Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1422 of 2024
Mukesh Kumar Das, aged about 22 years, S/o Ganesh Ravidas, R/o
Vill-Batiyatola, Koriyasar, P.O. & P.S.-Sano, Dist:-Jamui(Bihar)
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----------
Coram:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-----
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
----
Order No.05/Dated- 12.08.2025
I.A. No.7570 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 28 of 2024
(Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 1 of 2024), whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 (3) of I.P.C.
and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and directed him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
under Section 6 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for seven
years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 366 of I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the falsity of prosecution version is apparent from the face of
the prosecution version itself which would be evident from the
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein altogether
different version has come which has been recorded at the initial
stage of the case. It has been contended that the victim on her own
has gone along with the present appellant due to the trauma which
she had faced in the family that she was being compelled to marry
with an old person and that is the reason at that time when the
appellant had came for her rescue, she has gone along with the
appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even the issue
of age cannot be said to be corroborated and since it is a case of
consensual relationship between the victim and the appellant, and as
such, no ingredient either under Section 6 of the POCSO Act or
Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code is being attracted. But
without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the appellant has
been convicted. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is a
case where the conviction is not based upon the proper appreciation
of the testimony and hence it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted
that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that
the issue of age has not been conclusively proved, rather, if the
evidence of the investigating officer would be taken into
consideration, wherefrom it is evident that the age of the victim has
been assessed on the basis of the Admission Register which has been
obtained from the concerned school where the victim has studied. It
has also been contended that the said Admission Register was
produced by the headmaster of the said school which was exhibited
and the said document was marked as Exhibit-6. It has further been
submitted that the testimony of P.W. 7, Investigating Officer, is also
relevant for the purpose of consideration of the issue which has been
raised on behalf of the appellant to the extent that the victim has been
recovered from the house of the present appellant.
5. The learned APP has further submitted that there is no defence on
the part of the appellant as to how the victim was found in his house,
even no question has been put to that effect to the investigating
officer. Learned APP based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted
that therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
judgment impugned and also the testimonies available in the trial
court record alongwith the exhibits, particularly, document pertaining
to the age of the victim (Exhibit-6).
7. It needs to refer herein that on earlier occasion also an
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 12837 of 2024 was filed for
suspension of sentence, but the same was withdrawn having not
pressed as it would appear from the order dated 21st January, 2025.
8. This is the second interlocutory application for consideration of the
issue of suspension of sentence.
9. We are conscious to the fact that the assessment of the age is the
vital aspect of the matter for the purpose of the criminality to be
proved for attracting the penal provision Act provided under various
sections of the POCSO Act, 2012.
10. We, in order to consider the aforesaid aspect, has gone through
the issue of determination of age. It is evident from the material
available on record that age of the victim has been assessed to be
15½ years on the date of occurrence which is based upon the
Admission Register having been exhibited by the headmaster of the
concerned school which was marked as Exhibit-6.
11. The "child" has been defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO
Act, 2012, wherein any child below the age of eighteen years will
come under the purview of this Act. This Court, therefore, is of the
view that the learned trial court has came to the conclusive evidence
regarding the issue of age of the victim to be 15½ years. The victim
has been examined as P.W.3 who had supported the prosecution
version. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant
that different version has been uttered by the victim in the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. But the statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been brought to the attention of the
investigating officer and even to the victim (P.W. 3). Moreover, we
have found from the testimony of P.W. 7, Investigating Officer, that
the victim has been recovered from the residential house of the
appellant. The question, therefore, has been considered by the learned
trial court by considering the issue of the age of the victim as per the
deposition made by her to be 15½ years which is corroborated by the
headmaster where the victim has studied, the document that is the
Admission Register (marked as Exhibit-6) showing the age of the
victim as 15½ years as also she has been recovered from the house of
the appellant.
12. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the appellant has failed
to made out this case a fit case for his suspension of sentence.
13. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Rajnish/R.K.
