( 2026:JHHC:21388-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (D.B.) No.61 of 2025 ----- Victim ----- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ----- Respondents ------ CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : None ------- 08/ 14 .07.2026 Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 44 of 2021 by Shri Vishal Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III cum Special Judge POCSO Act, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder the accused / respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint petition lodged by the victim in which it has been stated that the victim and accused persons used to reside at the same place. It has been alleged that in the year 2017, the accused No. 1 (respondent no.2 herein) had for 2 years established physical relation with the victim on the pretext of marriage as a result of which the victim became pregnant. On 18.09.2019 a Panchayat was convened wherein the Panches had taken a decision that the accused No. 1 will solemnize marriage with the victim and shall keep her with full dignity and honour. Adhering to the directions of the Panchayat, the accused No.1 solemnized marriage with the victim on 25.09.2019 in a temple. The father of the victim had given an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and daily use appliances and jewellery worth Rs.1,50,000/- and had given Bidai to his daughter. It has 2 2 been alleged that the victim was kept properly for 2 days, after which on 28.09.2019 the victim was subjected to assault and the accused persons had forcibly taken her to a physician where abortion was done. The victim was not in a healthy state after the abortion and after she steadily recovered she was tortured and abused by the accused persons. A demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made from the victim by the accused persons which was communicated by her to her father who after selling a land had handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the accused No.1. The accused persons had variously committed torture upon the victim and the brother-in-law and father-in-law had repeatedly tried to commit rape upon her. A complaint was made by the victim to Barkatha P.S. on 03.10.2019 and on being noticed the accused persons had come and the matter was settled, consequent to which the victim was taken to her matrimonial house where she was once again subjected to assault. She had again made a complaint to the police station and when the accused persons appeared, they had flatly refused to keep the victim and since then the victim is staying at her father's place. On 05.11.2020 the accused persons threatened the victim of eliminating her. The complaint petition was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of a case pursuant to which Barkatha P.S. Case No. 08 of the 2021 was instituted under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 354, 120B and 313 IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 Nunu Naik is the neighbor of the informant who has stated that there was a love affair between the victim and the accused form prior to 2019. This information came to the knowledge of the parents of the victim after which a Panchayati was held. On 25.09.2019 the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the accused in a temple. After keeping the 3 3 victim properly for 2-3 days, the accused and his family members had forcibly got an abortion done in Birendra Clinic. After the abortion was done, the victim was brought to her matrimonial house, but since there was no cordial atmosphere in her matrimonial house, the parents of the victim had taken her to their home. The accused had thereafter brought the victim to his house. In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of marriage, the age of the accused was 20 years. It was the victim who had disclosed to him about her love affair with the accused. He was not present when the abortion had taken place. He cannot say the name of the bank whose cheque was given to the accused. 6. P.W.2 is the grandfather of the victim who has stated that he had come to know about the incident on 17.09.2019 when the victim was already carrying a pregnancy. He has stated that on 18.09.2019 a meeting of the society to which he belongs was held and it was decided to get the marriage of the victim solemnized with the accused. The marriage took place on 25.09.2019 in a temple and the accused was given Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry. On 28.09.2019 the victim was taken to a hospital where medicine was administered and the fetus was aborted. The victim was thereafter subjected to assault and was ousted from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present in the clinic when the fetus was purported to be aborted. He does not have any personal knowledge about the incident. He had read the Panchayati document and had also signed on the same. 7. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim who has stated that on 17.09.2019 she had asked her daughter to prepare food at which her daughter had replied that she is having a pain in her abdomen. She was taken to a doctor who found her to be pregnant. On being asked her daughter had disclosed that the accused had made physical relationship with her which led her to becoming pregnant. After reaching her village she had disclosed about the incident to Shyam Naik and he had called the accused. The accused and his father came and the accused admitted that he had established physical 4 4 relationship with her daughter. The father of the accused expressed his view that since his son has done a wrong he will keep her daughter. On 25.09.2019 the marriage between her daughter and the accused was solemnized after which her daughter was taken to her matrimonial house. After 2-3 days her daughter was subjected to assault as a result of which she became unconscious and the accused had taken her to the hospital. Later on she had come to know that her daughter was taken to the hospital for the purposes of abortion. In cross-examination she has deposed that nobody from the village had disclosed that prior to Vishwakarma Puja of 2019 they had seen the accused speaking with her daughter. She has deposed that Raj Medical had given a document certifying about the abortion carried out upon her daughter. No examination was carried out with respect to the pregnancy. The incident of abortion was disclosed to her by her daughter. 8. P.W.4 is the father of the victim who has reiterated and supported the prosecution case in his examination in Chief. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not seen the accused talking with his daughter or being seen together in 2 years. No medical prescription was produced to his counsel at the time of preparation of the complaint petition. He does not have any savings from his earnings from driving a vehicle. The villagers also did not disclose about the love affair between his daughter and the accused. He has deposed that the doctor had taken blood samples of his daughter and on test he had concluded that his daughter is pregnant. 9. P.W.5 is the victim who has stated that the accused on the pretext of marriage had sexually exploited her for 2 years as a result of which she had become pregnant. A Panchayati was held in which she was directed to solemnize marriage with the accused. The marriage was solemnized in a temple on 25.09.2019 with the accused. At the time of marriage Rs.2,50,000/- and some home appliances were given and after marriage a further amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given. After 2 days of marriage she was subjected to torture. She was taken to the hospital for 5 5 abortion after which she was once again assaulted and a demand of additional dowry was made. Her husband had fled away from the house and she was also not properly treated by her in-laws. She has proved the photocopy of the complaint petition which has been marked as ‘X’ for identification. The accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- and this demand was met by her father by selling a piece of land. She has stated that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. The medical examination was never conducted. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was never recorded. In cross-examination she has deposed that she cannot say as to at which place and when physical relationship was established with her. She had not disclosed about such relationship to anyone. She does not have any proof that she was pregnant. She does not know where Koushalya Diagnostic Centre is located. She also does not know the name of the doctor. At the time of marriage neither there was a presence of any Brahmin nor the Saptapadi ritual was held. The accused had merely put vermillion on her forehead in a temple. She does not know as to whether she was treated by a doctor on account of the injuries suffered by her due to assault at her matrimonial house. After the marriage she had stayed for one month at her matrimonial house. At the time of marriage she was aged 14 years. 10. P.W.6 Tarun Kumar Mahto was handed over the investigation of Barkatha P.S. Case No.08/2021 on 08.01.2021 after which he had reached the place of occurrence and had recorded the restatement of the informant. There are two places of occurrence; the first is the parent's house of the informant and the second is her matrimonial house where she was said to have been subjected to torture. He had inspected both the places of occurrence. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and had also collected the proof of date of birth of the victim which is 08.04.2004. He had proceeded to Birendra Clinic where the abortion of the victim was to take place, but he could not collect any material in support thereof. He has stated that the victim had refused to record her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. He had submitted charge sheet against the accused while continuing 6 6 investigation against the rest accused persons. He has proved the endorsement of the complaint petition which has been marked as Exhibit P.W.6/P-1. The formal F.I.R has been proved and marked as Exhibit P.W.6/P-2. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not come across any proof in support of the love affair between the victim and the accused. The victim had not disclosed any specific date or place when physical relationship was established with her by the accused. He had not recorded the statement of any of the Panches. He had not got authenticated in the relevant office the proof of birth of the victim. 11. P.W.7 Manoj Kumar Choudhary was the proprietor of Maa Kaushalya Diagnostic Centre in the year 2019. The Diagnostic Centre closed down during the lockdown period. He does not have any qualification for medical and pathological examination of a patient. He does not know as to who had written and issued the receipt dated 17.09.2019 whose original was brought by the injured. In cross-examination he has deposed that the receipt neither has the signature of the patient nor the seal of any doctor. The receipt also does not mention the degree of the doctor. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence. 12. It has been submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has established that the appellant / victim, who was a minor, was subjected to sexual intimacy at the hands of the accused /respondent no. 2 as a result of which she had become pregnant. The witnesses have categorically stated that the fetus was forcibly aborted. It has been submitted that after the marriage was solemnized at the behest of the Panchayat, the appellant was subjected to torture and demand of dowry was also made. There has been a consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses supporting the allegations made by the appellant but the learned trial court has brushed aside such evidence without giving any cogent reasons for the same. 7 7 13. The case of the prosecution commences with the discovery that the appellant / victim was found pregnant and on being confronted she had disclosed about the accused /respondent no. 2 alluring her to enter into a sexual relationship on the pretext of marriage. A Panchayati was summoned which directed both the parties to solemnize marriage which ritual was performed in a temple, but the expectations of a blissful marital life was short lived as after 2-3 days of the marriage the appellant was subjected to torture and her father was forced to shell out an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the in-laws of the appellant by selling a piece of land. 14. The allegations made by the appellant are conceptualized in two parts; the first being the physical relationship established on the pretext of marriage and the second being the victim subjected to torture, demand of dowry and ultimate ouster from her matrimonial house. So far as the first part of the allegation is concerned, the appellant / victim who has been examined as P.W. 5, has made vague assertions against the accused without even specifying a solitary instance regarding the date and place where she was subjected to sexual intimacy. The relationship as per P.W. 5 was in existence for 2 years and it would be inconceivable that the appellant would not even be aware about such details. The falsity of the allegation is further enhanced by the fact that nobody from the village had seen them together or conversing with each other which can be gathered from the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. So far as the forcible abortion of the victim is concerned, it has not been ascertained by the prosecution that such abortion had indeed taken place or not. Different versions have been given by P.W. 3 (mother of the victim) and P.W. 5 (victim) regarding the clinic the victim was taken for abortion. The evidence of the erstwhile owner of Maa Kaushalya Diagnostic Centre who has been examined as P.W. 7 has demolished the fact that the abortion had taken place at his centre. As per P.W. 3 no examination was carried out relating to the pregnancy of the victim. Not a single chit of paper of unblemished nature has been produced by the prosecution in support of the purported abortion of the victim. Even the investigating officer, who has been examined as P.W. 6, has stated that he had not been able to collect any 8 8 evidence in support of the love affair of the victim with the accused /respondent no. 2. 15. So far as the allegation of torture committed upon the victim is concerned, the learned trial court has delved into the question as to whether there was a valid marriage between the victim and the accused and has answered the same in the affirmative. When we consider the demand of dowry made from the side of the accused we have come across the evidence in which it has been stated that the father of the victim had sold a piece of land in order to raise an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- which was given to the accused through cheque. Here again such allegations have not been supported by any documentary proof and even the details of the transaction have not been mapped out by the prosecution. The allegation of assault and torture committed upon the victim after 2-3 days of the marriage does not have the flavour of genuinity on account of the general and blurred nature of the allegations not backed up even by any medical prescriptions validating such assault. 16. In the circumstances denoted above, what can be construed is that the prosecution has apparently failed to prove its case against the accused /respondent no. 2 and the learned trial court, on dissection of the evidence, has noted the glaring inadequacies and ambiguities in the prosecution case while acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. We concur with such finding and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 14th July 2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 20 /07/2026