RAM PRASAD BIRHOR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:13567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 345 of 2019
-----
( Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2019 and order of sentence
dated 13.02.2019 passed in POCSO Case No. 16 of 2017 arising out of
Angara P.S. Case No. 119 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 7043 of
2016 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special
Judge, POCSO, Ranchi)

Ram Prasad Birhor, aged about 23 years, son of Late Vishwanath Birhor,
resident of Getalsud Bukki Bolora, P.O. and P.S. Angara, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
…....
For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, 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 dated 07.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2019
passed in POCSO Case No. 16 of 2017 arising out of Angara P.S.
Case No. 119 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 7043 of 2016
by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special
Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 366, 354 of the IPC and Section
8 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3
years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 6
months under Section 366 IPC and further R.I. for 3 years with a fine
of Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 6 months under
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13567
Section 8 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence under Section 354
of the IPC has been passed in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R
being Angara P.S. Case No. 119 of 2016 by the informant namely
Sawan Birhor before the Officer-In-charge, Angara Police Station on
14.12.2024.
The brief story as per the prosecution is that on 08.12.2016 the
minor sister of the informant aged about 12 years had gone to SBI
Gondali Pokhar Branch for withdrawal of money, but on the way the
above-named accused kidnapped her and took her to Patna. It is
further alleged that when the informant had a telephonic conversation
with the accused, the accused has disclosed that the victim had gone
with him out of her own will and she will be returning on 12.12.2016
but when she did not return, the case has been instituted.
4. On the basis of the written report, case was registered as Angara
P.S. Case No. 119 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section
366A of the IPC against the accused – appellant.
5. On the basis of the investigation, the Police has submitted the
chargesheet against the appellant and thereafter cognizance has been
taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
6. Accordingly, the charge under Sections 366 & 354 of the IPC
and Section 8 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 six prosecution
witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

I. P.W.1(Victim) – She has stated that in the month of
December, 2016 at about. 2/2:30 P.M. when she had gone to
Gundali Pokhar Bank then on way the accused forcibly
pulled her on a Auto Rickshaw and taken to Khadgarha Bus
Station and thereafter theymoved to Patna and kept under his
captivity. It is also deposed that while staying at Patna the
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13567
accused person used to keep her at several Brick Kiln and
also molested her. she was medically examined by a lady
doctor and thereafter brought to Court where her statement
was recorded by the Magistrate. She has also stated that her
date of birth as recorded in the School Register is
01.03.2004. During cross examination she has stated that
while boarding the Tempo she did not raise any alarm
because except accused person and driver there was no one
present.
II. P.W.2(Pushpa Devi) – She is the mother of the victim. She
was not cross examined by the defence counsel though
opportunity was provided. The accused person was also
asked to have services of legal aid panel advocate but he
denied, hence under the given circumstances the said
witness was discharged.
III. P.W.3(Sawan Birhor) – He is the informant of the case. He
has stated that on the date of occurrence when her minor
sister aged about 13 years had gone to Bank for withdrawal
of money then on the way the accused person kidnapped her
and taken her to Patna. He has further stated that the
occurrence was narrated to him on telephone by the wife of
Ram Prasad Birhor. He has further deposed that after 3-4
days, the Victim returned home and disclosed the occurrence
to the family members. This witness was not cross-
examined by the defence.
IV. P.W.4(Mamta Devi) – She is the sister-in-law of the victim.
She has supported the case and identified the accused in the
dock.
V. P.W.5(Raghunandan Tiwary )- He is the Investigating
Officer of the case. He has deposed that after getting charge
of investigation of this case, he visited place of occurrence
which is home of the Victim situated at Village Angara,
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13567
Kusum Toli. This witness has further deposed that during
course of investigation he has recorded the statement of
Victim and other witnesses and produced the Victim for
recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is
deposed that after the statement, the Victim was sent for
Medical Examination and after receiving the same and after
examining its contents and being satisfied on each and every
aspect of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against
the accused. During cross examination he has admitted that
he had not recorded statement of witnesses who were
residing near the house of Victim and further the contents of
Medical Examination Report is also not known to him.
VI. P.W.6 (Sweta Lal) – She is the doctor who has
conducted medical examination on the victim on 22
12.2016. She has assessed the age of the victim as 13-14
years and the injury might be due to attempted sexual
assault. During cross examination, she has stated that in
most of the cases ossification test is conclusive proof of the
age estimation.
8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as
under:
I. Exhibit -PW1/A- Signature of the victim over her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
II. Exhibit-2- Endorsement over Written Report dated 14.12.2016
III. Exhibit-3 - Formal F.I.R dated 14.12.2016
IV. Exhibit-4- Medical Report of the victim

V. Exhibit-5 - Statement of the victim recorded under Section 164
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
prosecution has failed to establish the factum of minority of the victim
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13567
because no document whatsoever has been produced in this regard
before the Court. It has been further submitted that the accused has
not been given fair trial since the witnesses have not been cross-
examined. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in
custody for more than two years against the maximum punishment of
three years awarded by the learned Trial Court.
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 appellant has been convicted on the strength of
the statement of the victim girl and taking aid of Section 29 and 30 of
the POCSO Act i.e., presumption.
13. From perusal of the record, it further appears that no legal
assistance has been provided to the accused-appellant, even the
witnesses have not been cross examined i.e., neither the advocate has
examined them nor the learned Trial Court. Thus, it is clear cut case
where fair trial has not been given to the accused.
14. However, in view of above special matrix of the case, since the
statement of the victim, aged about 13-14 years about the incident
appears to be reliable, therefore conviction of the appellant under
Sections of 366 and 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act
is hereby affirmed.
15. So far as the sentencing part is concerned, since the appellant
has already undergone custody for 2 years, 4 month and 17 days, no
useful purpose would be served by again sending the appellant in jail.
Therefore, the sentencing part is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant.
16. With the above modification in the judgment of conviction
dated 07.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2019 passed in
POCSO Case No. 16 of 2017 arising out of Angara P.S. Case No. 119
of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 7043 of 2016 by the learned
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019

2026:JHHC:13567
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special Judge, POCSO,
Ranchi, the criminal appeal is disposed of.
17. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability
of his bail bond.


(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

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


Uploaded

___/____/2026







6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 345 of 2019