2026:JHHC:3664-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 01 of 2021 --------- Sumitra Kumari, aged about 25 years, daughter of Late Ruplal Mahto, resident of Village Satkira Tola, Kalyanpur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Hariharpur, District Dhanbad. ..…Appellant(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Bhola Prasad Mahato, son of Late Narayan Mahato, resident of Satkira Tola, Kalyanpur, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Hariharpur, District Dhanbad. .....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikash Anand, Advocate --------- 09/Dated:-11.02.2026 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant. However, Mr. Vikash Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is present. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.06.2020, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 370 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 3. It has been alleged that the respondent No.2 on the pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with her. When the informant had asked him to marry, the uncle, mother and sister of the respondent No.2, had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from her which could not be arranged by her father and ultimately, the First Information Report was 2026:JHHC:3664-DB 2 lodged. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Hariharpur P.S. Case No.26/2016 was instituted for the offences under Section 376/506 I.P.C. 5. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 370 of 2016. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. The statement of respondent No.2 was recorded on Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence. 7. Based on the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 16.06.2020 passed in S.T. No. 370/2016 had acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charges levelled against him. 8. It appears that the age of the victim was recorded as 21 years and the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of the victim as well as the other witnesses while coming to a conclusion that she was a consenting party to the sexual overtures made by the petitioner and based on the same, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted. 2026:JHHC:3664-DB 3 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the incident is said to have occurred in the year 2013 and as per the evidence of the mother of the victim P.W.-2, it appears that the victim was already married to one Visheshwar Mahato in the year 2012 itself which furthermore dilutes the case of the prosecution. 10. The evidence of none of the witnesses have highlighted what has been alleged by the appellant in the First Information Report with respect to the respondent No.2 establishing physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. In fact, the evidence of the informant, who has been examined as P.W.-4, runs contrary to her initial allegation made in the First Information Report. 11. The learned Trial Court having appropriately considered the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the respondent No.2 from the charges levelled against him. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. 12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) February 11, 2026 Kunal/vikas uploaded 13.02.2026