IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Balwant Kumar Singh @ Chhoti @ Lucky – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 796 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant, under Section 430(1) of the BNSS , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.9.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Chatra in POCSO Case No. 17 of 2018 arising out of Mayurhand P.S. Case No. 10 of 2018, by which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 40,000 for the offence under Section 366A, and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months; and further has been ordered to undergo sentence of 05 (five) years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo 45 (forty five) days of simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run undergone concurrently.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the even if the entire testimony of the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 3 will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that no case under Sections 366A or 363 IPC is made out against the appellant.
3. It h
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 absence of conclusive proof of the victim's age and the consensual nature of the relationship justified the suspension of the sentence under the POCSO Act.
The assessment of age under the POCSO Act requires definitive documentation, and without it, establishing culpability is not achievable; consent plays a critical role in applying IPC provisions.
The court determined that the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence.
The court affirmed that consent is irrelevant if the victim is a minor, emphasizing that credible evidence, especially concerning age, is paramount in cases under the POCSO Act.
Consent has no legal value in cases of minors under the POCSO Act; conclusive age evidence must come from valid and verified sources.
The court ruled that insufficient proof of the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence under IPC and POCSO Act.
The court upheld the trial court's ruling on the victim's age being conclusively established by credible evidence, validating the conviction under the POCSO Act based on consistent testimony.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of a victim's age to support a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC.
The court may suspend a sentence if doubts arise regarding the conviction, particularly concerning the proof of the victim's age and the validity of consent.
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.