2026:JHHC:11278-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No.94 of 2025 ----- State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. and District Sahibganj. ----- Appellant Versus 1. Dharmendra Mandal son of Subol Mandal, resident of village Koyela Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. 2. Subol Mandal, son of Late Haricharan Mandal, resident of village Koyela Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. 3. Kalpana Devi, wife of Subol Mandal, resident of village Koyela Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. 4. Sakinder Mandal @ Sikander Mandal, son of Subol Mandal, resident of village Koyela Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. 5. Banbari Mandal, son of Late Puran Mandal, resident of village Begumpur Mandai, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. 6. Perwej Alam, son of Nasiruddin Sheikh, resident of village Koyela Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj. ----- Respondents ------ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate ------- 05/15.04.2026 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P appearing for the appellant State and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by Sri Birendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj in POCSO Case No.25 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the respondent nos. 1 to 6 in the present appeal have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Laxmi Narayan Mandal in which it has been stated that on 26th May 2020 at 7.00 p.m. he was in his house along with his family 2 members when a co-villager Kalpana Devi on the pretext of some work had taken away the daughter of the informant namely the victim “G” to her house. When after passing of one hour the daughter of the informant did not return, the wife of the informant went in search of her at which Kalpana Devi had disclosed that she had already left for her house. Despite conducting a search in the village, the daughter of the informant could not be located. In the next morning at 5.30 a.m. a search was again conducted at Mardai and on returning one Ravi Mandal had disclosed that about 10 minutes back Dharmendra Mandal and Sakindar Mandal had taken away the daughter of the informant in a motorcycle towards Tinpahar. At this information when the informant and others had gone to the house of Kalpana Devi and made a request to return back his daughter, they were abused and humiliated. It has been alleged that the accused persons had abducted the daughter of the informant and in course of such abduction his daughter had taken away cash and ornaments. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 207 of 2020 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Charge was framed against the accused Dharmendra Mandal under Sections 366A, 379, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and against the rest accused under Sections 366A/34, 379/34, 504/34 IPC and Section 17 POCSO Act which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 Reena Devi has stated that she was at her house in the evening when the mother of victim “G” went in search of her at which Kalpana Devi had told her that she has left for her house. Kalpana Devi had disclosed to the mother of victim “G” that her son has eloped with her and had abused and assaulted her. The victim “G” is her niece. 3 In cross-examination, she has deposed that victim “G” has been married but she stays at her parental house. 6. P.W.2 Ravi Mandal @ Ruby Mandal has stated that on the date of occurrence at 5.30 a.m. he was at Mardai Chowk when he saw the victim “G” going on a motorcycle sandwiched between Dharmendra Mandal and Sakinder Mandal. This information was conveyed by him to the father of victim “G” and Chotu Mandal at 6.30 a.m. At the time of occurrence the age of victim “G” was 14 years. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the marriage of victim “G” has not been solemnized. He does not have any proof regarding the age of victim “G” as 14 years. 7. P.W.3 Chotelal Mandal has stated that Kalpana Devi had taken away his niece to her house and when after some time they went in search of his niece, Kalpana Devi had denied of her presence in the house. Despite making a search, the victim “G” could not be traced out and when they again went to the house of Kalpana Devi, she had disclosed that her son Dharmendra has eloped with victim “G”. At that time, the age of her niece was 15 years. When they were returning on 27th May 2020 from Mardai, Ravi Mandal had disclosed of seeing his niece going on a motorcycle at 5.30 a.m. with Dharmendra Mandal and Sakinder Mandal towards Tinpahar. When they returned and asked Kalpana Devi about the matter, she had abused them. In cross-examination, he has deposed that victim “G” had solemnized marriage with one Kali Mandal about 16 months back. 8. P.W.4 L.N. Mandal is the father of victim “G” and the informant who has stated that he was in his house when Kalpana Devi came and took away his daughter who was aged 14 years at that point of time. When he had sent his wife to the house of Kalpana Devi, she had disclosed that victim “G” has left for her house. Despite making a search for victim “G”, she could not be located and in the night Kalpana Devi had disclosed that her son 4 Dharmendra has eloped with victim “G”. In the next morning, he and the others went to Mardai in search of his daughter and on returning, Ravi Mandal had disclosed that his daughter was taken away on a motorcycle by Dharmendra Mandal and Sakinder Mandal towards Tinpahar. He has stated that he had returned back home after which he gave a written report to the police station. The written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-1/P.W.- 04. On 01.06.2020, the police had informed him that his daughter has been recovered after which he went to the police station and brought her back. His daughter had disclosed that she was abducted by Dharmendra Mandal and Sakinder Mandal on a motorcycle and was kept in the house of Ramji Mandal for five days before she was rescued by the police. She had also disclosed to him that Dharmendra Mandal had forcibly established physical relation with her. On the date of occurrence when he had made a search of the house, he found cash, ornaments and the educational certificates of his daughter missing. In cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no previous enmity between his family and the family of Kalpana Devi. He has solemnized the marriage of his daughter in the year 2021. 9. P.W.5 victim “G” has stated that on 26th May 2020 at 7.00 p.m., her neighbour Kalpana Devi had come to her house and had taken her to her house for writing some notes. As she was writing, she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in Durga Mandir at Mardai. She has stated that Dharmendra Mandal, by pointing a pistol at her, had put vermilion on her forehead. She was kept at night in the house of Banwariya Mandal where Dharmendra Mandal committed rape upon her. In the morning, she was taken to Sakri in the house of the uncle of Dharmendra by Dharmendra Mandal, Satyendra Mandal, Kalpana Devi and Pervej Sheikh. When she had left her house with Kalpana Devi, she had taken away Rs. 1,80,000/- cash, ornaments and educational documents. Kalpana Devi had kept all the articles with her. After staying for 6 days at Sakri, the police 5 had rescued her and brought her to the police station. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate. She had refused to undergo a medical examination. She has proved her 164 Cr.P.C statement which has been marked as Exhibit P-2/P.W.-05. In cross-examination, she has deposed that it is true that there is a land dispute between her family and the family of the accused. She is acquainted with Dharmendra since childhood. 10. P.W.6 Smt. “V” Mandal is the mother of victim “G”, who has reiterated in her examination in-chief what have been stated by P.W.4. In cross-examination, she has deposed that there are 2-3 cases pending between both sides. Kalpana Devi is her sister- in-law in relation. 11. P.W.7 Satish Kumar Soni was posted as a probation ASI at Rajmahal P.S. and on 21st June 2020, he was entrusted with the investigation of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 207 of 2020 by the Officer in-charge of Rajmahal P.S. After taking over the investigation, he had perused the case diary. He had submitted charge sheet against Dharmendra Mandal while keeping the investigation pending against the rest accused persons. In course of investigation, he had got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim. He had obtained the photocopy of the secondary examination registration slip of Jharkhand Academic Council which showed the date of birth of victim “G” as 01.04.2003. On completion of investigation, he had submitted supplementary charge sheet against the other accused persons. In cross-examination, he has deposed that during his investigation, he had recorded the statement of Bhakto Mandal and got the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim recorded. 12. P.W.8 Prakash Ranjan was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Rajmahal P.S and on 29th May 2020, he was handed over the investigation of Rajmahal P.S Case No. 207/20 by the Officer in-charge, Rajmahal P.S. He has proved the formal FIR which has 6 been marked as Exhibit P-3/P.W.-08. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant located at Koyla Bazaar. He had recorded the statement of the victim in which the allegation made by the informant has been supported by her. On account of his transfer, he had handed over the documents pertaining to the investigation to the Officer in-charge of Rajmahal P.S. In cross-examination, he has not been able to state the reasons for the delay in registering the First Information Report. 13. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. 14. The defence has examined two witnesses on its behalf. 15. It has been submitted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P that the learned trial court committed an error in acquitting the respondents despite the allegation of abduction and commission of rape upon victim “G” having been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Reference has been made to the evidence of P.W.5, the victim who has stated about the manner in which she was abducted and kept forcibly in the house of the uncle of Dharmendra Mandal for six days before being rescued by the police and in the meantime, she was subjected to rape by Dharmendra Mandal. 16. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has copiously referred to the evidence of P.W.5 and her 164 Cr.P.C statement while highlighting the contradictions which are apparent in her evidence. It has been submitted that the victim had eloped with Dharmendra Mandal in a pre-planned fashion by taking away cash, jewellery as well as her educational certificates. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 7 18. As per the prosecution case based upon the evidence of the witnesses, the victim “G” was taken to her house by Kalpana Devi after which she was taken away in the next morning by some of the accused persons to the house of the uncle of Dharmendra Mandal and after six days she was rescued from the said house by the police. The witnesses of the prosecution barring the official witnesses are related to the victim and they have stated about the victim being minor but no proof has been produced in support of the same. P.W.7 had obtained a photocopy of the secondary examination registration slip issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council of the victim but the same has not been exhibited by the prosecution. The victim had refused to undergo a medical examination. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. P.W.5 in her evidence has admitted that when Kalpana Devi had come to call her, she had left with her along with Rs 1,80,000/- cash, ornaments and her educational certificates kept at her house and the same points to a different angle other than the angle projected by the prosecution. This would show a pre-planned endeavour on the part of the victim who had collected cash, ornaments and her certificates before eloping with Dharmendra Mandal. Incidentally no recovery of any of the articles taken away by P.W.5 had been made. There is also a considerable delay in lodging of the First Information Report despite the informant having been told by P.W.2 of the victim being taken away on a motorcycle by Dharmendra Mandal and Sakindra Mandal. 19. There being major contradictions and loopholes in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which gives an altogether different dimension to the narrations set out by the prosecution and which has been appropriately considered by the learned trial court, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by Sri Birendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sahibganj in POCSO Case No.25 of 2020 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 8 20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 15.04.2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 18/04/2026