The prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim and her testimony lacked consistency, resulting in acquittals due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 07-08-2025

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Akanksha Malviya, learned Amicus Curiae (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 12 of 2023) and Mr. Sriram Krishna, learned Amicus Curiae (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 937 of 2022) and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 12 of 2023.

2. These two appeals are arising out of judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 01.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned A.D.J. VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in S.G.R. No. 55 of 2019 (C.I.S. POCSO – 57 of 2019) arising out of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 292 of 2019.

3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to convict the appellant, namely, Sartaj Alam for the offences punishable under Sections 342 , 366, 366A, 363, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section 6 /5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (In short ‘POCSO Act’) whereas the appellant, namely Abdul Rahim Ansari has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 A, 366 and 363/34 IPC.

4. By the impugned order, the appellants, namely, Sartaj Alam has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 376(3) IPC and imprisonment for life u/s 6 of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. He would have to serve either of the punishments awarded u/s 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in compliance of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Sections 366 and 366A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has further been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He has further been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 IPC.

The appellant, namely, Abdul Rahim Ansari has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Sections 366 and 366A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences, except in default of payment of fine, are to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

5. The prosecution case is based on the written application (Exhibit ‘4’) of the informant (PW-7). In his written application, PW-7 has stated that his daughter was at his Nana’s place for last 20 days. On 30.03.2019 at 06:30 in the morning, he got telephonic information from his Sasural people that his daughter is missing. The informant reached there and when everybody started searching for her, they got information that Sartaj Alam had kidnapped h