'Trial Courts Consistently Failing To Perform Judge's Duties Despite Regular Training': MP High Court While Acquitting Rape Convict

The Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction passed by the Trial Court under the POCSO Act, noting that the trial court had 'committed several irregularities'.

The court noted that the trial court failed to take 'cognizance of ossification test report available on record and, secondly, it did not pose questions under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to the accused/applicant on the basis of the DNA test report'. 

The bench strongly criticized the trial court, observing that "despite regular training in the Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy, learned trial Courts are consistently failing to perform their duties as a Judge".

The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh thus directed;

"Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges. Appellant be released immediately, if not required in any other case". 

The case stemmed from an appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing judgment passed by the Special Judge. 

Per the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the victim and the appellant had known each other for one year. The appellant, 10 days prior to the incident, proposed to the victim for marriage, who accepted the proposal. They then travelled to Hyderabad, where they performed the rituals in the Durga Temple and later, in their room, established a physical relationship. 

In the proceedings before the High Court, the appellant argued that the 'physical relationship' was consensual and that the victim was an adult. The appellant further argued that the prosecution dishonestly did not exhibit the documents that favoured the appellant. 

It was further argued that the trial court erred in overlooking the X-ray, mentioning that the O.C. of the illiac crest, the O.C. of the lower ends of the radius and ulna, the O.C. of the head of radius and the O.C. of the olecranon proceeds of the ulna were fused. It was argued that the age of the victim was approximately 17 years with two years of error margin on either side, which the trial court failed to take into consideration.

It was further argued that the victim's mother does not remember the victim's date of birth, and the father admitted that he had 'neither prepared the birth certificate nor name of the victim was registered in the Kotwar Panji of the village'. Therefore, it was contended that convicting the appellant based on the positivity of the DNA report was insufficient.

However, the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, submitting that the DNA reports were positive. It was submitted that the date of birth register was not in dispute. 

The court noted that the victim in her cross-examination stated that, "when Police intercepted them at Hyderabad, then this witness herself and two other companions were caught hold off but appellant was not present. Victim admitted that she had left her parents' home without informing her parents. This witness admitted that out of fear of her parents, she had taken name of the appellant for the first time". 

The high court noted that the trial court failed to record a supplementary statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC. The trial court further failed in marking the X-ray report as a court exhibit, which, 'prima facie' appeared to be in favour of the accused. 

Relying on the Supreme Court case of Karan alias Fatiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court reiterated that the ossification test provides only a broad assessment of age and does not provide for an exact age; there is an element of error margin on either side of one or two years. 

"Therefore, as per the ossification report which was promptly drawn within one month of the incident, since there can be an error of a year or two and when that error is taken into consideration, then victim will be deemed to be an adult, benefit is required to be accrued in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, when that benefit is extended and statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are taken into consideration as are contained in Ex.P/3, then impugned judgment of conviction cannot be upheld", the bench stated. 

Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed the immediate release of the appellant. 

Case Title: DK v State of Madhya Pradesh (2025:MPHC-JBP:38420)

For Appellant: Advocate Chintransh Shrivastava

For State: Public Prosecutor Nitin Gupta

Click here to read the Order