ROHIT PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-93
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 19,2021

Rohit Panchal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.S.AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) This criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 30/2019, by which the charges under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(N) of IPC read with Section 5/6 of POCSO Act have been framed.
(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on the report of Radhe Yadav dated 27.06.2019, the police registered Crime No. 179/2019 at Police Station Shahdhora, District Ashoknagar for offence under Section 363 of IPC on the ground that the prosecutrix, who is minor, is missing. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered from Ahmedabad and her statement under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. As per FSL report, human semen and sperms were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it was stated by the prosecutrix that she was in love with the applicant and, therefore, she went to Ahmedabad along with the applicant, where they have got married in the Court and after marriage, they stayed there as husband and wife and on various occasions, the applicant had physical relationship with her. On 08.07.2019, the police along with her family members came there and thereafter, she was recovered. However, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she stated that on 21.01.2019 she had married the applicant in the Court and on 27.06.2019 she eloped with the applicant. However, the applicant never forcibly committed "Bura Kaam" and she was not kidnapped, but she voluntarily went to Ahmedabad. The police has collected the school record of the prosecutrix. According to which, her date of birth is 16.02.2002, whereas she eloped on 27.06.2019. Thus, it is clear that on the date of incident, she was minor. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the prosecutrix has stated that she had voluntarily gone with the applicant and she was not seduced by him and, therefore, no offence under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC would be made out.
(3.) Considered the submissions.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.