SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
Devraj Mahato - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 841 of 2019
Decided On : 20-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP

IMPORTANT POINT
The consent of a minor is immaterial in cases of sexual offences, and any sexual act with a minor under the pretext of marriage constitutes rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act.

Headnote:

[CRIMINAL LAW] - [RAPE AND POCSO ACT] - [IPC SECTION 376(1), POCSO ACT SECTION 4] - [The court discussed the provisions of Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning the definition of rape and the implications of consent, particularly in the context of minors. It also examined Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which addresses penetrative sexual assault against children. The court emphasized that consent is immaterial when the victim is a minor, reinforcing the protective intent of the POCSO Act. The interpretations of these sections were pivotal in affirming the conviction of the appellant for committing rape under the pretext of marriage against a minor, leading to a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Devraj Mahato, was accused of repeatedly raping a 17-year-old girl under the false pretext of marriage. The victim reported the incidents to the police, leading to the registration of a case. The appellant was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence, and the case was transferred to the Children Court for trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim was a minor at the time of the offences and that the appellant had exploited her under the pretext of marriage. Despite some witnesses being declared hostile, the testimonies of the victim and her father were credible and supported the prosecution's case. The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented and the legal provisions applicable.

Issues: Whether the appellant committed rape under Section 376(1) IPC and penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, considering the age of the victim and the nature of consent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consent of a minor is not valid under the law, particularly in cases of sexual offences. The provisions of the POCSO Act and the IPC were interpreted to emphasize the protection of minors from sexual exploitation, regardless of any purported consent given under the pretext of marriage.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2019 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2017 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Jamtara whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of additional 3 months under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is based on the written report of the victim girl dated 07.12.2016 before the Officer-In-Charge, Narayanpur Police Station under the district of Jamtara, which is as under:

The victim girl aged 17 years stated that she was the resident of village Ghati Shimla and about 1½ years earlier, accused Devraj Mahato, resident of village Salgadih met with her in Sabanpur High School and told that he would marry her and thereafter, he established physical relation with her. He committed rape several times upon her. She further alleged that on 26.11.2016, her father informed to the father of Devraj that his son (the appellant) had been committing rape upon her for several months then the father of the appellant assured to get his son married with the informant and thereafter, a Panchayati was called on 04.12.2016 but the father of accused did not participate in the Panchayati and he refused to perform the marriage of his son with the informant. She further alleged that Devraj had committed rape (sexual assault) upon her on false pretext of marriage.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written application of victim girl, Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2016 was registered on 07.12.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC against Devraj Mahato. During investigation, on the basis of materials, the accused was found juvenile and he was declared juvenile vide order dated 06.01.2017 and his entire case record was sent to J.J. Board, Jamtara where after submission of charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC, the learned J.J. Board, Jamtara took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC against juvenile-in-conflict with law Devraj Mahato.

4. Further, the above-named Child-in-conflict with law the appellant Devraj Mahato was declared Child between the age category of 16-18 years and after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board, Jamtara sent the entire case record to the Children Court vide order dated 26.05.2017 for regular trial under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015.

5. On 21.11.2017 charges were framed and explained to above named Child-in-conflict with law in Hindi for the offences punishable u/s 376 (1) of IPC and U/s 4 of POCSO Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned trial court after conducting full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as above, which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant:

8. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction is bad in law in view of the fact that all the independent witnesses namely P.W.1 Umacharan Shaw, P.W.2 Raghunath Mahato, P.W.3 Shibu Mandal and P.W.9 Sonaram Mahato have been declared hostile. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, it has been submitted that on the date when the F.I.R was registered i.e., 07.12.2016 the age of the victim was 18 years 10 months and 18 days as per

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top