppress this fact she has tried to falsely implicate the present appellant.

5. It is submitted that before the trial Court not only appellant was an accused but his parents too were made an accused and trial was conducted but parents of the appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and their bail bonds were released whereas appellant has been convicted as above.

6. It is pointed out that, in fact, appellant is a cousin brother of the victim. He is Mausera brother of the victim. As per statements of the victim, recorded on 02.06.2022, it is mentioned that when she was going to the school to look for her result, when she had reached bus stand, then the appellant had met her and stated that his mother was not keeping good health and, therefore, had taken her in a bus to Sagar. He had kept her in his house at Sagar and there violated her privacy on 3-4 occasions. When she informed her Mausi and Mausa about the incident, then Mausa stated that since they have to marry, therefore, there is no problem in establishment of said relationship. Thereafter, all of a sudden her parents had reached Sagar to pick her up when appellant had ran away. Thereafter, she had narrated her story to her father and mother when they had taken her to the police station.

7. Unfortunately, though this statement is available on record but it was not exhibited by the prosecution.

8. Thereafter, a videography Panchnama (Ex.P-1) was prepared. Dastiyabi Panchnama (Ex.P-2) was prepared on 02.06.2022 at 16:40 hours. Thereafter Supurdgi Panchnama (Ex.P-3) was prepared at 18:50 hours and, thereafter, statements of the victim were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C where she narrated the same facts as were narrated by the victim in her 161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

9. Missing person report is Ex.P-6 and FIR recorded under Section 363 of IPC is Ex.P-7. Spot Map is Ex.P-8 whereas 7th Class marksheet of the victim is available as Ex.P-9 in which her date of birth is mentioned as 25.04.2005.

10. Vide Ex.P-10, this marksheet was seized and thereafter appellant was arrested on 04.06.2022 vide Ex.P-11 and, thereafter, other co-accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P-12 and