Jharkhand High Court
Kamakhya Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 611 of 2025
Kamakhya Narayan Singh ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, APP
-----------
th
05/Dated:14 October, 2025
Call for explanation from Sri Devesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned Special (POCSO Act) Judge, Bokaro for referring the
name of mother of the Victim girl during their evidence in the
deposition in violation of the judgment reported in (2019) 2
SCC 703 (Nipun Saxena and Anr. vs. Union of India).
2. Let the explanation be called for through learned Registrar
(Judicial) and be placed before this Court.
I.A No.11737 of 2025
3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated
21.05.2025 and sentence dated 22.05.2025 passed by Sri Devesh
Kumar Tripathi, learned Special (POCSO Act) Judge, Bokaro in
in connection with Bermo (Mahila) P.S. Case No.09 of 2022,
corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.107 of 2022 by
which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 354-A of IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO
Act. However, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five
(05) years and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offence under
Section 10 of the POCSO Act and R.I. for three (03) years and
to pay the fine of Rs.3,000/ for the offence under Section 12 of
the POCSO Act and no separate sentence was imposed under
section 354-A in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act.
4. I.A No.11737 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant, during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted
that the appellant is innocent and has committed no offence and
has been falsely implicated by the informant and her daughter
Victim girl. It is submitted that the appellant is Headmaster of
the School running for last 20 years and he has got unblemished
career and there is no complaint whatsoever lodged against him
earlier. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the F.I.R and
the statement of the Victim girl recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. There is nothing serious in the F.I.R but the statement of
the Victim girl is tutored and tampered by tutoring her to depose
against the appellant. It is submitted that the daughter of the
appellant is also teaching in the said school as a 'Teacher' and it
is not possible that the appellant would commit such offence in
presence of his daughter. It is submitted that even the informant
(i.e. mother of the Victim girl) has admitted during her evidence
that his elder daughter was also reading in the said School and
there was no complaint against her. It is submitted that the
Victim girl and her mother refused for medical examination of
the Victim girl and thus the allegation for causing any sexual
assault upon the Victim girl is false. It is submitted that even
after the occurrence the Victim girl had disclosed the act firstly
before her elder sister but the said elder sister of the Victim was
not examined. It has been submitted that the first I.O has been
examined as P.W-6 and he has stated that he has neither
recorded the statement of any student or guardian of the said
school nor recorded the statement of the teacher of the said
school. It is further submitted that the defence of the appellant
has not been considered as D.W-2 has stated that tuition fee of
4-5 months was due against the girl and which was demanded
by the appellant and hence the present case been instituted
against the appellant. It is submitted that even the evidence of
P.W-2 is doubtful and it reveals that she has been fully tutored
before giving her evidence as she has stated during her evidence
at Para-13 that she has returned with her mother on
'Jimmanama' which is not possible for a girl of six years. It is
submitted that the appellant is in custody since 21.02.2025 and
earlier he was also in custody for some period and hence he may
be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for
bail. It is submitted that the appellant was touching the private
part of the Victim girl who was aged around six years on the
date of occurrence. It is submitted that the Victim girl was
examined as P.W-1 and the informant was examined as P.W-2
and they have fully supported the prosecution case. It is
submitted that the evidence of the Informant and the Victim girl
is corroborated from the evidence of I.O who had been
examined as P.W-6 in this case. It is submitted that the evidence
of defence witnesses was not reliable and hence the prayer for
bail of the appellant may be rejected.
7. Perused the Trial Court Records and considered the
submission of both the sides.
8. It appears from the F.I.R that the appellant is alleged to
have sexually harassed the Victim girl by putting his hand in her
private parts.
9. It appears that the mother of the Victim girl has refused the
medical examination of the Victim girl on the ground that she
was not raped. However, this Court finds that P.W-1-Victim girl
and P.W-2-mother of the Victim girl have fully supported the
case against the appellant for sexually harassing her as
mentioned above.
10. It transpires that P.W-3 and P.W-5 are independent
witnesses and though they are hearsay witnesses but they have
stated that on hearing alarm they had gone to the house of the
Victim girl and the huge crowd had assembled there and the
Vehicle of the police had arrived there and P.W-5 had supported
the allegation against the appellant.
12. Considering the fact that the Victim girl is a minor aged
around 6-7 years, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is, hereby,
rejected.
14. Thus, I.A No.11737 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed.
15. The DLSA, Bokaro is directed to inform this Court as to
whether any compensation has been provided to the Victim girl
or not till date and what step has been taken by the State
Administration i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the
Superintendent of Police, Bokaro after institution of the case for
rehabilitation of the Victim girl.
16. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the
Superintendent of Police, Bokaro shall submit the report jointly
for rehabilitation of the Victim girl as it appears from the record
that the mother of the Victim girl was compelled to withdraw
the student from the school of the appellant.
17. Put up this case on 12.11.20225.
18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the i.e. the Deputy
Commissioner, Bokaro and the Superintendent of Police,
Bokaro by FAX.
19. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the
Superintendent of Police, Bokaro are directed to grant
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs) to the Victim
girl at this stage also apart from the compensation given by the
DLSA, Bokaro, if any, in the light of the provisions of Victim
Compensation Scheme.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated: 14.10.2025
Saket/-
