Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India, in Manendra Prasad Tiwari Vs Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 2022, recorded the pronouncement of its reportable judgment on 12 August 2022. The Bench comprised Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and the judgment was pronounced by Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal in terms of the separately signed reportable judgment and disposed of all pending applications. The supplied Record of Proceedings does not reproduce the substantive judgment or disclose the grounds of appeal, judicial reasoning or precedents considered by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the precise basis for allowing the appeal cannot be determined from the supplied pronouncement alone.
The separately supplied Madhya Pradesh High Court material concerns criminal revision proceedings initiated by Amit Kumar Tiwari against the order dated 18 December 2020 of the Special Judge, POCSO, Tyonthar, District Rewa, in Special Case No. 156/2020. The trial court had framed charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The applicant challenged the charges by relying on the deceased’s school-record date of birth, 20 August 2001, and her delivery of a child on 27 April 2020. He argued that the deceased had attained majority when the relevant physical relationship occurred and that the material did not establish absence of consent. The State opposed the revision, relying on the mother’s statement under Section 161 CrPC that the sexual act occurred on 7 July 2019, when the deceased was 17 years old.
The High Court examined the rival submissions and the available record. It also observed that the delay in reporting the allegations raised doubts about the account given by the deceased’s mother. The High Court held that the trial court’s order framing charges under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act was unsustainable. It accordingly set aside the order, discharged the applicant from those charges and allowed the criminal revision. These findings belong to the High Court proceedings and must not be attributed to the Supreme Court. Although both judicial records have been supplied together, the Supreme Court’s substantive conclusions and reasons cannot be reconstructed without its separately signed judgment.
Earlier High Court Decision: The appeal arose from the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision discharging Amit Kumar Tiwari from charges under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court had considered the age-related evidence and delay in reporting the allegations while setting aside the trial court’s order framing charges. For the earlier proceedings, read Madhya Pradesh HC Sets Aside Rape and POCSO Charges Over Age Dispute.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and His Lordship.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
