The conviction of the appellant was overturned due to insufficient evidence proving the prosecutrix's minority, emphasizing that consensual relationships cannot be classified as criminality without coercion or force.

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 16-12-2025

Judgment of conviction, dated 12.03.2019 and Order of sentence, dated 16.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), in GR No. 1508 of 2016, arising out of Bhagalpur Mahila Police Station Case No. 22 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was guilty and convicted under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. for committing offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs 50,000 in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in the instant appeal.

3. Bhagalpur Mahila Police Station Case No. 22 of 2016 was registered on 11^th of May 2016 under Section 376 / 420 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the prosecutrix stating herself a minor girl aged about 16 years on the date of lodging the complaint. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that marriage of her cousin sister was solemnized with the cousin brother of the appellant. After such marriage, both the appellant and the prosecutrix came closer to each other. They often used to cut jokes and visit each other’s houses. In course of time, their friendly relationship turned into a love affair. As a result of the love affair, both of them cohabited and that time the appellant promised to marry her. Subsequently on such promise of marriage, the appellant took her inside the agricultural land outside the village and established physical relationship with her. When the prosecutrix later put pressure upon the appellant to marry her, he denied. Then the prosecutrix informed the matter to her parents. Thus, it was alleged that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault/rape, upon her on false promise of the marriage.

4. The SHO of Bhagalpur Mahila Police Station, namely Gyan Bharti, took up the case for investigation. During investigation, she got the prosecutrix medically examined and obtained the medical examination report. She also visited the place of occurrence and recorded its topography in the case diary, arrested the accused, examined the witnesses, got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and finally submitted a charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. Since the offence under the POCSO Act is exclusively triable by the learned Special Judge, the case was committed to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, for trial. The lower court record reveals that on 4^th of May 2017, the learned Judge in the court below framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 , 420 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty when the charges were read over and explained to him. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Among them, P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix herself; P.W. 2 is the mother of the prosecutrix; and P.W. 3, Dilip Mandal, and P.W. 4, Akhilesh Kumar, claimed to be witnesses of the occurrence. From the evidence of PW6, Kishori Mandal, it is ascertained that local people came to know about the incident, and they tried to amicably settle the dispute between the prosecutrix and the appellant in a village meeting, but no decision could be arrived at. PW7, Shiv Kumar Ma