The POCSO Act renders consent irrelevant for minors, holding the accused culpable for rape regardless of biological parenthood, emphasizing a strict liability approach to protect children.

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 7523 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 4 30 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C.-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in POCSO Case No. 127 of 2022 arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months; and in view of Section 4 2 of the POCSO Act, 2012, no separate sentence is being passed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Factual Matrix:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the written report of the informant is as under:

The victim has given a typed report to O/c Tamar P.S. on 26.07.2022 and stated therein that she is a poor minor girl aged about 15 years and the appellant herein allured her and also gave assurance to marry her and established physical relation with her many times since last one year and the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. She demanded maintenance for the said child, then the appellant refused to give any maintenance for the said child and also refused to marry with the victim and had also given threat to kill the victim and her child.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, FIR being Tamar P.S.Case No. 65 of 2022 was instituted and the police took up investigation into the case and accordingly chargesheet was submitted against the present appellant.

4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused person and found the charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

5. Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months; and in view of Section 4 2 of the POCSO Act, 2012, no separate sentence is being passed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

6. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant:

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on earlier occasion also, the appellant had moved before this Court for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No. 727 of 2025 which has been dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 04.02.2025.

8. It has been further been contended that the DNA test done by the FSL has come with the finding that the appellant is not a biological father of the child born to the victim, but going against the report of the FSL, the learned Trial Court arbitrarily has suppose