The conviction under POCSO was overturned due to delays in FIR lodging and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)

10 08-12-2025 Heard Mr. Uday Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 13.07.2022 and sentenced vide order dated 15.07.2022 in connection with POCSO G.R. Case No.11 of 2017, arising out of Aurai P.S. Case No.132 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge ( POCSO Act ), Muzaffarpur for the offence under Section 376 /34, 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). He has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Sections 376 /34, 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

4. As per prosecution story, the daughter of a co-

accused, namely, Lalita Devi came to the house of the informant and told the daughter (victim) of the informant that her mother is calling. It is alleged that the informant was not present in the house at the relevant time and when she came back, she got the knowledge that her daughter had been taken away by the daughter of co-accused Bechan Sahni. When the informant went to the house of the co-accused Bechan Sahani she found Dharmendra Kumar (the appellant) along with wife of Bechan Sahni and five unknown persons also present there. It is further alleged that thereafter her daughter went missing and she suspected that her daughter had been kidnapped for the purpose of rape and murder. The informant has disclosed that her daughter was a minor and only 13 years old.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the evidence available on record, it would be evident that the victim had gone missing from her house on 31.07.2013 at about 07:30 P.M., however, no information with regard to her missing was given to the police. P.W.2, the mother of the victim, who is also the informant of the present case, has deposed that her daughter returned on 2nd of August and she had gone to meet her on 3rd of August, 2013 at her Sasural. She came back with her daughter (victim) to her parent’s house (Maikai) after 5-6 days and thereafter on the next day, she took the victim to the police station. In this regard, it has been pointed out that a suggestion was given to the mother of the victim that she did not take her daughter to the police immediately upon her return and tutored her for the said period, to which this witness has though, denied.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further points out that in this case the FIR has been antedated which would be evident from the fact that though the FIR has been shown to be registered on 02.08.2013 at 09:00 A.M., but from the endorsement made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it would appear that it reached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate only on 05.08.2013.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the tutoring of the victim further finds support from the fact that she kept on deposing falsely that she was a minor. Suggestions were given to the victim with regard to the entries made in the school register with regard to her date of birth and also the date of birth entered in the Aadhaar Card but the victim insisted that such suggestions were not