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.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 682 of 2025

Prayer

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 4 30 of the BNSS , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ramgarh in Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; further convicted under Section 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ; however, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Further, the fine amount of Rs. 20,000 imposed under Section 4 of POCSO Act and the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-imposed under Section 366 of INDIAN PENAL CODE will be paid to the victim to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation and in default of payment of fine of 20,000/- imposed under Section 4 of POCSO Act the appellant will undergo two years extra R.I. and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-imposed u/s 366 of IPC, the appellant will further undergo one year R.I.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as per the version narrated by the informant, namely Nemi Chand Sao, who is father of the victim minor girl aged about 16 years, in brief, is that in the morning of 15.07.2022 he along with his wife went to village where his victim minor daughter aged about 16 years and three kids resides. On 15.07.2022 at about 11:00 P.M in the night one Sanjay Kumar Saw who runs a mess in the name and style as Gangotri Mess in New Market, P.T.P.S, Patratu telephoned his daughter and forcibly taken away his daughter by his motorcycle no. JH-01BU-8004 from his house. Vikash Kumar and Rakesh Kumar have seen him at main road at the time of fleeing and they chased him and mobile phone of both of them was found to be switched off and both mobiles were in the custody of Sanjay Kumar Saw. Anyhow Sanjay Kumar Saw giving dodge succeeded in fleeing.

3. After one hour of searching both of them reached at the house of Sanjay Kumar Saw by identification of the number of motorcycle where his motorcycle was standing outside the house and the door of the house was closed. They knocked the door of the house of Sanjay Kumar Saw (applicant herein) but he did not open the door of his house and after several efforts Sanjay Kumar Saw opened and talked arrogantly. At that time no family member of Sanjay Kumar Saw was present in the house.

4. Thereafter, both of them entered into the house of Sanjay Kumar Saw and started searching victim minor girl aged about 16 years but she did not find anywhere in the house. Lastly, they heard the noise under the bed (Deewan). Thereafter, when they opened the box of bed then they found that victim minor girl found in nude position. Thereafter, they took out the victim minor girl from the bed and wear the cloth. In the meantime, they gave information to the Patratu P.S about the occurrence. Both of them reached to New Market from tempo where PCR Van of mobile reached there and apprehended the Sanjay Kumar Saw.

5. On getting information the informant reached at 7:00 Α.Μ and he asked his minor daughter about the incident then she disclosed that Sanjay Kumar Saw gi