IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1327 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2022 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ======================================================

Bhuwan Kumar Yadav S/o Late Deep Narayan Yadav @ Deepnarayan Yadav R/o Ghoghanpatti, ward no. 3, P.S. - Saur Bazar, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Santosh Kumar Suman S/o Tarni Prasad Yadav R/o vill - Golma Western ward no. 15, P.S.- Paarghat O.P., Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

6 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Earlier, this Court had issued notice to the informant-respondent no.2, who has appeared through vakalatnama and the name of the learned Advocate is printed in the cause list, but no one has entered appearance.

3. The State has also filed written objection which is on record.

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

Records of this case 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.

5. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 10.09.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 24.09.2024 by learned ADJ-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Saharsa, in Special (POCSO) Case No.25 of 2022 vide CIS No.1426 of 2022 (arising out of Saur Bazar P.S. Case No.131 of 2022), for the offences under Sections 363, 366A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’). He has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC. The appellant has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of the same, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

6. The prosecution case is based on a written information submitted by the father of the victim girl, who has alleged that the appellant had taken away the victim girl, aged about 12 years, with an intention to marry her. About the appellant, he disclosed that he happened to be a teacher in a school and for the last three years, he was giving tuition to the victim and her brother at home.

7. It appears that the police was informed about the occurrence on 13.03.2022 and the F.I.R was registered on the same day. In course of investigation, police is said to have found the victim girl at Madnama More at about 10:30 p.m. when she was found alone.

8. The victim was, thereafter, taken for medical examination to the Sadar Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Neha (PW-8), who found that there was no scratch mark, no external injury was seen on the body, external genitalia was found normal, there was no bleeding, no injury on vulva, vagina and external genitalia, hymen torn, but in her opinion, sexual assault could not be confirmed. She has stated about the age of the victim being below 17 years but in cross-examination, she has stated that accurate test cannot be confirmed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after her recovery, the victim girl was examined by the Investigating Officer (PW-7). PW-7 has stated that the victim had not disclosed the complete description of the place of occurrence