Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1031 of 2024
------
Deepak Kumar Yadav, aged about 26 years S/o-Ram Prasad Yadav @
Prasadi Yadav, R/O- Village-Simariya, P.O- Achal Jamu, P.S. Bishnugarh,
Dist.-Hazaribag ...... 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 : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP
------
C.A.V. on 12.08.2025 Pronounced on: 27.08.2025
------
I.A. No. 5173 of 2025
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for the suspension of
sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge-III cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hazaribagh in Special
POCSO Case No.97 of 2022.
2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the written
report dated 13.05.2019 of the victim herself, who stated therein
that on 08.08.2018 at 05.00 P.M. in the evening she had gone to
her old house to bring goitha (cow dung), then the appellant
entered into the house and locked the door from inside and
forcefully opened her cloth then she tried to shout thereupon, her
mouth was tied with dupatta (odhni) and the appellant committed
rape upon her person. He also extended threat that if she would
divulge this fact to anyone then she would be liquidated. It has
further been alleged by the victim that she got pregnant and when
victim communicated this fact to appellant then he had given
assurance to the victim that he would solemnize marriage with
her and thereafter, he fled away to Mumbai and the appellant told
the victim to undergo an abortion and thereafter, both of them
would get married. Victim went to Bishnugarh and after test
doctor told her that there is eight months of pregnancy and
nothing could be done at this stage. Then, brother and father of
appellant told the victim to get the abortion done at Hazaribag, if
she is interested in getting married to the appellant and thereafter
she was taken to Gayatri Nursing Home, Hazaribag and got
admitted in the same on 03.04.2019 and one operation was done
and the expenses for that operation was borne by the appellant
and his brother.
3. After due investigation, two separate chargesheets have been
submitted, one against the father and brother of the appellant and
other chargesheet against the present appellant.
4. The appellant has been charged under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n)
and 315/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.
5. Record transpires that victim, her parents, grandfather of the
victim, I.O., doctor and other witnesses got examined at the
behest of the prosecution and thereafter, learned trial court after
appreciating/evaluating the evidence, found the appellant guilty
under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act,
however he was acquitted from the charges framed under
Sections 376(2)(n) and 315/34 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO
Act. Learned trial court chose to sentence appellant under Section
376(3) of IPC to undergo R.I. for a period of twenty years and
fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the
appellant shall further undergo S.I. for a period of six months.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant started his argument by making
submission that the appellant is in judicial custody since
29.07.2022 and prosecution has even not able to bring cogent
evidence qua the minority of victim which is very evident from
the fact that the date of birth certificate issued from the school has
not been properly proved rather it has been proved by the I.O. of
the present case.
7. Learned counsel further drew our attention towards the evidence
of Dr. Shiwani Yadav, who conducted medical examination of
the victim wherein radiological age of the victim has been
mentioned as 17-18 years and on this score, learned counsel
submitted that law is settled that finding of age on the basis of
radiological examination is not a perfect science and there is
always margin of +/- two years in the age determined by
radiological method. Learned counsel further submitted that this
appellant has been exonerated from the charges under Section
315/34 of I.P.C. and in separate trial, appellant's father and
brother have also been acquitted from the charge of Section
315/34 of IPC which clearly shows that the allegation as made by
the victim is not true and all the allegations have been made by
the victim and her family members with a purpose to compel the
appellant to get married with the victim as the appellant belongs
to a well off family.
8. Learned counsel also drew our attention towards the statement of
the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and testimony of
victim recorded before the learned Trial court and pointed out the
contradiction by making submission that even the date of alleged
incident is not same in the statement made under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and testimony of victim before the learned Trial court.
9. Learned counsel concluded his argument by making submission
that it is only oral version of victim and her family members and
there is no scientific evidence available on record to corroborate
the version of the victim, as such, sentence awarded to appellant
be suspended and he would be admitted to bail during pendency
of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that FIR is delayed in the present case which also
corroborates the plea of the appellant that the version of the
victim and her family members is not true and it is completely an
afterthought.
10. Per contra, learned APP for the State submitted that law is settled
that sole testimony of victim is sufficient to convict a person if
her testimony inspires confidence to the Court. In the present case
the victim in her evidence has stated categorically about the
commission of offence by the appellant and it is well
corroborated from other evidences available on record. He further
pointed out that as far as age of victim is concerned, it has not
been categorically denied by the appellant during the trial and
there is no reason to disbelieve the version of victim and her
parents who have also stated the age of victim which clearly
shows that the victim was minor at the time of the incident.
11. We have carefully gone through the trial court record where the
testimony of victim and other witnesses are available apart from
documentary evidence brought on record at the behest of
prosecution.
12. The victim who has been examined as P.W.-5 has stated in her
testimony that on 08.08.2018 she went to her earthen house at
05.00 P.M. to bring Goitha (cowdung) then all of a sudden the
appellant came and bolted the door from inside and forcefully
started removing her clothes then she objected. Then the
appellant told the victim to keep quiet and he would marry her if
something happens and her mouth was tied with Dupatta. The
victim also stated that at the behest of the appellant she
underwent an abortion at Jyoti Nursing Home, Hazaribagh. This
version of the victim found corroboration from the mouth of
Doctor (P.W.-9) who has found "Old transverse surgical scar
present about 12 cm in length". In cross examination, Doctor has
stated that the result of other investigation suggest that the cut
mark has been made of C-Section.
13. As far as age is concerned, it is true that Principal has not been
examined to prove the certificate of age of the victim rather I.O.
has proved the said certificate as Ext. P-11. I.O. has also stated
that at the time of issuance of above said certificate, he had also
seen the Admission Register, however, he was not able to tell the
date of admission of the victim.
14. The victim (P.W.-5) has stated her date of birth in her deposition
as 08.01.2003 and in cross examination she has deposed that from
class 1st to 8th she has studied from Utkramit High School,
Simaria and class 9th and 10th from Utkramit High School, Berai,
It is evident that no contrary suggestion has been given to the
victim at the time of her cross examination done on behalf of the
appellant. This date of birth as stated by victim is same as to the
certificate collected by I.O. from Utkramit High School, Berai
and it is issued by the Principal of the said school. It is also true
that the Principal of the said school did not come to the Court for
proving the certificate of age issued by her and it is brought on
record at the time of deposition of I.O. (P.W. -10). P.W.-1
(mother of the victim) and P.W.-4 (father of the victim) have also
stated in their respective testimony the age of the victim at the
time of incident is 16 years and this has also not been denied by
the appellant by giving contrary suggestion to any of the witness.
The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has
simply denied when asked about the victim being minor at the
time of commission of offence.
15. Prima facie, from the evidence it appears that expectation of the
victim for marriage with the appellant is the reason for delay in
lodging of FIR and trial court has held that the victim was minor
at the time of commission of offence.
16. Of course, learned trial court has exonerated the appellant from
the charge under Section 315/34 of IPC, but judgment itself
speaks that the appellant got acquitted from this charge on
account of lack of other evidence as only the oral testimony of the
victim and her close relatives were available on record.
17. We are hesitant to analyze the evidence further, otherwise it
would be opening of our mind before disposal of the appeal,
which is definitely not desirable at this stage.
18. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of considered view that
there is no merit in the present interlocutory application and is fit
to be dismissed, as such, we are not inclined to enlarge the
appellant on bail by suspending the sentence of the appellant.
19. As a consequence thereof, this interlocutory application being
I.A. No. 5173 of 2025 stands dismissed.
20. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
cause prejudice to the appellant, since, the criminal appeal is still
pending before this Court.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
R.K. /- N.A.F.R.
Dated: 27 /08/2025
