IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad, JJ.
Subhankar Das @ Shubhankar Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1293 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis of the charges and the involvement of the accused. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. sexual abuse of minor and coercion details (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. summary of charges accepted in trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. allegation of charge manipulation and lack of defense opportunity (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. the prosecution's response to charges based on evidence. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. sufficient evidence against the accused (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. court's observations and the legal framework for charge alterations. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. authority to amend charges during trial (Para 26 , 28 , 30) |
| 9. determination of victim's age under pocso (Para 54 , 55) |
| 10. proper procedure for age assessment in pocso cases (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 11. conditions for suspension of sentence (Para 68 , 69) |
| 12. final ruling on the application. (Para 71 , 72) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 13404 of 2024
Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur in Special (POCSO) Case No. 1325 of 2017 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No.78 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Sections 376(D), 379 and 411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 25 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- for committing the offences under Section 376(d) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and imposed fine amount of Rs. one lakh, and the amount paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and her rehabilitation and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to under RI for five years separately; and has further been sentenced to RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for committing the offence under Section 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo RI for two months separately. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written information by the informant cum victim of this case (P.W.1) is that three years ago from today i.e., since the year 2014, accused Bipul Sharma kept on sexually abusing informant on allurement of marriage. It has further been alleged that taking her in the house of the Subhankar Das (applicant herein) and Bipul Sharma used to make his friends do wrong act with her and also used to make do wrong things by feeding her drugs and Bipul Sharma used to threaten to kill her if she would disclose the said incident to anyone.
3. It has further been alleged that at that time she was aged about 15 years. In the meanwhile, she gave birth to female child and when she could not bear it, she came to her parental home and her mother got her married to Shailendra Deogam at Baridih House No. 567 two months ago where she was living with her husband and baby.
4. After one and half month of solemnization of her marriage, again Bipul Sharma and Shubhankar Das came there and knocked the door and forcibly entered into her matrimonial home and committed rape with her one by one and went away with Motorcycle Nо. JH05BB-4909 of her husband and they caused burn injury in her body with Cigarette. It has further been alleged that both the accused persons are man of highhandedness and they can kill her husband and her brother.
5. On the basis of the written information FIR vide Sidhgora P.S. case No. 78 of 2017 dated 12.05.2017 was registered u/s 376(D), 379 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant/applicant and one Bipul Sharma.
6. After lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated and after investigation charge-sheet Vide Final Report No. 97 of 2017 dated 30.06.2017 has been filed u/s 376(D), 379, and 411 of the I.P.C and Section 8 of the POCSO Act by the investigating agency against the both the accused persons namely Bipul Sharma and Shubhankar Das.
7. After submission of charge sheet, cognizance was take
Girraj Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of M.P.
Anant Prakash Sinha v. State of Haryana and Anr.
Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Rafiq Ahmad @ Rafi vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
The appellant's conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld as the victim was underage at the time of the offense, notwithstanding the alteration in charges, which did not prejudice the appellant's def....
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.
The judgment reinforces the evidentiary standards in sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act, particularly the weight of victim testimony and the statutory presumption of guilt.
The Supreme Court clarified that age determination in POCSO cases must follow statutory provisions strictly, and bail courts cannot exceed their jurisdiction to conduct mini-trials on age credibility....
The court established that the police must obtain a medical report determining the victim's age in POCSO cases, emphasizing the mandatory nature of this requirement under the law.
The court established that the burden of proving a victim's age lies with the prosecution, and the absence of reliable evidence necessitates giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The jurisdiction of a Special Court under the special legislation is strictly dependent on the victim's age. When age is disputed, the court must conduct a formal inquiry under the relevant juvenile ....
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as below 18 years, thus the POCSO Act was not applicable, leading to a modification of the conviction under IPC.
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.