Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 02 of 2024 Surendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ganesh Datta Singh, R/o House No. 828, Sector-3D, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro. ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anil Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Braj Kishore Mishra, R/o Mouza- Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S.- B.S. City, Dist. Bokaro. … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. For the Resp. no. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. ---- Dated : 18 /06 /2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-11-2023 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bokaro in Special POCSO Case No. 05/2023, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of the informant/appellant herein in which it has been stated that the daughter of the informant aged 6 years studies at Class 2 in Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir. It has been alleged that for the last Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 2 03 weeks, the respondent no. 2 who is a computer teacher in the said School was sexually abusing the daughter of the informant and had also issued threats that if she makes any complaints to her parents, he will ensure that she fails in the computer subject. On 02-08-2022, the daughter of the informant came back to her house from School and complained that the respondent no. 2 had repeatedly pressed her breasts which has caused pain to her. The informant had made a complaint to the Principal of the School regarding the immoral act of the respondent no. 2 but no action was taken and instead the Principal was trying to shield the respondent no. 2. On 02-08-2022, the son of the respondent no. 2 had abused the wife of the informant on her mobile. Based on the aforesaid allegations, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 170/2022 was instituted under Section 354 B/504/506 IPC and Section 8/10 of POCSO Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted after which cognizance was taken for the offences under Section 354B, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of POCSO Act. Charge was framed under Section 354, 354B IPC and Section 10 and 12 of POCSO Act which was subsequently altered to Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case: P.W.1 is the victim who has stated that for the last 15-20 days, the respondent no.2 had misbehaved with her as whenever she had gone to attend the computer classes, he used to make her sit on his lap and press her breasts and also inappropriately touched her body. She has stated that one day she had gone to the washroom where the accused followed her and opened her pant as well as his pant and touched her private parts with his penis and when she started crying, the accused had threatened Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 3 her of locking her in a room. This act was once again repeated, the only difference being the respondent no. 2 trying to push a pen in her private part. On 2nd August, while she had gone to the washroom, the respondent no. 2 had come and started pressing her breasts. Her statement was recorded in Court. She has proved her signature in her statement which has been marked as Exhibit-1. She has also proved her signature in the document for recording her statement and in the requisition for her medical examination which have been marked as Exhibit-3 and 4 respectively. Her signature in the Jimmanama has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. In cross-examination, she has deposed that there were several students who attended computer classes. The door of the computer lab is open. She had not disclosed about the incident to either the Class Teacher or the Principal. She had also not disclosed about the incident to any of her friends. P.W.2 Surendra Prasad Singh is the informant and father of the victim who has stated that on 02-08-2022 when he returned from the plant to his house at 03:00PM, his wife had disclosed about the sexual assault committed by the accused upon his daughter for the last 20 days. On the next day, he had asked the victim to disclose about the various instances of sexual harassment committed by the accused after which he called up the Principal of the School and finally, he had submitted a written report to B.S. City Police Station. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-6. He has also proved his signature on the Jimmanama which has been marked as Exhibit- 4/1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that neither on 02-08-2022 nor thereafter he had got treated the victim by a doctor. P.W.3 Nitu Devi is the mother of the victim who has stated Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 4 that the victim had returned from her school at 02:00PM on 02- 08-2022 and she was looking scared. When the victim was confronted by her, she disclosed that when she had gone to the washroom in the school, the accused had accosted her and had pressed her breasts. The victim had also disclosed that for the last 15-20 days, the accused was regularly harassing her sexually. She has also stated about the various instances depicted by the victim pointing towards the molestation of the victim at the hands of the accused. She had informed about the incident to the Principal of the School who later on came to her house along with another teacher and two others and after undressing the victim, the Class Teacher as well as the wife of the Principal found the occurrence to be true. She has proved her signature in the requisition slip for medical examination of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. She has also proved her signature in the Jimmanama which has been marked as Exhibit-4/2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that prior to 02-08- 2022, the victim had not disclosed about the incidents to her. She had not taken the victim to any doctor for treatment of the pain in her breasts. P.W.4 Abhishek Kumar is the brother of the victim who has stated that on 02-08-2022, he had gone to the school of the victim and brought her home after her classes were over. At the time of changing of dress, the victim had complained of pain in her breasts and when his mother enquired, the victim had stated that the accused had molested her in the computer lab. The victim had disclosed that for the last 15-20 days, the accused is subjecting her to sexual harassment. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is giving his evidence based on what has been stated by his mother and the victim. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 5 P.W.5 Veena Singh is a teacher in Saraswati Vidya Mandir where she is working for 13 years and she has stated that on 02-08-2022, the Principal had called her and informed her about the respondent no. 2 molesting the victim at which she had gone to the house of the victim along with the Principal of the School. The victim and her mother had disclosed about the sexual harassment committed by the respondent no. 2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that in 13 years in the school, she had not heard about any complaints made against the respondent no. 2 by any lady teacher or staff or an outsider. She had not received any complaint from the victim on 02-08-2022. The victim had never disclosed about any of the incidents to her. Not a single student in her class had made any complaint to her. She had not found the victim frightened or traumatized either on 02-08-2022 or prior to the said date. P.W.6 Ran Suman is the Principal of Saraswati Vidya Mandir who has stated that on 02-08-2022, the brother of the victim had called him and informed him about the immoral conduct of the respondent no. 2 upon his sister. He also had a conversation with the mother of the victim which he informed to a teacher Veena Singh and thereafter he, Veena Singh and the husband of Veena Singh went to the house of the victim and heard in details about the incident. The respondent no. 2 was suspended from service and an enquiry committee was constituted. At the time of the incident, no CCTV camera was installed in the school premises. In cross-examination, he has deposed that in the school, the male teachers are allowed to wear only Kurta Payjama. He visits each of the classroom twice a day, but the victim had never made any complaint to him. In the computer lab, sitting arrangements are made for 40-45 students. There is no cabin in the computer lab. There was never any complaint made against Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 6 the accused. In the report of the enquiry committee, the accused was exonerated. P.W.7 Minakshi Kumari was posted as a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Bokaro and on 05-08-2022, she had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim. She has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. P.W.8 Dr. Sobha Sinha was posted as a Medical Officer and on 04-08-2022 she had conducted medical examination of the victim and had found the following: “ Height- 3 feet 2 inch. Weight- 29 kg. Teeth- Upper (13) and lower (13) I/M- 1. A til on left breast. 2. A til on forehead. Axillary hair not developed. Pubic hair not developed. Both breast appears slightly enlarged according to her age. Victim is afraid and looking stressed. Her mother didn’t give permission for vaginal swab collection. No foreign body present in and around genitalia. No physical injury seen in and around genitalia and on any other part of body. The medical report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3/2. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not found any signs, marks or injury on the private part of the victim. P.W.9 Raj Kumar Rana was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in B.S. City P.S. and on 03-08-2022, based on the written report of the informant, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 170/2022 was instituted and the investigation was handed over to him. He has proved the endorsement in the First Information Report as well Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 7 as the formal FIR which have been marked as Exhibit- 6/1 and 7 respectively. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statement of Abhishek Kumar Singh. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is Room No. 31 used as a computer lab. On 04-08-2022, he had got the medical examination of the victim done. He had recorded the statement of other witnesses. He has proved his signature on the medical examination of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit- 3/3. The application for recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and his signature over it has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2/1. He has proved his signature on the Jimmanama which has been marked as Exhibit- 4/3. On 07-08-2022, he had recorded the statement of the victim. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, he has deposed that in course of investigation he had perused the service record of the accused and he had not found any complaint made against the accused by any female teacher, girl student or staff. He had questioned the students in the class but none had supported the allegations made against the accused. The witnesses Nandini Kumari and Khushi Kumari who were class 10 students denied of any complaint having been made against the accused. Except the victim, none had made any complaints to him against the accused. He has deposed that only the victim and her family members had supported the occurrence. 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him. 6. The defence has examined five witnesses in support of its case: D.W.1 Indu Kumari Pandey is a teacher of Hindi in Saraswati Vidya Mandir and she has stated that during her Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 8 service tenure neither any lady teacher nor any female student have made any complaint against the accused. In the School, the classrooms and the washrooms are situated in such a manner that no such incident as alleged would have occurred without everyone knowing about the same. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the mother of the victim used to sometimes come to the school and demanded change in the sitting arrangement of the victim in the class. D.W.2 Santosh Kumar Sinha is a teacher of Computer Science in Saraswati Vidya Mandir who has stated that no male teacher is permitted to come to school wearing shirt and trouser. There is no cabin in the computer lab. From July 2022 to August 2022, no untoward incident had occurred with any student in the computer lab. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is working in the school as a teacher since 1998. D.W.3 Muskan is a student of class 8 who has stated that she had never seen the accused misbehaving with any girl student. D.W.4 Manoj Kumar Singh is working in Bokaro steel plant since 1991. He knows the informant and the workers does not rate him as a good person. He had stopped mixing with the informant and later on he had come to know that the informant has solemnized a second marriage. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the informant had never demanded any money from him. D.W.5 Raj Kumar Singh is a member of the managing committee which runs Saraswati Vidya Mandir and he was heading the enquiry committee to look into the charges against the accused. The enquiry committee came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused were false and fabricated. The signature of the enquiry committee members on Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 9 the enquiry report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- D-1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the report does not contain the statements of the victims. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 has not been appropriately considered by the learned trial court. The victim who has been examined as P.W.1 has clearly stated the manner in which she was sexually exploited and harassed by the respondent no.2 continuously and the different instances depicted by her have been brushed aside by the learned trial court. In a case of this nature, the evidence of the victim gains paramount importance and such evidence finds corroboration from what has been stated by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and merely because these witnesses are related to P.W.1, the same cannot be a ground for overlooking such evidence. 8. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that not a single independent witness has come forward to support the allegations levelled against the respondent no.2. Pursuant to the complaint made, an in-house enquiry committee was constituted which gave a clean chit to the respondent no.2. It has been submitted that the location of the computer lab is such that any untoward incident could not have been possible without the others knowing about the same. There has also been an inordinate delay in lodging the case and the silence of the victim for three weeks despite being sexually assaulted indicates the falsity of the allegations levelled against the respondent no.2. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 10. The victim (P.W.1) is aged 06 years and when she complained to her mother (P.W.3) on 02-08-2022 about the pain in her breasts, P.W.3 enquired about it and it came to light that Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 10 the respondent no.2 was sexually assaulting her for the last 15- 20 days in school, both in the computer lab as well as in the washroom. As soon as the incident was reported to the Principal of the School, the respondent no.2 was suspended and an in- house enquiry committee was constituted to look into the allegations. The enquiry committee had submitted its report exonerating the respondent no.2 from the charges levelled against him. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 as well as some defence witnesses that the service record of the respondent no. 2 reveals an impeccable conduct and never had any complaint been made by any female teacher or girl student touching upon the character of respondent no.2. Though the prosecution has failed to adduce any children of the school as witness, but P.W.9 (I.O.) has deposed that two of the students of the school studying in Class 10, namely, Nandini Kumari and Khushi Kumari had stated before him that there has been no complaint made against the respondent no.2. In fact, a similar version has been given by a student, namely Muskan, who has been examined as D.W.3. 11. In the backdrop of the allegations made by P.W.1, the place of occurrence assumes considerable significance. P.W.6, who is the Principal of the School, has stated that in the computer lab, sitting arrangements have been made of 40-45 students and there is no cabin in the lab. The alignment of the computer lab as depicted by P.W.6 would make it an impossibility for a perpetrator of sexual abuse to execute his evil designs without the others coming to know of the same. It also appears to be improbable and far-fetched that despite being sexually harassed on so many occasions, the victim did not disclose or made any complaint to the class teacher or Principal and she did not even confide about such acts to her friends. Even P.W.9 (I.O.) has admitted that except the victim and her family members, none Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:17909-DB ACQ. APP. (DB) NO. 02 OF 2024 11 have supported the allegations. When the victim had complained of pain in her breasts, the natural reaction would be to get her immediately treated but P.W.2 and P.W.3, the parents of the victim, have stated that they had not taken the victim to a doctor for treatment. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have not been given an iota of credence by the evidence of the other witnesses and the major contradictions pointed out by us have also been appropriately considered by the learned trial court and there being nothing of substance to come to a different conclusion, we dismiss this appeal. 12. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Dated: 18th June, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 20 /06 /2026.