In Ravi Kol vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), Madhya Pradesh High Court's Justice Vivek Agarwal passed an order dated December 17,2025, wherein, he wrote:"We propose to issue a show cause notice to the concerned Special Judge as well as the Public Prosecutor for such a major lapse in doing injustice to the accused and putting him behind bar for over three years overlooking the fact that victim was a consulting adult, therefore, conviction could not have been made. This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Special Judge. Registry is requested to issue a show cause notice to the concerned Special Judge and the Public Prosecutor calling for their explanation."
The High Court observed:"6. As far as merits are concerned, law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lallusingh S/o Jagdishsingh Samgar vs. State of M.P., 1996 MPLJ 452 is that despite the absence of formal proof of document of dying declaration, the same can be made use of by the accused in his defence, accused can take the advantage of the document even without proof of the same. Similarly, the medical certificate showing the injuries on the body of the accused can also be made use of by the accused despite absence of formal proof. Para-6 of the said judgement reads as under :
"6. We deprecate the method of prosecution of withholding the evidence collected during the prosecution should be fair enough to produce all the evidence collected during investigation and it should be left to the Court to come to its own conclusion on the facts proved before him or the Court concerned. But, despite the absence of formal proof of document of dying declaration, the same can be made use of by the accused in his defence, accused can take the advantage of the document even without proof of the same. Similarly, the medical certificate showing the injuries on the body of the accused can also be made use of by the accused despite absence of formal proof.7. In the present case, admittedly, prosecution had produced the x-ray report which is available on record as discussed above and that x-report categorically mentioned a fact that victim was above 18 years of age. Therefore, when these facts are taken into consideration, then there appears to be no need to discuss any other evidence except the evidence of the victim (PW-1) to find out as to whether she was a consenting party or not. 8. In her examination-in-chief, victim (PW-1) deposed that appellant-Ravi Kol is known to her. He is residing in the village of her Mausi i.e. Village Tilghawan, therefore, he is known to her. 6-7 months prior she had gone with Ravi to village Semariya. Thereafter he had performed marriage with her at a temple. She had stayed with the appellant for about two months. During this period, they had established physical relationship. Victim (PW-1) also deposed that she was apprehended from Village Tilghawan by the Police authorities. 9. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that she is the only child of her parents. Her parents are illiterate. Her father is working as a labourer. She met appellant-Ravi Kol in his village i.e. Tilghawan. Tilghawan is at a distance about two hours from her place of residence. Since her Mausi is residing at Tilghawan, she had met Ravi at Tilghawan. House of Ravi is situated at a distance of half km. from the house of her Mausi. This witness (victim) admitted that she had became a friendship with Ravi at the place of another friend 'R'. 'R' is also residing at Tilghawan in front of house of her Mausi. This witness admitted that her friendship with 'R' is about 3-4 years old. Thereafter victim deposed that she had met Ravi at the Hanuman Temple. Victim admitted that she had performed marriage at Hanumantal, Jabalpur temple in front of Jain temple. Victim also deposed that her parents have no knowledge about that marriage. Then in para-5, victim (PW-1) deposed that she had performed marriage on her own volition with the appellant and appellant had not forced her or coerced her for performing marriage. 10. When these facts are taken into consideration, then a consensual relationship between two consenting adults is not an offence. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Trial Court has committed a grave error in conducting the trial. 11. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. 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.
Justice Agarwal concluded:"13. 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."
No comments:
Post a Comment