2026:JHHC:10184 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.35 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – I -cum- Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella - Kharsawan in G.R. Case No.708 of 2016]. --------- Upendra Majhi aged about 27 years S/O Late Mangal Majhi, Resident of village – Kashipur, P.O. & P.S. Nimdih, District – Seraikella - Kharsawan. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P --------- Order No.04/ Dated: 09 th April, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – I -cum- Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella - Kharsawan, in G.R. Case No.708 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354A, 509/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 354-A I.PC., simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 509 IPC and for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, he has been sentenced to - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10184 undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in short, as per the written report of the informant/ victim is that she is the resident of village Kashipur, P.S Nimdih, District Seraikella-Kharswan. On 22.6.16, in the evening, she was alone at her residence. At that time, Upendra Majhi of her village and Birsingh Majhi came and stated in vulgar language. She resisted, then they carried her photo. On the next day, they made xerox copy of her photo and after writing vulgar language, thrown in the village. Thus, the informant prayed for taking suitable legal action against them. On the basis of above written report of the informant, the criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Nimdih P.S Case No. 39/16 dated 03.07.16, registered under Sections 354(a)/509/34 I.P.C and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant and one other accused person. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge under Sections 354A/509/34 of the I.P.C and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act on 30.11.2016 against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10184 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses. Their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, XXXXX, is the victim and informant of the case and she has supported the allegation. She has stated that no family members were present at the time of occurrence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has given her statement to the police on the next date of the incident. 6. P.W.-2, Chandamuni Majhi @ Devi, is the mother of the victim and she has stated in her examination in chief that at the time of occurrence, she was not present at her residence. She came to know about the incident from her daughter/ victim. She is a hearsay witness. 7. P.W.-3, Fulmani Mahato @ Fulmati Mahato, has been declared hostile. 8. P.W.-4, Sarkar Majhi, is the father of the victim. He has stated in his examination in chief that at the time of occurrence, he was not present at the residence. He came to know about the incident from his daughter. He is also a hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the occurrence. 9. P.W.-5, Lakshmi Devi, has been declared hostile. 10. P.W.-6, Yageshwar Soren, is the brother of the victim and he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10184 was not present at the residence. In cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of occurrence, he was serving at Gamharia. 11. P.W.-7, Anil Kumar Yadav, is the Investigating officer of the case and has proved the place of occurrence. 12. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, cross-examination, and the statement of the accused person, has convicted the appellant under Sections 354A, 509/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him as stated above. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the following grounds : (i) It is a case of no evidence, as the alleged photographs with unwarranted words have never been seen by any of the witnesses. (ii) Even the police has not seen such photographs. Neither it has been seized nor it has been produced in the court. (iii) Except P.W.-1, none of the witnesses have stated regarding the allegation of writing inappropriate words on the photographs and throwing the same in the village. In fact, the other witnesses, who are closely related to the victim, have stated that they have not seen such - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10184 photographs with any inappropriate words. Thus, it is a case of no evidence and the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court. 15. On the strength of above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and further, judgment of acquittal has been prayed for. 16. On the other hand, learned Special P.P has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, stating that the victim has supported the allegation and the oral testimony of the victim is enough for conviction. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records, it appears to this Court that :- (a) although there is oral testimony of the victim, which has not been supported by other witnesses and only plausible evidence was the recovery of photographs with inappropriate words, but such photographs were neither seen by any of the witnesses including the investigating officer nor such photographs have been recovered. Thus, it is a case of no evidence. 18. In view of above discussion, Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – I -cum- Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella - Kharsawan, in G.R. Case No.708 of 2016 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019 2026:JHHC:10184 accordingly disposed of. 20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 21. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 09th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026 - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.35 of 2019