##PAGE1##

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

rd

ON THE 3 OF JULY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6575 of 2025 RAM KAILASH GUPTA @ BABLU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri S. M. Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Shikha Baghel - Panel Lawyer for respondent.

JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the present appellant under Section 315 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2025 passed by the First Sessions Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi (M.P.) in Session Trial No.111 of 2020 whereby the present appellant/accused has been convicted under Section376(1) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10-10 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence with default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on ated 12/02/2020 the brother of deceased has lodged FIR in police station Majhuli, District Sidhi that on at about 10.00 a.m. dated 10/02/2020 his sister went to take vegetable to her Goats but she was not return therefore he searched but could not found her. On dated 12/02/2020 his wife and sister went in side of Arhariya field behind house of Shivprasad Gupta, deceased was found hanging. Therefore the police registered merg no. 01/2020. During the investigation the police has found that present appellant has committed rape with her with false promise marriage therefore she become pregnant but after pregnancy he denied for marriage therefore she committed suicide. FIR was registered bearing Crime No.291/2020. Accused was medically examined.

3. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge-sheet framed charges against appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 306 of the IPC, which he denied and claimed for the trial.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, namely sister-in-law of deceased (PW 1), brother of deceased (PW 2), father of deceased (PW 3), mother of deceased (PW 4), Suryakant Gupta (PW 5), Gulab Singh (PW 6), cousin sister of deceased (PW 7), cousin brother of deceased (PW 8), paternal uncle of the deceased(PW 9), Chintamani Gupta (PW 10), Rajkumar Pathak (PW 11), Monika Pandey (PW 12), Dr. Rakesh Tiwari (PW 13), Praveen Singh (PW 14), Yogesh Mishra (PW 15) and Dr. Rupesh Verma (PW 15) and placed the documents Ex.P-1 to P-21, and Ex.D-1 to Ex. D-7 on record. In defence, the appellant did not choose to examine any witness.

5. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide impugned judgment has convicted the appellant under Section 376(1) and 306 of the IPC and passed the order of sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish the offences under Sections 376(1) and 306 of the IPC against the appellant. Although the DNA report confirms that the fetus was fathered by the present appellant, the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was consensual. The parties were in a love relationship. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 of the IPC is made out. It was further submitted that, as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant and the deceased intended to marry each other. However, according to PW-1 and PW-9, the appellant refused to marry the deceased unless his demand for a house fulfilled. This itself indicates that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not the result of rape. There is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant established physical relations with the deceased on the basis of a false promise of marriage. With regard to the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, learned counsel contended that there is no evidence to establish that the appellant instig