SONU THAKUR ALIAS SANOJ THAKUR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:13568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 371 of 2019
-----
[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated
04.02.2019 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 16 of 2018 arising out of
Pakartand P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 140 of 2018
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum – Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Simdega]

Sonu Thakur @ Sanoj Thakur, aged about 20 years, son of Sri Devendra
Thakur, Resident of Village- Keunddih, P.O. & P.S.- Pakartanr, District-
Simdega --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
…....
For the Appellant : Mr. Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.

PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

J U D G M E N T

By Court
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P.
representing the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, both dated 04.02.2019 passed in
Special (POCSO) Case No. 16 of 2018 arising out of Pakartand P.S.
Case No. 05 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 140 of 2018 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum – Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Simdega, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and
Sections 4, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but he has been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default
sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 4 of the POCSO Act; R.I.
for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for
3 months under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and R.I. for 3 years with
a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 3 months under
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13568
Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging written
report being Pakartand P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018 by the informant
namely Jorge Dungdung before the Officer-In-charge, Pakartand
Police Station on 10.03.2018.
The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant has
shown apprehension that his victim- daughter, aged about 16 years,
might have been taken from Simdega to Bangalore after enticing her
by the accused Sonu Thakur.
4. Apart from it, earlier also a written application was filed by the
informant before the C.W.C, Simdega with regard to the same
allegation and the written application was forwarded by the Chairman,
CWC, Simdega on 23.02.2018 to the learned Principal Magistrate, J.J.
Board, Simdega who sent it to the Officer-in-charge Pakartanr, Police
Station through the S.P., Simdega for registration of a case. Thereafter
S.P., Simdega directed the officer-in-charge Pakartanr Police Station
to institute a case and on the basis of written application of the
informant on 10.03.2018, as above, Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 05 of
2018 for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366-A of the IPC,
Section 8(3) (4) of the J.J. Act was instituted against the accused and
in course of investigation Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 4,8
and 12 of the POCSO Act were added.
5. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted the
chargesheet under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of the IPC and Sections
4,8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After taking cognizance by this
Court, the case was proceeded for trial.
6. After appearance of the accused, the charge under Sections 363,
376 of the IPC and Section 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was
framed, which was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether nine
prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13568
as follows:
I. P.W.1(Jorge Dungdung) – He is the informant and father of
the victim. He has supported the prosecution story. As per
him the age of the victim is about 16-17 years.
II. P.W.2(Hileria Dungdung) – She is the mother of the
victim. She has also supported the prosecution story. As per
her, the age of her daughter is about 15-16 years.
III. P.W.3(Victim) – She has supported the prosecution case.
She has stated that her date of birth is January 2000 and as
such on completing 18 years of age, she had gone with the
accused on her own will as she has love relation with the
accused and both were ready to marry but her parents were
not ready.

IV. P.W.4(Sushil Tete) – He is a co-villager and also a hearsay
witness. He has not stated anything about the age of the
victim.
V. P.W.5(Anil Kullu )- He is the son-in-law of the informant
and has supported the prosecution story. He has also not
stated anything with regard to the age of the victim.
VI. P.W.6 (Nicolas Dungdung)- He is a co-villager, who has
turned hostile.
VII. P.W.7 (Dr. Bela Francisca Ekka) – She is the medical
officer who has examined the victim and assessed the age of
the victim. Thereafter, a medical board was constituted as
there was a dispute regarding the age of the victim and as
per the medical board signed by three doctors and proved by
P.W.7 herself, the age of the victim has been assessed to be
about 17-18 years.
VIII. P.W.8(Jairam Sardar, Inspector of Police ) – He is the
investigating officer of the case. He has admitted that the
certificate has been given by the school in question, but
neither he has examined the school register nor he has taken
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13568
the statement of the principal of the said school.
IX. P.W.9(Sri S.S. Tirkey) – He is the Judicial Magistrate who
has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164
of the Cr. P.C.
8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as
under:
I. Exhibit -1- Written application .
II. Exhibit-2- Written application to C.W.C.
III. Exhibit-3 – Signature of Heleria Dungdung on police medical
requisition.
IV. Exhibit-3/1- Signature of the victim on police medication
requisition.
V. Exhibit-4 – Signature of victim on the statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C.
VI. Exhibit-5 & 5/1 - Medical examination report and Medical
Board report.
VII. Exhibit -6- F.I.R
VIII. Exhibit 3/2 - Police Medical requisition
IX. Exhibit -7-Age proof of the victim
X. Exhibit -8- Statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidences on record in right
perspective. The testimony of the victim has not been considered as
she has stated that her date of birth is January 2000 and as such, she
was major. Further, the Medical Board has also assessed the age of the
victim to be 17-18 years. It has been submitted that there are lacunae
in the investigation of the Investigating Officer, who has neither
inspected the school register nor enquired from the principal of the
school regarding the veracity of the certificate issued by the School.
The principal of the school has not been examined during trial. Based
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13568
on aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the impugned judgment suffers from infirmity and cannot
sustained in law.
11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that
there are enough materials on record to prove the prosecution case.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, it appears that the prime dispute in the present case is with
regard to the age of the victim because the victim herself has stated
that she was willing to go with the boy i.e., the accused and they were
in love and that has been objected by the parents. It further appears
that the girl in question had taken admission in the school on
07.05.2016 disclosing her age as 13.01.2002. Thus, prima facie it
appears to be highly improbable, especially, in view of the fact that
neither the school register has been scrutinized nor the principal of the
school has been examined and further no investigation has been made
by the investigating officer.
13. Thus, so far as the age is concerned, the only reliable evidence
available is the report of the Medical Board which suggests the age of
the victim to be between 17-18 years and this has been corroborated
by the victim herself disclosing her date of birth as January 2000 and
it appears that on completion of 18 years they had decided to marry as
they belong to different religion and as such objection was raised by
the parents.
14. The learned Trial Court has taken the lower side of the medical
assessment of the age of the victim, which is not acceptable. In such a
scenario, the upper side has to be taken, especially when the age is
supported by the victim herself.
15. In the present case the age has been disclosed differently by the
mother and father. The school certificate also suggests manipulation
and the girl has shown her willingness to get married with the
appellant. Thus, both the parties are major and from the discussion
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13568
made herein above, it is clear that the victim girl has attained majority
and she has every right to select a partner as per her choice.
16. Thus, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant is
bad in law based on assessment of age made by the Medical Board.
17. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, both dated 04.02.2019 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.
16 of 2018 arising out of Pakartand P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018
corresponding to G.R. No. 140 of 2018 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I cum – Special Judge (POCSO Act), Simdega is
hereby quashed and set aside.
18. The present criminal appeal is allowed and accordingly
disposed of. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of the bail bond.
19. Let the Trial Court Record be sent to the Court below.


(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

A. Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
th
Dated 6 May, 2026


Uploaded

___/____/2026







6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 371 of 2019