Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, J
Suman Kumar, son of Upendra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
I.A. No. 13269 of 2024
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. 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 10.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 14.05.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2018 arising out of Meharma P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1681 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the age of the victim has not been legally proved in order to ascertain as to whether the victim was minor or major to convict the appellant under Section 366-A of the IPC, although the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.7 has procured the certificate (Ext.4) from the Upgraded High School, Phirojpur, Meharma,
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.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of a victim's age to support a conviction under Section 363 of the IPC.
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 court's decision was influenced by the application of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules to determine the age of the minor victim and the implications of the victim's age at the time of marria....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the age and statement of the alleged victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
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 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.
Court upheld conviction and refused bail due to consistent evidence from victim regarding abduction and assault.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as under 18, leading to ....
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
