Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
1 CRA-284-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284 of 2023
MANISH PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the convicted appellant – Manish Patel being
aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge
(Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Rewa in Special
Sessions Case No.188/2020 whereby the trial Court has convicted the
appellant and sentenced as follows:
Imprisonment in lieu
Section Sentence Fine
of fine
Section 376 (2) (n) of the RI for 11
Rs.1,000/- 6 months
IPC years
Section 376 (3) of the RI for 21
Rs.1,000/- 6 months
IPC years
RI for 3
Section 506 of the IPC Rs.1,000/- 6 months
years
Section 5/6 of the RI for 21
Rs.1,000/- 6 months
POCSO Act yearsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
2 CRA-284-2023
2. Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. It is further submitted that
first and foremost lacuna in the prosecution story is that as per the
prosecutrix, the incident took place from 28.03.2020 to 08.09.2020 but for
long six months she did not narrate to anybody that her privacy was violated
by the appellant. Second argument is to the effect that there was another
person, namely, Abhishek Patel with whom the prosecutrix was in relation
and, therefore, when the appellant had seen her in company of Abhishek,
then the appellant has been falsely implicated. Thirdly it is submitted that the
age of the prosecutrix is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt and, therefore, the prosecutrix being a consenting adult, this is a fit
case for recording a finding of acquittal.
3. Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh further submits that PW-7 (Dr. Sudheer
Verma ) who was posted as medical officer at District Hospital, Bicchiya,
Rewa has not supported the prosecution case and has admitted that he had
not drawn any blood sample for DNA profiling. Thus, it is submitted that
merely on the basis of DNA profile (Exhibit C-1), conviction of the
appellant cannot be maintained. It is also submitted that the appellant in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a specific plea of his
innocence but that too is not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, it is
prayed that judgment of conviction be set aside.
4. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned public prosecutor for the State submits that
firstly there is evidence of (PW-6) Shri Pushpraj Patel, who was working as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
3 CRA-284-2023
principal of S.P. Memorial Convent Academy Higher Secondary School
who has categorically stated that in the school record, the date of birth of the
prosecutrix is mentioned as 01.12.2006. It is further submitted that in cross-
examination this witness has admitted that along with the admission form
Exhibit P-6 copies of Aadhar Card, Samagr ID and Ration Card are enclosed
in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned. It is further
submitted that PW-10 (Dr. Vikas Kumar Singh) who conducted ossification
test on the prosecutrix and his report is available on record as Exhibit P-17
wherein the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned to be approximately between
13 to 14 years. This doctor categorcally stated that normal range of
difference in age is 6 months to 1 and a half year and, therefore, when even
this range is taken into consideration then that too will not help the appellant
in coming out of the factual backdrop that the prosecutrix was minor at the
time of the incident.
5. It is further pointed out that identification form (Exhibit C-1) is
proved by PW-7 and in this identification form, it is mentioned that 2 ml of
the blood of the appellant was collected in the presence of the medical
officer. This document contains signatures of the appellant and they have not
been disputed. This sample was duly forwarded to the State Forensic Science
Laboratory on 13.09.2020. Thus, it is pointed out that when DNA report,
Exhibit C-1 is taken into consideration then it categorically makes a mention
of the fact that Y STR DNA profile obtained from the source – underwear of
the prosecutrix matches with the Y STR DNA profile obtained from the
blood sample of the appellant – Manish Patel. Similarly, it is mentioned that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
4 CRA-284-2023
blood profile obtained from sample of Abhishek Patel contained in Exhibit E
does not match with the DNA profile obtained from the underwear of the
prosecutrix. Thus, it is submitted that guilt of the appellant is proved not only
through oral testimony but also through the forensic evidence, and, therefore,
no interference is called for.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that PW-1 (mother of the prosecutrix) has stated that the
prosecutrix is her daughter. On 11.09.2020, she came to know this fact that
prosecutrix’s privacy was violated. When she returned from the house of her
brother-in-law, she had seen the prosecutrix sitting in a sad state and on
interrogation, she had informed her about not only establishment of physical
relationship in the hands of the appellant but also his act of threatening and
coercing her. In cross examination this witness has admitted that she had
given birth to a son and a daughter whose birth certificates were not prepared
as they were born at home. She admitted that she had taken the daughter for
admission. However, she has further stated that the age of her son is about 21
years and the prosecutrix is 5-6 years younger to him. This fact is
corroborated by PW-2 prosecutrix herself beside the allegation of violation
of her privacy on more than one occasions in the hands of the appellant.
There is no relevant cross-examination to rebut either the aspect of age or the
aspect of violation of privacy. What is interesting to note here is that counsel
for the accused had shown over indulgence to undo the contradictions
whatever were obtained during cross-examination.
7. PW-6 (Pushpraj Patel) has proved the age of the prosecutrix. Even
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
5 CRA-284-2023
hypothetically if the age determination as proved by mother and the principal
of the concerned school are discarded then also it is evident that PW-10
doctor has proved the age of the prosecutrix to be less than 18 years through
ossification test report as contained in Exhibit P-17. There is no substantive
challenge to this statement of the witness PW-10 (Dr. Vikas Kumar Singh)
so to obtain a rebuttal that the prosecutrix was not a minor at the time of the
incident.
8. DNA report Exhibit C-1 is positive in favour of the prosecutrix
inasmuch as Y STR chromosome profile obtained from the underwear of the
prosecutrix has matched with the Y chromosome STR profile as was
obtained from the blood sample of the appellant. Therefore, when provisions
contained in Section 3 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 are taken into consideration then the prosecutrix has substantiated
the fact of violation of her privacy through penetrative sexual assault. This
penetrative sexual assault or aggravated penetrative sexual assault as defined
under Section 5 of the Act, is proved by the prosecutrix and substantiated by
DNA report Exhibit C-1. There is no substantive cross-examination on this
aspect. As far as definition of child as given in Section 2 (d) of the POCSO
Act is concerned, it is provided that “child means any person below the age
of 18 years”. Thus, it is evident from the ossification report Exhibt P-17 and
the statement of the principal of the concerned school PW-6 and that of the
mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and the prosecutrix herself that the
prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident and she was subjected to
aggravated penetrative sexual assault as defined in Section 5 of the POCSO
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
6 CRA-284-2023
Act, 2012. Therefore, once the factum of victim being a child and she was
subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault is proved by the
prosecution then onus was on the appellant to have demonstrated through
cogent material that he has been falsely implicated with some ulterior
motive.
9. Though the appellant has taken a plea that he has been falsely
implicated and in fact the prosecutrix was having relationship with one
Abhishek Patel but that has not been proved either by examining any
independent witness or with the help of scientific evidence as is available
from the DNA report Exhibit C-1. Therefore, trial Court has rightly held that
first the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident. Secondly she was
victim of aggravated penetrative sexual assault which started from
28.03.2020 and continued till 08.09.2020. It has also come on record that
sampling for DNA examination was properly conducted and there is no mark
of protest in the identification form as contained in Exhibit D-C/1 on which
medical officer PW-7 has accepted his signatures and denied a suggestion
that sample was not drawn in front of him.
10. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryaya, (2013) 7
SCC 263 has held that for determination of minor’s age, procedure given in
Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,
2007 is required to be followed both for a child in conflict with law and a
child who is victim of crime. It is further held that sole clear and consistent
testimony of prosecutrix of forcible gang rape is substantially corroborated
by medical and forensic evidence and defence plea of consensual sexual
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26392
7 CRA-284-2023
intercourse was inconsequential as the prosecutrix was a minor and there was
substantial material on record corroborating statement of prosecutrix that she
was abducted and forcibly raped. The Supreme Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence imposed on the accused persons. The same ratio is
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In view of such facts when ocular evidence is duly substantiated by
scientific evidence then since the prosecution has been able to prove all the
ingredients of Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and so also Sections 376 (2)
(n), 376 (2) and 506 of the IPC, then in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) this Court is of
the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be
perverse calling for interference in appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
12. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 25-06-2025
13:25:49