Juvenile status considered in sentencing under POCSO and SC/ST Acts; bail granted based on procedural deficiencies.

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

16 29-01-2026 I.A. No.03 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.

P.P. for the State.

2. On 11.07.2022, this Court had issued notice to the informant-respondent no.2 and it appears from the order dated 29.11.2022 that the service of notice upon respondent no.2 has been treated as valid. No one has, however, entered appearance on behalf of the informant-respondent no.2.

3. The sole appellant in this case is seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

4. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment judgment and order dated 23.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Begusarai in connection with J.J.C.P. No.10/2018 arising out of Begusarai Mahila P.S. Case No.12 of 2018 and has been ordered to undergo a sentence of 14 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo a sentence of three months simple imprisonment. He has been further sentenced to undergo a sentence of 14 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 (ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo a sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by the father of the victim girl. In his written report submitted on 10.05.2018, the informant has alleged that his daughter (X) aged about 5 years only had gone to take tuition in the house of one Nitu Kumari. On that day, Nitu Kumari was not well so her cousin brother Avinash Kumar (the appellant) said that he will give tuition. It is alleged that while all other children were set a free to go to their house, this victim was asked to stay and thereafter the appellant committed rape on her. She disclosed the occurrence to her mother after reaching home.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for purpose of suspension of sentence and release on bail, he would submit that at the time of the occurrence as alleged, the appellant was a juvenile, his age was adjudged about 16 years, 4 months and 9 days. Thereafter, in course of the preliminary assessment undertaken under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘Act of 2015’), he was assessed and it was decided to send him to face trial as an adult.

Accordingly, he faced trial.

7. It is submitted that the learned trial court has awarded a sentence of 14 years simple imprisonment to the appellant without considering the fact that this appellant was a juvenile and in such circumstance even if his guilt is proved, he should have been awarded the minimum statutory sentence which as per the then existing provision, shall not be less than 7 years. The appellant had already remained in incarceration for 7 years 9 months approximately by now. This appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.

8. Learned counsel has further taken this Court through the materials available on the record. It is submitted that the father of the victim had lodged the FIR on 10.05.2018 on the basis of the information given to him by the mother of the victim girl. The victim has stated the name of several children who had gone with her to take tuition but no one of them has been examined in course of trial.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the victim of this case has been examined as PW-10. Referring to her deposition, learned counsel submits that even as the victim is a child witness, the lea