Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Navneet Kumar
Santu Karmakar @ Sentu Karmakar @ Sentu Makmir – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
I.A. No. 100 of 2025
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 and order of sentence both dated 02.09.2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No.18 of 2024 arising out of Dhansar P.S. Case No.256 of 2023 by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dhanbad whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for one month.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is three years for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and he is in custody since 22.12.2023.
4. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no ingredient of Section 363 of IPC is attracted as evident categorically in unequivocal words in the testimonies of the victim PW-1 wh
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 prosecution must provide credible evidence of a victim's age to support a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC.
The prosecution must conclusively establish the victim's age for a valid conviction under the POCSO Act, which was not done in this case.
The court determined that the appellant should not be granted bail during appeal due to the serious nature of the alleged crime and victim's vulnerability.
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.
Court upheld conviction and refused bail due to consistent evidence from victim regarding abduction and assault.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
