IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar, J
Vijay Lohra Son Of Shital Lohra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 08.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 17.05.2024 passed in Case NO.ST-547/2018 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. (Pandra O.P.) Case No.219 of 2018, G.R. No.2488 of 2018 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for six months.
3. At the outset it has been pointed out by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC under which the requirement is that victim should be minor and in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring any slightest documentary evidence to establish th
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of a victim's age to support a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC.
The absence of legally admissible evidence regarding the victim's age and conflicting testimonies led to the decision to grant bail, emphasizing the necessity of credible proof in criminal cases.
Where there are conflicting views on the age of the victim, the more favorable view for the accused should be adopted, leading to suspension of sentence.
The conviction under Section 363 IPC was not supported by sufficient evidence as the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant, warranting bail due to the bailable nature of the offense.
The court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping charges due to inconsistencies in the victim's statements and lack of evidence for coercion, emphasizing the principle of reasonable doubt.
Court upheld conviction and refused bail due to consistent evidence from victim regarding abduction and assault.
The conviction for rape was upheld based on consistent victim testimony, while the conviction for kidnapping was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the victim's age and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged kidnapping and rape.
The court ruled that voluntary consent negates the charge of kidnapping under IPC Section 363.
The court denies bail to an appellant convicted of serious offenses against a minor, underscoring the severity of the allegations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.