Jharkhand High Court
Acq. App./4/2024 of VICTIM Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 31 August 2026
Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:26136-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 4 of 2024 --- Victim … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Afzal … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:26136-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 4 of 2024
---
Victim
…
…
Appellant
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Afzal
… … Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
For the Appellant : Md. Faruque Ansari & Ms. Shabana Perween, Advocate
For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
For the Respondent no. 2: Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate
---
7/31.08.2026 Heard Mr. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Abhinav Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Exclusive (POCSO) Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 55 of 2023 arising out of Mango P. S. Case No. 15 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the respondent no 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
It has been alleged that the respondent no. 2 on the pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with the appellant on numerous occasions. However, subsequently the respondent no. 2 has refused to solemnize marriage with the appellant.
It appears that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the appellant and so far as the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are concerned, both have declared hostile by the prosecution. The victim – appellant has been examined as P.W 1 and she has categorically stated that she was major at the time when her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 2 and also stated that at the time of trial, she was residing
-2- with the respondent no. 2. On account of the evidence of P.W. 1, she was also declared hostile by the prosecution. The learned trial court has come to the conclusion that since P.W. 1 has clearly asserted that she was major and she was in love with the respondent no. 2 and had willingly solemnized marriage with the respondent no. 2 and since all the witnesses have been declared hostile, the respondent no. 2 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently this appeal stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumari Rai, J.) 31 August 2026 Uploaded R. Shekhar Cp 3s