The conviction under Section 363 IPC for taking a minor without consent is affirmed, despite inconsistencies in witness statements regarding alleged misconduct.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 20-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The name of the victim has not been disclosed in the present judgment to protect her privacy, prestige and dignity.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 24.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge –VIth cum Special Judge, POCSO Act , Patna in Special Sessions Trial POCSO Case No. 75 of 2022, arising out of Digha P.S. Case No. 39 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the appellant/ Jitendra Kumar @ Kunkun has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 363 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

4. As per prosecution case, informant (PW-2) who is mother of victim, has filed a written statement before SHO, Digha that on 19.01.2022, victim aged about 15 years left the house for coaching at around 9 AM but she did not return home. It is alleged that the appellant is alleged to have taken away the victim who had been residing at the house of informant since two years.

5. On the basis of written statement filed by the informant, Digha P.S. Case No. 39 of 2022 was registered under Sections 363 /366A of the IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 363 , 366(A), 366 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363 , 366(A), 366 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act , 2022. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. PW-1 victim, PW-2 mother of victim(informant), PW-3 father of victim, PW-4 maternal uncle of victim, PW-5 Rajeev Ranjan Kumar (Investigating Officer) and PW-6 Dr. Abhilasha Kumari (doctor).

7. Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record:-

Ext. P-1/PW-1- Signature of victim on statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Ext. P-2/PW-2- Written application submitted before the police

Ext. P-3/PW-5- Registration of case on written application

Ext. P-4/PW-5- Formal FIR

Ext. P-5/PW-5- Memo of arrest

Ext. P-6/PW-5- Charge sheet

Ext. P-7/PW-6- Medical Report

Ext. P-8- Certificate of matric- cum- mark sheet

Ext. P-9- Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.

8. However, the defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.

9. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

10. The following submissions have been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-

11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of victim has been improved from the earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the statement of PW-3 (fath