The court upheld the suspension of the appellant's sentence, emphasizing victim's statements and evidential shortcomings in the prosecution case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 appellant.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 28.02.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 28.02.2025 in T.R. No. 05 of 2021, Reg. No. 827/2022 arising out of Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2021 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Samastipur, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 . He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twenty years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of brevity, punishment under other sections are not mentioned.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant’s minor daughter went to a shop to purchase household items on 26.01.2021 at around 04:00 P.M. However, she did not return home that evening, thereafter, the informant along with the other relatives and villagers started searching for her. During their inquiry, they came to know that the victim was last seen with the appellant and the co-accused Arjun Mahto. Thereafter, they went to the appellant’s house to enquire about the whereabouts of the victim, but instead of providing any information, the accused persons assaulted them. It is further alleged that the accused persons kidnapped her daughter.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case from the written information (Exhibit-P/1) it would appear that the informant has stated the age of the victim as 17 years and she has stated that the victim had left her house in the evening of 26.01.2021 to purchase some articles from the shop, but thereafter she had not returned home. The written information had been submitted to the police station at Ujiyarpur only on 16.02.2021, i.e. after 21 days of the occurrence.

6. Learned counsel further submits that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly stated that she was not allured or kidnapped by anyone rather she was in an affair outside her marriage with the appellant and on her own volition she had left her house and went with the appellant to marry with him. She has further stated that she had married with the appellant in Morwa Temple and thereafter, they were living at Muzaffarpur in a rented house. She has accepted her marriage on her own will and volition.

7. Learned counsel further submits that to prove the age of the victim, the prosecution introduced one Sanjay Kumar Sinha (P.W.3), who had deposed with the Admission Register of the School at the instance of the District Education Officer. He has stated that he is the Principal of the said school and in the Register at Serial No.79 for the Academic Session 2012-13, the name of the victim is mentioned with her date of birth as ‘15.05.2004’, but he has clearly stated that there is no mention that on what basis the admission of the victim had been done. In the Admission Register, the entries have been made in the pen of the former Principal Bela Kumari, but she has already died. It is thus submitted that the basis of the entries made in the Admission Register has not been proved by the prosecution, further the medical examination report disclosed the age of the victim between 17 and half 18 years.

8. The appellant in this case was 29 years old, both of them have married and have got two children out of the said marriage.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has not opposed the prayer of the appellant for s