2026:JHHC:14320 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 455 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 455 of 2019 ----- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 and order of sentence, dated 24.01.2019 passed in G.R. (POCSO) Casse No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Anandpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa] Tarkan Kujur, aged about 35 years, son of Late Birsa Kujur, resident of Village- Tiringdhiri, Tola Langra Kocha, P.O. & P.S.- Anandpur, District- West Singhbhum, Chaibasa --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 and order of sentence, dated 24.01.2019 passed in G.R. (POCSO) Case No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Anandpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 6 months under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 354 of the IPC in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging written report by the informant namely Mukut Tigga on 23.08.2018 being Anandpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2018. 2026:JHHC:14320 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 455 of 2019 The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant, who is father of the victim girl, has stated that on 22.08,2018 at around 4 p.m. he went to the market for work. On his return at 7.00 in the evening he came to know from his daughter-victim that on the same day his daughter went for grazing cattles wherein at around 6.30 P.M. the accused – Tarkan Kujur came there and tried to molest her by catching hold of her due to which his daughter fled for home leaving the cattle. However, the accused came to the home also and tried to molest the victim. The victim cried for help to her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) who came to her rescue and some how they managed to lock the accused in the room and informed the villagers. Thereafter, with the help of villagers he caught the accused. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused has earlier also tried to molest the victim and for that information has been given to the Village Munda Kailash Lugun and Mukhia namely Dilbar Khakha. 4. On the basis of the written report, Anandpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 dated 23.08.2018 was registered under Section 354 of the IPC against the accused. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSo Act. 5. The charge was framed on 24.11.2028 against the accused under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, which was read over the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether seven prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1(Victim) – She has supported the prosecution case. She has stated that the incident occurred at 6.30 P.M. Her father had gone to the market at the time of incident and when he returned from the marked around 7.00 P.M., she informed him about the incident. In her cross examination she has stated that she has known the accused prior to this 2026:JHHC:14320 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 455 of 2019 incident, who is her uncle by virtue of village ties. She also stated that the accused came to her house 5-10 minutes after she reached her house. She has stated that she has sustained injury and on raising hulla, her sister-in-law( Bhabhi), who was in nearby kitchen, came to her rescue and locked the appellant in the room and in the morning the accused was handed over to the Police. Thus, as per the victim P.W.3 i.e., her ‘Bhabhi’ is the eye witness. II. P.W.2(Mukut Tigga) – He is the Informant and father of the victim who is a hearsay witness and stated that on being informed he had gone to the Police Station along with Mukhia and other villagers and they have signed upon the F.I.R. but this fact has been denied by the Investigating Officer, who has not supported the above factum and also the factum of panchayati, which has been stated by the witnesses. III. P.W.3(Ashrita Tigga) – She is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi of the Victim). She has also reiterated the allegation made in the F.I.R but in her cross examination she has stated that there was no injury to the victim and further she has not seen anything regarding commission of crime rather she was informed that the accused tried to catch hold the victim. Thus, as per P.W.3, it is merely an attempt to molest. IV. P.W.4(Jaywant Tigga) – He is a hearsay witness. V. P.W.5(Johan Tigga)- He is a hearsay witness. VI. P.W.6 (Manohar Tigga)- He is a hearsay witness. VII. P.W.7 (Binod Prasad Yadav) – He is the investigating officer of the case. He has clearly stated in his cross examination that in the written complaint there was no signature of Manki and Munda. Thus, the statement of P.W.2 gets contradicted. In para 15 of his cross examination, he has stated that he has prepared the arrest memo and he did not see any injury on the body of the victim. 2026:JHHC:14320 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 455 of 2019 7. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as under: I. Exhibit -1 - Written Reports. II. Exhibit-1/1- Endorsement on the written report. III. Exhibit-2 –Formal F.I.R. 8. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that testimonies of the witnesses are contradictory to each other and are full of doubts. It has been further submitted that appellant has remained in custody from 23.08.2018 to 05.08.2019 i.e., approximately 1 year. 10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that there is enough material to convict the appellant and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, as aforesaid. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears from the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.7, that the only material available on record is regarding the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and that he tried to molest the victim. Therefore, at best it is a case of attempt to molest and therefore, his conviction can be at best under Section 511 of the I.P.C. read with Section 354 of the IPC. 12. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2019 passed in G.R. (POCSO) Case No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Anandpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2018 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa convicting the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act is hereby converted into an offence punishable under Section 511read with Section 354 of the IPC 13. Consequently, the order of sentence dated 24.01.2019 is also modified to the extent that upon his conviction under Section 511 r/w Section 354 of the IPC, now the appellant shall undergo the period, 2026:JHHC:14320 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 455 of 2019 which is already undergone by him. 14. With the above modification in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of. 15. Since, the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from his liability of the bail bond. 16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent to the concerned trial court below. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 12th May, 2026 Uploaded ___/____/2026