The court upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC for taking a minor without consent but dismissed charges under POCSO due to insufficient evidence of misconduct.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 20-01-2026

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

2. The name of the appellant/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 respondent no. 2/ 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, respondent no. 2 has to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months and further with a prayer that the sentence under Section 363 of IPC may be enhanced and Section 12 of POCSO Act should be added.

4. As per prosecution case, informant (PW-2) who is mother of appellant/victim, has filed a written statement before SHO, Digha that on 19.01.2022, appellant/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 respondent no. 2 is alleged to have taken away the appellant/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 respondent no. 2 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 respondent no. 2 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 respondent no. 2 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 all together six witnesses. PW-1 appellant/victim, PW-2 mother of appellant (informant), PW-3 father of appellant, PW-4 maternal uncle of appellant, 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 appellant/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 appellant/victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.

8. However, the defence of the respondent no. 2 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 respondent no. 2 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/victim :-

11. The lear