In cases of child sexual assault, courts must prioritize victim protection and rehabilitation. Where direct ocular evidence substantiates the prosecution's case, the absence of forensic findings due to delayed medical examination does not necessitate the grant of bail, and administrative bodies remain tasked with ensuring victim compensation.

JUDGMENT :

It also appears that the Trial Court has committed error by referring the name of father and mother of the victim girl in the evidence and hence, learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to inform the Trial Court to remain cautious and remain careful in future as there is complete prohibition for mentioning the name of the victim and her family members at the time of recording their evidence in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Nipun Saxena and Anr. Versus Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2025 and sentence dated 05.07.2025 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 154 of 2023 arising out of Argora P.S Case No. 328 of 2023 by Sri Birendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand). However, the appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

3. I.A No. 12805 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that though there is allegation of rape upon the victim girl, but no sign of rape was found by the Doctor and the learned Court below has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 (AB) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act. It is submitted that PW.-5 is the mother of the victim girl and she has also admitted during her cross- examination that there was good relationship between the parties and she had not seen the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.-1 is hearsay witness and she has not seen the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Dr. Basudha is the doctor and she has not found any sign of rape or injury upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody for around two (2) years and two (2) months and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl aged around two years and three months. It is submitted that though, the Doctor has not found any sign of rape and sexual assault upon the victim girl but P.W-1 i.e. the neighbour and P.W-2 i.e. the father of victim girl have supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that there is delay of around seven (07) to eight (08) days in examining the victim girl, as the occurrence took place on 31.08.2023 and the victim girl was examined on 07.09.2023 and thus, there is possibility that the sign of rape was not found and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.

7. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides.

8. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for commit