The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for kidnapping a minor girl, refusing to enhance his sentence or add charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court ruled that while the girl was indeed taken away without her parents’ consent, the prosecution failed to prove allegations of sexual assault or misuse under POCSO.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey in a criminal appeal filed by the victim seeking stricter punishment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident dated 19 January 2022, when a 15-year-old girl from Patna left home for coaching and did not return. Her mother lodged a police complaint stating that Jitendra Kumar @ Kunkun had taken her daughter away without consent.
Based on the complaint, Digha Police Station Case No. 39 of 2022 was registered under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC, along with provisions of the POCSO Act. After investigation, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting him of POCSO charges.
The victim later approached the High Court seeking:
- Enhancement of sentence
- Conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act
What the Court Examined
The High Court closely examined:
- Statements of the victim, her parents, and other witnesses
- Medical and forensic reports
- Statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC
- Evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer
The court noted significant contradictions between the victim’s court testimony and her earlier statement before the magistrate.
“The prosecution witnesses made several improvements during trial which were not part of the original investigation,” the court observed.
Key Observations by the Court
1. Minor Was Taken Without Consent
The court held that:
- The girl was a minor at the time of incident (15 years old)
- Her school certificate conclusively proved age
- She was taken away without parental consent
This fulfilled the legal ingredients of Section 363 IPC.
2. No Proof of Sexual Offence
The court relied heavily on:
- Medical examination showing no injuries
- Absence of semen or signs of sexual assault
- Victim’s own statement under Section 164 CrPC denying sexual abuse
“The medical evidence does not support the allegation of sexual assault,” the bench noted.
3. Contradictions in Testimonies
The court found that:
- Claims of intoxication, assault, confinement, and threats were not mentioned during investigation
- These allegations surfaced only during trial
- The Investigating Officer confirmed these facts were never stated earlier
The court termed these as material improvements, weakening the prosecution’s case under POCSO.
Why POCSO Charges Were Rejected
The High Court clearly stated that:
- Section 12 of POCSO requires proof of sexual intent or misconduct
- The victim herself had denied any sexual act in her earliest statement
- Medical evidence did not support allegations of abuse
Hence, POCSO provisions were rightly not applied, the court held.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court ruled that:
- The conviction under Section 363 IPC is valid
- The four-year sentence is appropriate
- No legal ground exists to enhance punishment
- The victim cannot seek sentence enhancement under Section 372 CrPC
- No offence under POCSO is made out
“There is no legal infirmity in the trial court’s judgment. The appeal lacks merit,” the bench concluded.
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed in full.
Case Title: X vs State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1724 of 2025
Decision Date: 20 January 2026
