MP High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction After Finding Victim Was Above 18 And Consenting Adult, Seeks Explanation From Special Judge And Prosecutor
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey has set aside the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act and the IPC, holding that the trial court ignored material indicating the complainant was above 18 and that the relationship was consensual. The case stemmed from a missing-person complaint lodged by the victim’s mother, after which the woman was traced months later and the man was prosecuted for taking her away and sexually assaulting her. Allowing the appeal, the Court acquitted the accused of all charges and directed his immediate release unless required in any other case. The Bench also ordered issuance of show cause notice to the Special Judge and the public prosecutor, seeking explanations for the lapse.
The criminal appeal arose from a judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) and 18th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the accused was convicted for offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(l) read with 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The prosecution case originated from a missing person report lodged by the mother of the victim, stating that her daughter had gone missing from home. After recovery of the victim, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, and she was medically examined. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed, leading to conviction and sentencing.
During trial, medical evidence was led through a lady doctor who stated that an x-ray examination of long bones had been advised for age determination. An x-ray report, prepared by a radiologist of the District Hospital, was produced by the prosecution. According to the defence, the report indicated that the victim was above 18 years of age. The document, though part of the record, was not exhibited, and the trial court did not consider it while adjudicating the case. The appeal challenged the conviction on the ground that the victim was a major and that the relationship was consensual.
The Division Bench recorded that the x-ray report relating to age determination was available on record and had been produced by the prosecution itself. The Court noted, “as per x-ray report, age of the victim was more than 18 years.” It further observed that despite this material being available, “the x-ray report was produced by the prosecution which was not exhibited by the Public Prosecutor and learned trial Court also failed to look into the document produced by the prosecution.”
The Bench expressed concern over the trial court’s omission to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the Special Judge “did not deem it proper to exercise her authority under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and call for further evidence on the said document i.e. x-ray film and report.” The Court recorded that the radiological opinion had been furnished by a government radiologist of the District Hospital.
Referring to precedent, the Bench relied upon an earlier Division Bench decision to note that documents produced during investigation could be relied upon by the accused even without formal proof. The Court quoted the earlier judgment observing, “despite the absence of formal proof of document… the accused can take the advantage of the document even without proof of the same.”
On evaluation of the victim’s testimony, the Court recorded that the victim had admitted familiarity with the accused, that she had gone with him voluntarily, performed marriage at a temple, and lived with him for about two months. The Bench noted her statement that “she had performed marriage on her own volition with the appellant and appellant had not forced her or coerced her.”
Considering these aspects together, the Court observed, “when these facts are taken into consideration, then a consensual relationship between two consenting adults is not an offence.” The Bench further recorded that the trial court had committed a serious error in overlooking material evidence, resulting in an unjust conviction.
The Court directed that “this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is in jail, he be released immediately, if not required in any other case.”
“Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately” and “explanation of the concerned Special Judge and the Public Prosecutor who conducted trial be called for and be placed in Chamber for our perusal and directing further action in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri Vijit Sahu, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Ravi Kol v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:68694
Case Title: Criminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Ramkumar Choubey
