The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has upheld the conviction of a man accused of kidnapping, raping and attempting to murder a two-year-old child in 2014. A division bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla, however, modified one part of his sentence, converting a life term into a fixed 20-year sentence with no remission.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to July 13, 2014, when the toddler was playing outside her house with her father. The accused, Mukesh Jatav, who knew the family, allegedly picked up the child under the pretext of playing with her, grabbed a nearby parked motorcycle with keys still in the ignition, and rode away with her. The father and a neighbour tried to chase him down but could not catch up.
A police complaint was filed the same evening. The child was found the next day, abandoned in bushes along a highway, badly injured. Medical examination confirmed she had been raped and physically assaulted. The accused was later arrested, and based on information he gave police, both the child and some evidence were recovered.
A trial court in Gwalior convicted him in 2017 under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)&(m) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to a mix of rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment. He challenged this conviction before the High Court, arguing he had been falsely implicated over a money dispute with the child's father and that no DNA test had been conducted to prove his guilt.
Court's Observations
The bench was not convinced by the defence's arguments. It noted that the alleged dispute between the appellant and the child's father was never explained in any detail - no witnesses were produced, and even the appellant himself never testified about it under oath.
On the absence of a DNA report, the court pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil vs State of M.P. (2017), observing that a conviction can stand on other clinching evidence even without DNA proof. The bench also noted that the defence never asked the trial court to summon any DNA report, weakening the argument at the appeal stage.
Referring to the child's age, the bench said child sexual abuse trials can involve arrangements that keep the accused out of the victim's sight, and cited the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in Sakshi vs. Union of India along with Section 36 of the POCSO Act to explain why the toddler was not required to testify or identify the accused in court.
The judges relied on the "last seen" principle and Section 106 of the Evidence Act, holding that once the child was seen last with the appellant, the burden shifted to him to explain what happened afterward. He offered no explanation. The bench observed that leaving the injured child in roadside bushes at night pointed to an intention to endanger her life further.
The Decision
The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 366, 376(2)(i)&(m) and 307 IPC. However, it found that the life sentence awarded under Section 376(2)(i) IPC needed to be reconsidered, since the law also allows for a fixed-term life sentence rather than imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
Taking into account that the appellant had no prior criminal record, the bench reduced this particular sentence to a fixed term of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, with no remission.
The other sentences were left untouched, and all sentences will run concurrently. The appeal was partly allowed only to this extent.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mukesh Jatav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2017
Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
