X vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 3101 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

X vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                              2026:JHHC:10916-DB

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1188 of 2025

 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
 25.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO
 Act, Khunti in POCSO Case No.17 of 2022 arising out of Rania P.S.
 Case No.21 of 2022]
                                    ------
 X                                         ....   ....      ....      Appellant
                                  Versus
 The State of Jharkhand                    ....   ....      ....   Respondent
                                  ------
 For the Appellant                : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
 For the Resp. State              : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

                       PRESENT
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                       JUDGMENT

------

CAV On 12/03/2026 Pronounce On 16 /04 /2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against

the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

25.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act, Khunti in POCSO Case No.17 of 2022 arising out

of Rania P.S. Case No.21 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section

376-AB of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of POCSO Act but

has been sentenced alternatively for the offence under section 6

of POCSO Act directing him to undergo rigorous

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

imprisonment for 25 years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

with default stipulation.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that about one

year prior to the occurrence, the appellant came to the

informant and told that he does work of painting walls, so he

engaged for painting work in the house of the informant and

the informant also permitted the appellant to live in the house

of the informant's uncle, Dhaneshwar Mahto. It is alleged that

the appellant started living along with his two female children

and started the work of painting in the house. It is further

alleged that on 04.06.2022 at about 4:00 am, while the

informant was sleeping in his house, he heard the sound of

weeping of a female child of the appellant, then he woke up

and went there and saw that the appellant was committing

wrong act with his elder daughter aged about 7 years after

opening her clothes. Upon protest by the informant, the

appellant started abusing him, meanwhile, the villagers

assembled and the matter was informed on Child Help Line

No.1098 about the occurrence. Thereafter, the police team also

arrived at the place of occurrence and enquired from the

informant as well as the victim girl and the appellant in

presence of Panchyat Samiti, Teli Dahanga.

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

On the basis of written report of the informant, FIR

was registered vide Rania P.S. Case No.21 of 2022 for the

offences under section 376-AB of IPC and Sections 4/6 of

POCSO Act on 04.06.2022 against the appellant. After

conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was

submitted against the above named appellant to face the trial

and has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

Submission on behalf of the appellant

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned

judgment has vehemently argued that the impugned judgment

is absolutely illegal and based upon wrong interpretation of

evidence adduced by the prosecution. The victim girl has been

projected by the informant, who was employer of the appellant

due to some ulterior motive and there is nothing in the

evidence of the victim constituting any offence under section 6

of POCSO Act or under section 376AB of IPC. The informant

as well as the victim girl have been examined during trial and

have given vague statements as to actually what type of wrong

act was committed by the appellant upon his own daughter.

Learned counsel further submits that the medical report of the

victim girl also does not find any visible injuries over any part

of the victim girl and no sign of any wrongful act committed

by the appellant. It is admitted position that the appellant was

in the habit of taking/consuming liquor and under

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

intoxication, he used to scold his daughter, however, he was

very happy and used to treat his both daughters cordially and

taking care of them. It is further submitted that in the entire

statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the question put to the

appellant do not show any incriminating circumstance worth

constituting any offences by the appellant even if the evidence

of the victim girl and the informant may be admitted on its

face value, no offence as charged against the appellant get

attracted. Learned trial court has been swayed on his own

emotions while recording the guilt of the appellant. Therefore,

the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious error

of law and liable to set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal

from the charges leveled against him, allowing this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the State

5. On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing for the State

defending the impugned judgment has strenuously argued

that the appellant is none else but the father of the victim girl,

who was aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence and he

has been found committing illicit act with his daughter at the

odd time in the morning at about 4:00 am. The informant as

well as the victim girl and other corroborating evidence prove

the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

Learned trial court has committed no illegality in appreciating

the evidence of witnesses and awarding sentence to the

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

appellant. Accordingly, this appeal has no merits and fit to be

dismissed.

6. We have gone through the record of the case along with the

impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions

raised on behalf of both the side.

7. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to

whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers

from any error of law calling for any interference in this

appeal?"

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

8. Before adverting to adjudicate the aforesaid point, we have to

take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence lead

by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against

the appellant.

9. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution. Out of them, except P.W.1, Shivam Nag and

P.W.8, the victim girl, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence.

P.W.2-Jaygovind Nag is the father of the informant,

although, in his Examination-in-Chief, claims to have gone to

the house of the accused after hearing sound of weeping of the

girl child but in his cross-examination, he has specifically

admitted that he did not go to the house of the appellant rather

his son, Shivam Nag (P.W.1) narrated him about the

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

occurrence that the accused has committed wrong act with his

elder daughter.

P.W.3-Gyatri Devi is the mother of the informant and

she has not seen the occurrence and is a hearsay witness from

her son.

P.W.4-Neli Dahenga is a Panchyat Secretary of village

Jaipur. According to her evidence, she received information

about the occurrence and has specifically admitted in his cross-

examination that she has received information about the

occurrence at about 10:00-11:00 am but she has not seen the

accused while committing wrongful act with his daughter.

P.W.5-Kanchan Nag has been declared hostile by the

prosecution. Admittedly, he heard hulla in the village about

the occurrence.

P.W.6-Ramesh Mahto has also been declared hostile.

He admits that he was out of village for work on the date of

occurrence.

P.W.7-Loknath Bhandari is a member of Child Line,

Khunti. According to his evidence, on Help Line No.1098, a

phone call was received and was informed that in village,

Rania, a father is involved in physical exploitation of his own

seven years daughter. At first, he gave written information to

Rania Police Station about the same occurrence and then, he

along with police went to the house of the victim girl and

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

thereafter the accused and his daughters were taken into

custody by the police.

This witness has stated nothing else in his cross-

examination rather he admits that he reached at Rania Police

Station about 5-6 pm on 04.06.2022, he does not know, who is

Investigating Officer of this case and he was not interrogated

by any of the Investigating Officers of this case. Further, this

witness admits that no occurrence has taken place in his

presence.

P.W.9-Saniyo Kongadi is also a worker in LDC Office

Child Line, Khunti. According to her evidence, a phone call

was received on Help Line No.1098 that a father is indulged in

physical relationship with his minor daughter at village, Rania.

Thereafter, she along with Panchyat Secretary, Neli Dahenga

asked the victim girl about the incident, then she stated that

her father does wrong act with her. The victim girl was sent for

medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Khunti and her

wearing frock was also produced and production-cum-seizure

list was prepared in her presence and she identified her

signature, which is marked as Ext.2. Therefore, this witness is

also a hearsay witness of the occurrence.

P.W.10-Sandip Kumar is Investigating Officer of this

Case. According to his evidence, on 04.06.2022, he was

entrusted with the charge of investigation of Rania P.S. Case

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

No.21/2022 registered under section 376-AB of Indian Penal

Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act. He further states that at

that day, ASI, Mithilesh Jamadar along with employees of

Child Line, Khunti, namely Loknath Bhandari (P.W.7) and

Saniyo Kongadi (P.W.9) came with the victim girl along with

her younger sister, who were rescued, to police station and

thereafter they were handed over to Sahyog Village, Khunti for

custody. In course of investigation, this witness recorded the

restatement of the informant, Shivam Nag and visited the

place of occurrence, which is the house of Dhaneshwar Nag

situated in village Jaipur. It is a single room house wherein the

accused was residing along with his two minor daughters on

rent. He arrested the accused on the same day and also

recorded the statement of witnesses, Jaigovind Nag, Gayatri

Devi, Neli Dahanga, Kanchan Nag, Ramesh Mahto etc. The

accused confessed his guilt and his confessional statement

(Ext.4) was also recorded. This witness also obtained medical

examination report of the victim and the wearing clothes of the

victim at the time of occurrence, which were produced and

seized in this case and the seizure list was prepared. He also

got the statement of the victim girl and the informant, Shivam

Nag recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and he also

recorded the statement of workers of Child Line, Khunti,

namely, Loknath Bhandari, Saniyro Kongadi and Jaikan

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

Kandula. He also obtained the medical report of the victim.

This witness went to SPG, Primary School, Jaipur where the

victim girl was studying in class-I and collected birth

certificate about the date of birth showing 16.04.2014. The

seized clothes of the victim girl were sent to FSL, Ranchi by the

order of court. After conclusion of investigation, he found

sufficient evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the

appellant for the offences under section 376-AB and Sections

4/6 of POCSO Act. He proved the endorsement of the written

report for statement Ext.1/1 and formal FIR scribed by Police

Station Munsi, Jagdish Kumar Murmu and signed by the then

Officer-in-Charge, Jitendra Kumar Yadav marked as Ext.2. He

further proves the seizure list, which has been produced by Dr.

Arti Purty bearing signature of witnesses, Loknath Bhandari

and Soniyo Kongadi marked Ext.2/1. He further proved arrest

memo of the accused as Ext.3 and his signature on application

presented before the Special Court, POCSO Act for sending the

seized materials to FSL, Ranchi for examination marked as

Ext.5 and forwarding Letter Memo No.287/22 dated 20.06.2022

as Ext.6.

In his cross-examination, no attention towards any

contradictions appearing in the evidence of any prosecution

witnesses has been drawn by the defence. It is simply

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

suggested that his investigation is defective and he has

submitted charge-sheet without proper evidence.

P.W.11-Ajay Kumar is Assistant Director of S.S.O and

is presently on deputation Mobile Forensic Van, Sahebganj.

According to his evidence on 25.08.2022, he was posted at

D.F.S.L., Ranchi. He further stated that vide Memo No.287/22

dated 20.06.2022 dispatch of one parcel(S) through special

messenger (S) S.I., Alit Sagar Kerketta was received in his

office on 29.06.2022 in connection with Rania Case No.21/22

dated 04.06.2022 under section 376-AB and Section 4/6 of

POCSO Act. The parcel consisted of one cloth packet duly

sealed, which contained one panty and one frock marked A1

and A2 respectively. Ext.A1 is cream color printed panty, bore

no any distinct stain and multicolor printed frock marked A2

also bore no any distinct stain.

Result of Examination(S) reveals neither blood nor seamen

could be detected on each of the clothes marked A1 and A2.

The report is marked as Ext.P7/PW11.

10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence. The plea of defence is denial from

occurrence and false implication.

11. The statement of accused recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

goes to show that there is compound question that as per

evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, the accused was seen while

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

doing wrong act with his daughter, which has been denied.

The next question on the basis of evidence of the victim girl is

that he was doing wrong act with his daughter, and she used

to weep but he did not stop, has also been denied.

12. We have given anxious consideration to the overall evidence

available on record, it appears that the sole eye-witness in this

case is the informant, Shivam Nag and his statement under

section 164 of Cr.P.c. was also recorded by the Magistrate,

which shows that he was engaged in tuition of children and

since the accused started living adjacent to his house in rented

quarter of his uncle along with his two daughters, he used to

hear the noise of weeping every day. Sometimes, upon the

warning of this witness, the weeping sound stopped but it was

quite annoying to this witness and his family. He also stated

that on 04.06.2022 at about 4:00 am while he was sleeping, he

heard noise of weeping of the girl child and with a view to

teach a lesson to the accused, he went to his house and saw

that the door was opened and younger daughter of the

accused was weeping outside the room then he went inside

and saw that the accused was committing rape upon his own

elder daughter. He protested him then the accused started

abusing. In his evidence during trial, the informant has been

examined as P.W.1, Shivam Nag has simply stated that on

04.06.2022 in the night, he heard noise of weeping coming from

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

the house of accused and he along with other went there and

saw that the accused was doing wrongful act putting off the

clothes of his own minor daughter when they protested and

forbade the accused then he started abusing them and

thereafter he informed to Child Help Line and also lodged this

case.

In his cross-examination, he fairly admits that he had

heard the noise of child coming from the house of accused

several times prior to the occurrence and as a matter of fact,

the children also used to cry due to hunger and illness. He also

admits that the police has interrogated with him but simply his

name and address and name of other family members was

asked and nothing else. He was running English Spoken

Classes in between 6-8 pm. He usually sees the accused

wearing towel only. He denied the suggestion of the defence

that since the accused was not vacating the rented house of the

uncle of this witness and he was annoyed due to noise of the

children, hence, he lodged this false case against the accused.

13. Now most sterling eye-witness is P.W.8, the victim girl herself.

She has stated that her mother has been died and she resides

with her father along with her younger sister. She has further

stated that her father returned to home after consuming liquor

then he used to do wrong act with her. Even, she was weeping

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

and feeling pain but her father continued to do wrongful act

with her.

In the court question, she also admits that her father

used to cook food and wash her clothes and send her to school.

14. It is also quite obvious that the medical examination report of

the victim was not brought on record examined by the doctor.

The FSL report does not confirm the story of commission of

rape with the victim and the motive behind lodging the case

by the informant is itself reflected in his statement under

section 164 of Cr.P.C. that he was desiring to teach a lesson to

the accused because his daughter used to weep and crying,

which was disturbing in the studying course of the informant.

It is very peculiar that none of the witnesses has stated in clear

terms as to what exact and allegedly wrongful act was

committed by the appellant. The burden lies on the informant,

who claims to be eye-witness to the occurrence but he has

whispered nothing in his evidence by disclosing the actual act,

which was being committed by the accused with his own

daughter. Admittedly, the girl child, who happens to be the

daughter of the accused, was aged about 7 years and dolly

incapax, she cannot understand the nature and consequences

of sexual assault even at the time of her examination under

section 164 of Cr.P.C. or at the trial, the court itself also did not

take pain to elicit the meaning of wrong act done by her father

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

to her or even to elicit what particular act was being done by

her father even scolding and assaulting under intoxication is

also wrongful act causing pain to child. Therefore, none

availability of any cogent and reliable corroborative evidence

and vagueness in the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.8, the

constituents of offence under section 376-AB of IPC and

sections 4/6 of POCSO Act have not been established by the

prosecution at all. It appears that learned trial court has based

the judgment on the basis of conjecture, assumption and

presumption while interpreting the wrongful act committed by

the appellant with his daughter. The court has not discharged

its liability to get explained the true affairs of the act actually

happened with the victim girl. Therefore, we find that

prosecution story is motivated with retaliation by the

informant and vagueness of his evidence creates reasonable

doubts about the happening of sexual assault with the victim

girl. Therefore, we are of the conclusion that learned trial court

while appreciating the evidence of material witnesses, has

committed serious error of law and also in absence of any

corroborative evidence, has wrongly recorded the conclusion

of guilt of the appellant.

15. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we find merits in

this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2025 and 28.02.2025

2026:JHHC:10916-DB

passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Khunti in

POCSO Case No.17 of 2022 arising out of Rania P.S. Case

No.21 of 2022 is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is

acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Accordingly,

this appeal is allowed.

16. The appellant is in jail custody, therefore, he is directed to be

released forthwith, if not, wanted in any other case.

17. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned

through FAX/Email for information and needful.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date:16 /04 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 17/04/2026