Sanchayita Lahkar

The Patna High Court Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey dismissed, at the admission stage, a victim’s criminal appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence and addition of a POCSO charge and affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence for kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship. The appeal arose from allegations that the accused took the minor girl away while she was on her way to coaching, after which she remained away from her family for a period before being found. The Court held that a victim cannot maintain a criminal appeal solely on the ground that the sentence awarded is inadequate and clarified that the victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC lies only against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.

The criminal appeal was filed by the victim challenging the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2025 and the order of sentence dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Special POCSO Court, Patna. The trial court had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 366, 366A IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Also Read: NCLT Lacks Power Under IBC Section 60(5)(c) To Decide Trademark Ownership Dispute Without Nexus To Insolvency Proceedings Or Beyond Resolution Plan; Supreme Court

The prosecution case originated from a written complaint lodged by the victim’s mother alleging that her minor daughter, aged about 15 years, left home for coaching on 19.01.2022 and did not return. It was alleged that the accused had taken the minor away. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, medical examination was conducted, and documentary evidence including school records relating to age was collected.

Before the High Court, the victim sought enhancement of sentence under Section 363 IPC and addition of conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused opposed the appeal, contending that material improvements and contradictions existed in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and that allegations beyond kidnapping were not substantiated during investigation or by medical evidence.

The Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and recorded that “several material facts deposed for the first time before the Court were never stated to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.” The Court noted that allegations relating to intoxication, sexual misconduct, threats, confinement and prolonged detention were “clearly an afterthought, unsupported by contemporaneous statements and contradicted by the Investigating Officer.”

Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court recorded that “the appellant/victim herself stated that respondent no. 2 has not committed any wrong with her.” It further observed that the subsequent version given during trial “is inconsistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.”

On the issue of age, the Court noted that “the date of birth of the appellant/victim i.e. 15.09.2006 stands proved on the basis of school certificate and was never disputed by the defence.” The Court held that the victim was a minor on the date of occurrence.

With respect to Section 363 IPC, the Court recorded that “the essential ingredients are fully satisfied as the minor was taken away from lawful guardianship without consent.” However, regarding the POCSO charge, it observed that “there was no material for proving the accusation under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.”

On maintainability, the Court stated that “there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate under Section 372 Cr.P.C.”

Also Read: Executive Officer Deciding Municipal Mutation Proceedings Covered As ‘Judge’ Under Judges (Protection) Act: Patna High Court

The Court recorded that “I find no reason to differ with the findings given by the learned trial court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is hereby affirmed. The present appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant/Victim: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramji Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1724 of 2025

Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey