STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus ANOOP SINGH

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 03-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 960 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
ANOOP SINGH 
Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2010 
JULY 03, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ] 
c 
F vnal Code, 1860- ss. 363, 366 and 376- Offence of 
kidnapping and rape - Age of prosecutrix, determination of 
- Conviction of respondent u/ss. 363, 366 and 376 for 
commission of rape and sentenced accordingly - However, 
acquittal by High Court holding that decision of the trial court 
D not sustainable since the prosecution failed to prove that 
the girl was less than 16 years of age at the time of the 
incident - On appeal, held: Discrepancy of two days in the 
two documents-Birth Certificate and Middle School 
Examination Certificate adduced by the prosecution is 
E immaterial - These documents which support the case of 
the prosecutrix that she was below 16 years of age at the 
time the incident took place and can be used for ascertaining 
the age of the prosecutrix as per r. 12(3)(b) - High Court 
should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated ul 
F r. 12(3)(b) and only in the absence, the medical opinion 
should have been sought - Trial court rightly held that the 
ossification test is not the sole criteria for determination of 
the date of birth of the prosecutrix as her certific::ite of birt: 1 
and also the certificate of her medical examination had been 
G enclosed - Thus, in view the medical examination reports, 
statements of the prosecution witnesses which inspire 
confidence and the certificates proving the age of the 
prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age on the date of the 
H incident, order of acquittal passed by the High Court is set 
960 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ANOOP SINGH 
961 
aside and the judgment and order by the trial court is upheld A 
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 
2007 - r. 12(3). 
Mahadeo Slo Kerba Maske vs. State of Maharashtra 
and Anr. (2013) 14 SCC 637; Lakhan Lal vs. State of 
B 
M.P. 2004 Cri.L.J. 3962 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2013) 14 sec 637 
2004 Cri.L.J. 3962 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 12 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 442 of 2010. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2008 in D 
CriminalAppeal No. 924 of2006 of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur. 
Naveen Sharma, Mishra Saurabh for the Appellant. 
E 
Rajeev Kumar Bansal, M.P. Singh, Akshay K. Ghai for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgme.nt of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. The present Criminal F 
Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order 
dated 10.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.924 of 2006, 
whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction 
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court G 
and acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled 
against him. 
2. The facts of the present matter are that o·n 
03.01.2003, at about 10:30 A.M. the prosecutrix was going H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A to school along with her sister. On real.izing that she had left 
behind her practical note book, she returned back and after 
taking the said note book she once again headed towards 
the school. When she reached near Tar Badi (wire fencing) 
near Hawai Patti, there was an Ambassador car standing 
B there and as alleged, the accused respondent came out of 
the car, pulled the prosecutrix inside the car and forced her 
to smell something, as a result of which the prosecutrix 
became unconscious. As alleged by the prosecution, the 
prosecutrix was taken to some unknown place thereafter. 
c 
3. On regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix felt pain 
in her private parts. On the same day, she was admitted in 
the District Hospital, Satna in an unconscious condition and 
information about the incident was given to Laxmikant 
D Sharma (P.W.8), the uncle of the prosecutrix. On 10.01.2003, 
the prosecutrix was discharged from the Hospital and sent 
back to her home where she narrated the incident and 
thereafter an F.l.R was lodged. During the course of 
investigation, the prosecutrix was sent for medical 
E examination and her clothes were seized and slides were 
prepared. After receipt of the medical report, F.l.R was 
registered and site map of the spot was prepared. The 
Investigating Officer seized various articles which included 
F the prosecutrix's birth certificate and certificate of the Middle 
School Examination, 2001. Along with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.