2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 347 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.89/2003, arising out of Jaldega P.S Case No. 26/2003, corresponding to G.R No.214/2003] Meraj Ansari, Son of Akhtar Ansari, Resident of Konmeral, P.S.- Jaldega, District- Simdega …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, A.P.P. Dated: 11th November, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.89/2003, arising out of Jaldega P.S Case No. 26/2003, corresponding to G.R No.214/2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and further, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 366-A I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Jaldega P.S. Case No. 26 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.214/2003, against the appellant for the offence under Section 366-A I.P.C. 4. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on 01st August, 2003, the victim girl had gone to Konmeral Market at around 03:00 P.M., the appellant, namely, Meraj Ansari, allegedly kidnapped her from 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 there. The informant, namely, Krishna Sahu, who is the uncle of the victim girl, lodged a written report at the Police Station. In his report, he has alleged that the appellant had abducted his niece with the intent to marry her. 5. Earlier, F.I.R. has been registered under Section 366-A IPC, but subsequently, Section 376 IPC has been added after investigation. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC. The case has been committed to the Court of Session and a charge has been framed u/s 366- A & 376 IPC. Accordingly, he has faced the trial and upon conclusion of the same, the appellant has been convicted under Section 366-A as well as under Section 376 of the IPC. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether nine witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Dr. Olampia Kerketta, P.W.2 Dashrath Sahu, P.W.3 Lalit Kumar Sahu, P.W.4 Laldhari Sahu, P.W.5 Bharti Kumari, P.W.6 Dohal Sahu, P.W.7 Mamta Kumari, P.W.8 Krishna Sahu and P.W.9 Shashi Bhushan Das (I.O). 7. P.W.-1 is the Dr. Olampia Kerketta, who has examined the victim girl on 06.08.2003. She has stated that no corroborative material was found during examination so far as the factum of rape is concerned. Rather, she has opined that the age of the victim was around 15 to 16 years. 8. P.W.-2 Dashrath Sahu is a witness to the recovery of the girl from the forest area. P.W-2 & P.W-3, both have moved on a motorcycle for searching the missing girl, and they are witnesses to the recovery of the victim, except recovery, their evidence is not much more. 9. P.W-4 Laldhari Sahu and P.W-8, Krishna Sahu, both are also witnesses of recovery, but P.W-4 and P.W-8 have not stated anything about the presence of P.W-2 and P.W-3. However, P.W-2 and P.W-3 have also not stated anything about the presence of P.W-4 and P.W-8. 10. P.W.9 Shashi Bhusan Das, who is the Investigating Officer of this case and he has stated that he apprehended the accused and the victim girl in a jungle. His evidence is only relevant to the extent that the victim and the 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 appellant have been recovered from the forest area. In his cross-examination, nothing has been extracted worth consideration. 11. P.W.5 Bharti Kumari is the younger sister of the victim. She has stated that on 01.08.03, she went to the market along with the victim girl to sell Bhunja etc. The victim girl asked her to sit there and has gone after handing over the shop. The victim has not returned and as such, she has informed to her father and thereafter, they have tried to locate the victim and subsequently, she has been recovered by the police. 12. P.W.-6 Dohal Sahu, who is the father of the victim. He has stated that he has tried to locate her daughter and subsequently, she has been recovered by the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware regarding the age of the victim. 13. P.W.7 is the victim herself, and she has supported the allegation, but there is some discrepancy so far as timing is concerned. The victim has stated that her date of birth is 01.08.1989 and she had not stated with regard to raising Hullah. Although, she has admitted that she had travelled with the appellant and resided in different places. 14. The defence has altogether brought two witnesses:- 15. D.W-1 namely, Junas Bage, who has stated that the accused and victim girl had visited his house and after taking breakfast, the victim girl had gone to the river to take a bath. The victim girl and the accused went to take bath and left his house. The victim has not raised any alarm; rather, she went to alone to take a bath in the river. There was no suspicion, so far as the presence of both the persons are concerned. 16. D.W.-2 namely, Devcharan Manjhi is also witness to the effect that both parties were known to each other. 17. Further, one exhibit has been produced, which is marked as Exhibit-A, suggesting that the victim is a voter in 71, Kolebera (Schedule Tribe) voter list of the year 2005 at Item No.137, where her age has been mentioned as 20 years. This age has been shown to be on 01.01.2005, suggesting that at the time of alleged crime, she was aged about more than 18 years. 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 18. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2005 and it has been submitted that so far as the conviction under Section 366-A IPC is concerned, the basic ingredients that she has been kidnapped for another person is sine qua non. Section 366-A IPC reads as under: “366A. Procuration of minor girl.-Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. Since the entire allegation is not regarding kidnapping for another person and as such, the conviction for the offence under Section 366-A is bad in law. So far as the conviction for the offence under Section 376 is concerned, it is based upon the age as well as consent. 20. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far as the age of the victim is concerned, there are three materials available on record:- (i) The statement of the victim of girl stating that her date of birth is 01.08.1989. (ii) The Medical Evidence suggests that at the time of occurrence, her age was about 15 to 16 years. (iii) Voter-list suggests that she was more than 18 years at the time of incident. 21. By referring to the above incident, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that if there is documentary evidence available on record, then the document will prevail over the oral evidence. The oral evidence is available only in case, if there is no documentary evidence is available. Further, it has been submitted that the presence of her name in voter list may not be a good proof, so far as date of birth is concerned, but certainly it is a proof that she is more than 18 years to acquire the status of voter. 22. Reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant in the case of Yogendra Saw & Ors. vrs. State of Jharkhand in Cr. 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 Revision No. 576 of 2017 with analogous case passed on 26.04.2019 by this Court. 23. It has been submitted by the learned counsel by referring to the above judgment that once documentary evidence is available which gets corroboration by the medical evidence, then the documentary evidence shall be treated as reliable. Further, it has been submitted that the victim was more than 18 years at the time of commission of crime as per the voter list and as per the medical assessment, her age was around 15 to 16 years. 24. It is also settled law that assessment by the doctor has to be in the range of ±2, and in such a scenario, the benefit has to be extended in favour of the accused. Now, in the present case, the documentary evidence gets corroborated by the medical evidence, and as such, her age was more than 18 years. The Court below has wrongly relied upon the oral testimony of the victim girl, especially in view of the fact that her age was not supported by her father (P.W-6). 25. In view of the above submission, it has been submitted that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the victim, in question, was below the 18 years is not proper, rather it is contrary to the evidence available on record and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court so far as the assessment of age is concerned. 26. So far as sexual relations without the consent of the girl are concerned, it has been submitted that:- (i) There is no evidence on record suggesting that he has indulged in sexual activity, save and except the statement of the victim girl. (ii) There is no corroboration by the medical evidence. (iii) The victim has been admitted that they were known to each other and they have travelled to such a distance and has residing in another place without raising any alarm. (iv) Such a long movement and even the statement of the I.O. suggests that she was with the accused with her own will not under confinement. 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 27. On the above material available on record, it has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that it was without consent cannot be inferred rather it was without consent onus lies upon the prosecution. In the present case, no such material has been brought on record except the bald statement of the victim girl, which does not get corroborated from her own behaviour while recovery has been affected by the police itself. Further, she has travelled and resided in a different house in another village, but her conduct does not suggest that she was under pressure. 28. Thus, the prosecution has completely failed to bring on record sufficient material suggesting that the sexual intercourse has been established without her consent and onus lies upon the prosecution prior to the amendment made under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act. 29. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the convictions under the above Sections are bad in law which requires interference by this Court. 30. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and it has been submitted that the girl in question is a minor and she has been taken against her will, and as such, Section 366-A I.P.C gets attracted. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the victim girl has stated that the date of birth is 01.08.1989 and this fact is corroborated by the medical evidence. She has stated that the force has been applied, and without her consent sexual relationship has been established. Thus, the ingredients for conviction under both the Sections are available as sufficient evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. 31. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- (i) So far as Section 366-A is concerned, the prosecution's story itself suggests that it was not for another person and as such, a conviction under Section 366-A cannot be sustained as because the basic ingredients are lacking, and accordingly, conviction under Section 366-A is hereby set aside. 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 (ii) So far age of the victim girl is concerned, there is a documentary evidence which is public document, suggesting that she was more than 18 years and she has acquired the status of voter and accordingly, her name get entered into the voter list (Ext.-A) which gets corroboration by the medical evidence, keeping in view, the principle of ±2 and as such, the assessment of the age by the Court below is not proper. Rather, it is against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as argued by the learned senior counsel and the judgment passed in Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2017 with analogous case (supra) and accordingly, finding recorded by the trial court is also hereby set-aside, so far as age is concerned, holding that the victim was more than 18 years at the time of alleged incident. (iii) So far as against her will is concerned, the burden lies upon the prosecution. In the present case, prosecution has tried to proof the case on the basis of statement of the victim girl and her statement after recovery before the P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, but the evidence brought on record clearly suggests that she out of her will for getting relieved herself, after handing over charge of shop to the younger sister and thereafter, she has travelled and resided in a different places and this activity clearly suggests that it can be only voluntary. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W-9) at the time of recovery that there was no sign that she was under coercion. 32. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the absence of consent which is the duty of the prosecution. 33. In view of the above discussion, the ingredient of Section 366-A and Section 376 IPC is also lacking and as such, the conviction under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC is hereby set aside. 34. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 35. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 2025:JHHC:33815 Page | 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 347 of 2005 36. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 11thNovember, 2025 Simran/Raja-