Y Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 438 read with Sec. 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'B.N.S.S., 2023") is preferred challenging the legality of order dtd. 3/4/2025 in Special Case No.33/2025 by the Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/ 21st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.). whereby charges under Sec. 65(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'B.N.S., 2023') and Sec. 6 read with sec. 5(m), Sec. 10 read with Sec. 6 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been framed in a case arising out of crime No.938/2024 registered at P.S.- Aerodrome, Indore (M.P.).

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that a complaint was made on 25/12/2024 to the In-charge P.S.- Aerodrome, District- Indore (M.P.) by the father of the child victim aged 9 years on the intimation of his daughter that revision petitioner caught her from the back and touched the waist by hand and by entering second hand in her panty, touched her private part. Crime No.938/2024 was registered against the revision petitioner under Sec. 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(m), 9(m) read with Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Medical examination was conducted at 3 a.m. of 25/12/2024 and underwear of the child was collected and two vaginal slides were prepared. Statement under Sec. 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 was recorded and samples were forwarded to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore (M.P.) where "Y" partial Male chromosome profile was recovered from the vaginal slide and for conclusive finding a requisition was sent to P.S. Aerodrome, Indore that blood samples of victim and accused person be provided. Blood samples of the revision petitioner was collected on 27/1/2025 by Assistant Surgeon G.B. Pant, District Hospital Indore but blood samples of the victim was not collected and the reason is assigned that father is not interested for DNA examination and final report was submitted under Sec. 65(2) and 74 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sec. 4 read with Sec. 3, 6 read with Sec. 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the trial court framed the charges as mentioned in part-1 of the judgement.

(3.) Challenging the framing of charge under Sec. 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 this revision petition is preferred on the ground that criminal provisions of the statute are to be read, understood and interpreted in an absolutely strict manner, without its expansion or liberal interpretation. If the act attributed to an accused, does not constitute an offence in consonance with the provision of a statute, no commission of offence can be attributed to the accused. Refusal of the father's consent for medical examination of the child has resulted in a lack of essential medical corroboration. As per law, in cases of aggravated charges like penetration, medical evidence is of great importance. Accordingly framing of charges under Sec. 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 is unsustainable on bare perusal of contents of the FIR, statement recorded under Sec. 183 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and documents appended alongwith with final report.