Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 773
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
Babloo Mahto son of Sri Chaklu Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.37 of 2019
Decided on : 04-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.376
Headnote
(B) Burden of proof - Criminal trial - Prosecution is duty-bound to establish all essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt - Failure to corroborate testimony with medical evidence or lack of proof regarding primary statutory requirements such as age in cases involving specific victim age-groups leads to failure of prosecution case. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
A criminal appeal was directed against a conviction order under the Act for protection of children from sexual offences. The informant alleged that the accused had committed a sexual act against her will and threatened her. The trial court convicted the appellant, relying on the victim's statement. The appellant argued that there was no credible evidence regarding the victim's age, the medical report contradicted the claims of physical assault, and the incident was a result of a property dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to place any material on record to substantiate the age of the victim. The medical expert found no evidence of sexual intercourse or physical injury, and the investigating officer noted no struggle at the site. The conviction was deemed unsustainable due to the absence of proof regarding the victim's age.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of the victim's age as a prerequisite for the applicability of the special Act and whether the prosecution successfully proved the allegations of assault beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under the special Act requires definitive proof of the victim's minority status. Where the prosecution fails to establish this essential fact and the supporting evidence is contradictory or absent, the conviction cannot be maintained.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
For the Appellant :Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and evidence summary of case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. contention over evidence sufficiency and victim age. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 3. failure to prove minority precludes pocso conviction. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 4. order of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO Court, Khunti, in POCSO Case No.16 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO, Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five thousand) and in default of fine, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant-cum-victim, aged about 16 years, stating therein that on 07.11.2017 at about 5:00 PM at evening, she had left her house to proceed for Torpa Church and when she reached near the bus stand at State Bank of India, Torpa Road, then his neighbour Babloo Mabto, aged about 30 years, came before her riding blue coloured motorcycle and proposed her to eat gram (chana). Thereafter, he offered her to drop at her destination by his motorcycle. Then the victim had tried to flee away, but he followed her till Sant Mikhails School and had further allured her to provide her a Samosha and when the informant refused to ride over his motorcycle, the accused had threatened her to kill. Then under fear, she had ridden on such motorcycle and as soon as she ride on such motorcycle, accused had suddenly picked up his motorcycle with very high speed and had taken away her to Jurdag forest and there he had compelled her to open her entire dress and on protest of victim, accused had also assaulted her. Thereafter, keeping her under control, he had committed forcibly sexual relationship with her and after that he had threatened her to kill if she will disclose the matter to anyone. Then the accused dropped her back at Karra road near pond, from there she had gone to her home. At her home, she had narrated the entire occurrence to her family members. Informant has further stated that the time of occurrence was in between 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM.
On the basis of above information of the informant, Torpa P.S Case No.181 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017 has been registered under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 3/ 8 of the POCSO Act, against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge on 08.02.2018 under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 4/ 8 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 06 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-
5. P.W.-1, Sita Devi, is the mother of the victim and she has supported the prosecution story. She is not an eye witness to the incident. Her daughter has narrated the entire story to her.
In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the area is densely populated having too many shops. There is nearby police station also.
6. P.W.-2, xxxxxx, is the victim -cum- informant herself. She has supported the case.
In para-16 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that scratch mark upon her was due to bushes in the forest area. In para-18, she has stated that injury on her body, back and on her waist area have been caused due to the incident. There was also st
