Manoj Vanshkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J AB AL PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5391 of 2018
MANOJ VANSHKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:
Shri K.N. Bundela - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the State.

JUDGMENT
(Reserved on : 21.07.2026)
(Pronounced on : 28.07.2026)
Per : Justice Vivek Jain
The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed arising out of judgment dated 11.05.2018 passed
by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Jatara, District-Tikamgarh (M.P.) in S.C. No.03 of 2017, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 342
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 06 months, under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to injured Usha to suffer
R.I. for 06 months, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in relation
to injured Kallu to suffer R.I. for 06 months and under Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to
suffer R.I. for Life with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

2

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution case
against the appellant rests on weak footing, as there is no legally
admissible evidence proving commission of rape upon the victim and the
DNA report is highly doubtful. It was further submitted that the medical
evidence does not adequately corroborate the alleged act by the appellant.
Counsel also contended that sufficient suggestions were put to the
prosecution witnesses during their depositions regarding prior animosity
between the appellant’s family and the complainant/victim’s family, and
that the appellant has been falsely implicated.
3. It is further argued that even if it is inferred that the DNA report
does prove the act of invasion of privacy as against the present appellant,
then also it appears to be a case of consent looking to the totality of
circumstances surrounding the manner in which the incident has taken
place. It is also argued that the age of the victim is highly debatable and has
not been properly assessed by the trial Court. The admission register
mentioning the date of birth to be 05.01.2000 has been believed without
any proper corroboration from independent material. On these grounds, it
is prayed to set aside the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence.
Lastly, it is further argued that notwithstanding anything what has been
argued above, the present case appears to be a case of consent even as per
the prosecution version and the victim was aged 17 years 1 month, even
taking the age projected by the prosecution to be true and correct. The

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

3

present applicant was aged 19 years and therefore, on this count some
relaxation be given in the matter of sentence as even believing the age and
DNA report, it is a case of adolescent love and romantic relationship.
Though the provisions of POCSO Act has been made out as the victim was
found to be below 18 years of age, but as the victim was also nearing the
age of consent within a few months, the sentence of Life Imprisonment
awarded to the present applicant deserves to be interfered with by this
Court.
4. Per contra, the impugned judgement is defended by learned
Government Advocate for the State on the grounds that the offence has
been duly proved by the deposition of material witnesses, who have all
deposed against the present applicant. The present applicant had caught
hold of the victim while she was attending a market and he took her to a
toilet and then committed sexual offence against the victim at that place.
The victim was rescued by her sister, brother and other persons of vicinity.
The DNA report is matching with the samples of the applicant inasmuch as
male DNA was found on vaginal slide, kurta and salwar of the victim,
which matched with the present applicant when the said samples were
tested and compared with blood sample of the present applicant.
5. On these assertions, it is prayed that the impugned judgement of
conviction and sentence be maintained and the appeal be dismissed by this
Court.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

4

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length
and perused the record.
7. In the present case, an FIR was lodged with an allegation that on
18.02.2017, the victim ‘J’ with her younger sister ‘U’ was going to a well
and when she reached near the Haat market, then the accused met the two
sisters and he caught hold of the victim ‘J’ and took her towards Haat
market. Then the younger sister ‘U’ caught hold of her elder sister to
prevent the accused from taking the elder sister ‘J’ with him. The accused
then slapped the younger sister ‘U’ and took the elder sister ‘J’ inside a
public toilet constructed near Haat market and bolted the door from inside.
He committed the sexual offence inside the public toilet and had stuffed a
piece of dupatta in the mouth of the victim. When the brothers of the
victim reached the spot, they broke open the door and rescued the victim.
However, the accused fled from the spot after hitting one of the brothers of
the victim namely ‘K’ with means of stick.
8. Medical examination of sister ‘U’ and brother ‘K’ of the victim
was conducted vide Exhibit P-7 and P-6 respectively as per which brother
‘K’ was having abrasion in left hand and also an abrasion in left shoulder,
which were both simple in nature. The sister ‘U’ was having contusion in
left cheek, which was also simple in nature. It, therefore, appears that when
the victim was being taken out from inside the public toilet, then the
appellant became violent, or there was some scuffle at that moment.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

5

9. The victim was examined as PW-1 and she supported the version
of the FIR. She stated that when her brothers reached to rescue her, then
one of the brothers broke open the door and brother ‘K’ took her out from
inside the toilet. As per this deposition, two brothers of the victim namely
brother ‘U’ and brother ‘K’ rescued the victim. She stated that the scene of
occurrence is in the Haat market and adjacent to the public toilet, there is a
building of Society and this toilet is on the only road out of the village and
people usually travel through that road. It is the road leading to the Bus
stand and there are shops on the bus stand. There is an electric transformer
adjacent to the public toilet and there is a Mandi near the public toilet. She
stated that there was no one in the vicinity when she was pulled to the
public toilet by the accused. In her examination in chief, she stated that the
accused Manoj caught hold of the victim at 3 PM in Haat market and then
pulled her to the public toilet.
10. The manner in which the incident seems to have occurred by
pulling the victim forcibly, who was in company of her younger sister from
the Haat market to public toilet in the vicinity of Haat market seems to be
highly improbable. The younger sister is also stated to be around 12 years
of age and was able to understand that what is happening with her elder
sister. She was of sufficient age to raise alarm and as per prosecution
version, she indeed raised the alarm and called her brothers.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

6

11. Sister “U” of the victim namely witness PW-3 had raised the
alarm, but called her brothers, who were at some distance from the Haat
market. This does not seem to be natural conduct of witness, because the
person would naturally first run to the Mandi/Haat market, which was just
adjacent to the public toilet and in fact, it was the public toilet of the
Mandi/Haat market, but instead of going to the persons in the Haat market
and Mandi, she called her brothers and it took her sufficient time to call her
brothers during which period the incident had already occurred, which
indicates that some time was taken for her to reach to her brothers and call
her brothers. This is highly improbable that instead of running to Market
and Mandi that was just adjacent, she called her brothers who were at some
distance.
12. Another brother of the victim is PW-4 and he has deposed in
support of the prosecution version. In para 4 of his deposition he has
admitted that at the place of Haat market, there is a house of Mathura
Chaubey, who is a former Pradhan of the village and 4 to 10 people always
remain sitting outside his house. He also admitted that on the same place
there is a Government School and at the time of incident children were
studying in the school.
13. The victim PW-1 has also stated in her deposition that while she
was rescued after breaking open the toilet door, the accused appellant ran
away hitting everybody else present with sticks. She stated that the stick

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

7

was not with the appellant accused, but was with her brother ‘K’. This
would naturally infer that as per this witness, the appellant-accused
snatched the stick from her brother ‘K’ and then hit everybody present
there with stick and then fled from the spot. The victim PW-1 also states in
para 10 of her deposition that her sister went to call her brother ‘K’, who
was at around 1 km distance from the scene of occurrence and then fetched
her brother and came back.
14. The conduct of sister ‘U’, as noted above also seems to be highly
improbable in calling her brother from 1 km away, instead of approaching
the houses, schools, society office, bus stand and the marketplace in the
vicinity where the incident was taking place, which is the toilet inside near
the Haat market.
15. When the deposition of brother ‘K’ is seen, who is stated to have
rescued the victim from inside the toilet, he has stated that he was at the
distance of around 200 metres from the place of occurrence and he reached
the place of occurrence within 10 minutes after sister ‘U’ had approached
him and told about the incident taking place. He also admits that there is
house of Mathura adjacent to the place of occurrence, one school and one
society office.
16. The DNA report is in matching configuration and as already
discussed above, the DNA extracted from blood sample of the appellant
has matched with the male DNA extracted from salwar, kurta and vaginal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

8

slide of the victim and looking to this DNA report Exhibit P-15, the
occurrence of the incident of violation of privacy of the victim cannot be
doubted at all and the incident to this extent indeed seems to have taken
place.
17. However, from the evidence as discussed above the present case
appears to be a case of consent. Even the deposition of brother ‘K’ PW-6
seems to be containing exaggerations just to implicate the accused
inasmuch as the incident took place on 18.02.2017 and as per the
prosecution version, this witness suffered two stick injuries of abrasions in
left hand and left shoulder. However, even on the date of deposition in July
2017, he showed the blackening marks to the Court, which is 5 months
after the occurrence of incident. This indicates that this witness has
exaggerated the incident to such an extent that he even showed the
blackening mark of abrasions sustained 5 months ago in July, 2017 to the
Court.
18. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present
case, the possibility of consent being available cannot be ruled out. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as
the incident having taken place forcibly is concerned.
19. We are also bolstered in our conclusion by the fact that there are
two persons, who are stated to have rescued the victim as per deposition of
victim PW-1, who are brother ‘K’ and sister ‘U’ and both these persons

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

9

have abrasions and contusions on their body, but the victim does not have a
single abrasion or contusion on her body, though she is stated to be forcibly
pulled to public toilet despite physical resistance of sister ‘U’. Shewas
taken inside the public toilet and subjected to forcible sexual intercourse,
but she did not sustain any injury inside the closed, cramped and congested
space inside a public toilet, though two other persons present on the spot
did sustain contusions and abrasions.
20. However, the present appellant is not entitled to acquittal even if
he has been able to put up a case of consent, because the victim was
admittedly 17 years 1 month old on the date of incident, which is not only
proved by the scholar register Exhibit P-9, but is also proved by the
admission form Exhibit P-10. This form also indicates her date of birth to
be 05.01.2000. This form is dated 21.09.2005 and is not a record prepared
at the time of occurrence of incident. Thus, we are of the opinion that the
victim was 17 years 1 month old at the time of occurrence of incident and
therefore, so far as conviction under POCSO Act is concerned, the same
deserves to be and is hereby confirmed.
21. Now coming to the question of sentence, as per Section 4 of
POCSO Act a person committing penetrative sexual assault is to be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which shall
not be less than 10 years in view of amendment dated 16.08.2019 and as

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

10

per pre-amended position, the same was 7 years up to 15.08.2019; while
the maximum penalty is imprisonment for Life.
22. There are various mitigating factors in the present case, which
call for leniency in penalty and the penalty of Life Imprisonment handed
out to the appellant seems to be disproportionate. It is settled in law that
sentence is imposed on an offender with three purposes, i.e. punitive,
protective and deterrent. The same has to be done by ensuring that sentence
is imposed proportional to the offence and there is need to arrive at a
judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the
accused after following the due process of law.
23. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated
20.07.2026 in the case of Ehsaan vs. State of National Capital Territory
of Delhi passed in SLP (Cri.) No.3407 of 2026, has held as under:-
“6.4. When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done
so with tri-fold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective.
The overall objective is to rid the society of criminal
proclivity. The same is done by ensuring that the sentence
imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words not
overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and
instead, striking a judicious balance between the interest of
the victim, society and the accused, after following the due
process of law. We have considered a number of other
judgments also inter-alia Allauddin Mian v. State of
Bihar Navas v. State of Kerala Sevaka Perumal v. State of

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

11

T.N and Parsuram v. State of M.P. The following aspects
reveal themselves when viewed from the lens of imposition
of sentence. It must:
(a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the
crime;
(b) Adequately protect the interest of the society;
(c) Take into account the deterrent purpose of
punishment;
(d) Consider the motive behind the crime, if any;
(e) Give due weight to the conduct of the accused;
(f) Examine whether the crime in question was pre-
meditated or not;
(g) Keep in view the age of the accused and whether he
has engaged in any similar offence in past for which he has
been duly convicted;
(h) Account for the number of victims of the offence;
(i) Not consider the religion, race, caste or creed of the
offender as a factor;
(j) Consider the possibility of reformation of the
accused. It is the duty of the State to establish that the same
does not exist; and
(k) The abuse of trust or misuse of personal
relationship, if any.
The facets identified by us above are illustrative and
not exhaustive. A holistic view of the entire case must be
taken in the attending facts of each case. Considering all
these factors among others, the foremost duty of the Court is
to assess the evidence in a given case; imposing just and
adequate punishment upon the accused.”

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM

12

24. There is a mitigating circumstance in the case inasmuch as the
accused is stated to be 19 years old at the time of incident and the incident
appears to be out of some relationship between two adolescent youngsters
between 17-19 years of age.
25. Therefore, in our opinion the interest of justice would be metif
the conviction under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act is maintained and
sentence awarded to the appellant is modified so also under Section 323
IPC is maintained and sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 10
years. Conviction under section 342 IPC stands set aside.
26. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the appellant under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act and under Section 323 IPC
are maintained and his sentence is reduced to 10 years rigorous
imprisonment. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain
intact. He shall be entitled for remission as per applicable remission policy.
27. In the above terms, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed
of.


(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE


rj

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/29/2026
6:02:13 PM