Simran @ Mahi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13634
1 CRA-312-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 312 of 2016
"S"
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Bajpai - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Satyam Bajpai - Advocate appeared for the appellant.
Shri Prashant Jain - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 16.04.2026)
(Delivered on : 11.05.2026)
ORDER
This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is
preferred being aggrieved by judgment dated 26.12.2015 in ST No.123/2014
th
by the 8 Additional Sessions Judge Indore whereby appellant/accused has
been convicted under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and section 323
of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of
Rs.500/- and 1 year RI with fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulations of 1
months RI. Both the sentence of imprisonment were ordered to be run
concurrently.
2. The facts available on the record of the trial court are that on
06.05.2014 a report was lodged by inmate (PW-1) of Special Home (Girls)
run by Women and Child Welfare Department under Integrated Child
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 12-05-2026
10:58:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13634
2 CRA-312-2016
Development Scheme, Social Welfare Complex Pardeshipura, Indore against

appellant/accused who was also the inmate in that sepcial home alleging that
appellant/accused was admitted to special home in the month of February,
2014 and is comparatively elder than other inmates. Appellant/accused press
the chest of complainant at 8 a.m. and committed indecent act and also press
her neck alongwith other inmates and also press their chest and tried to do
indecent act. When the appellant/accused did not obeyed the Superintendent
then PW-1 lodged FIR who was escorted by Superintendent of Special
Home. After investigation, a final report was submitted under section 323
and 324 of the IPC and under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012
mentioning the victims below the age of 18 years and the appellant/accused
as 22 years as per the arrest memo dated 07.05.2014 (Exhibit-P/3).
Appellant/accused was put to trial for charges framed under section 323 of
the IPC and section 7/8 of the POSCO Act, 2012.
3. Appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined as many as 10
witnesses including complainant as PW-1, other inmates of special home as
PW-2, Superintendent of Special Home Vishaka Sarpe as PW-3, other
inmates of special home as PW-4, PW-5, Sweeper Renuka Kalyane as PW-6,
Akhilesh Bhadoriya, Principal of the School where PW-1 studies as PW-7,
Dr. Sudhi Shukla as PW-8, Sub-Inspector Darshana Mujalde as PW-9 and
Navin Yadav as PW-10.
5. In cross-examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 all the
facts and circumstances were either denied or ignorance was expressed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 12-05-2026
10:58:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13634
3 CRA-312-2016
pleading innocence.

6. Appreciating the evidence, trial court recorded the finding in para-
22 that inmates of the special home including PW-1 are minors and
convicted the appellant/accused as per para-1 of the judgment.
7. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence this criminal
appeal has been preferred.
8. Heard.
9. Since no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, this Court
appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
10. Counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal.
11. Perused the record.
12. Record discloses that appellant/accused was resident of
Hoshiyarpur Punjab and order dated 07.02.2014 in RT No.449/2013
originated from Crime No.12/2013 registered at Police Station- GRP Bhopal
authored by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal reveals that
appellant/accused was produced before the Principal Magistrate Juvenile
Justice Board, Bhopal as Child in Conflict with Law for offence under
section 403 of the IPC and was directed to be released on probation of good
conduct. Her parents were intimated through telephone but they denied to
take the custody of the appellant and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Bhopal as precautionary measures and to safe the child in conflict
with law from the adverse circumstances of the society ordered to admit the
child in special home till she attained the majority.
13. Thereafter, she was admitted in Special Home, Pardeshipura,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 12-05-2026
10:58:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13634
4 CRA-312-2016
Indore and she was made accused under the POCSO Act, 2012 regarding the

incident dated 25.04.2014 with the inmates of the Special Home.
Investigating Officer, effected her arrest vide Exhibit-P/6 mentioning her age
as 22 years on 07.05.2014. No one paid attention to the situation that child
herself was child in conflict with law on 07.02.2014 with a age of 16 years
then how she turned to 22 years within a period of 3 months.
14. This child was sent to special home to save her from the adversity
of the society but institute developed for protection created a more adversity
against her and superintendent of Special Home played a very vital role in
this whole incident who was for lodging FIR through other inmate child of
the special home. During the course of trial appellant was produced for
ossification test for age verification and report dated 19.08.2024 by
radiologist of M.Y. Hospital and M.G.M. College, Indore opined her age
between 17 to 19 years. Certainly she was entitled for permissible error of
margin especially with the age mentioned in the proceeding of the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal. Vishaka Sarpe (PW-3) was asked
regarding the age in para-17 and she herself admitted that when the appellant
was taken to the special home at that time her age was 17 years.
15. Application was preferred before the trial court claiming that
appellant was below the age of 18 years but trial court misinterpreted the
report of 17 to 19 years and by ignoring the opinion of the radiologist
recorded the finding on general observation that it does not appear that she
was below the age of 18 years and rejected the application. This is an
example of travesty of justice with the child in conflict with law who faced
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 12-05-2026
10:58:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:13634
5 CRA-312-2016
custody from 07.05.2014 to 19.04.2016. The entire proceedings against the

appellant/accused stand vitiated; consequently, judgment dated 26.12.2025 in
th
ST No.123/2014 by the 8 Additional Sessions Judge Indore is hereby set
aside and appellant/accused is acquitted. Her bail bonds stands discharged.
The fine amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be returned.
16. A copy of this judgment alongwith the record be sent back to the
learned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
17. Judge who authorized the judgment and conducted the trial is now
retired. It appears that Superintendent of Special Home is also retired. As per
the specification and reference of investigating officer Navin Yadav S/o R.P.
Yadav reveals that he is in service, accordingly, a copy of the judgment be
forwarded to the Director General of Police, Bhopal (MP) to initiate enquiry
against investigating officer Navin Yadav S/o R.P. Yadav posted as Sub-
Inspector, on 07.05.2014 at Police Station- Heera Nagar, District Indore who
alongwith Superintendent of Special Home presented the appellant as adult
of 22 years without any basis & maliciously resulting in illegal custody from
07.05.2014 to 19.04.2016.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 12-05-2026
10:58:19