Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Randheer Rai S/o Nandkishore Ray – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 88 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2022
POCSO Act - Conviction under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for 20 years, Rs. 30,000/-, One year simple imprisonment; 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, R.I. 30 years, Rs. 50,000/-, Two years simple imprisonment - The court discussed the provisions of Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the lack of evidence to establish the victim as a child and the absence of evidence of force or undue inducement by the appellant. The court found that the trial court erred in presuming the victim to be a child and applying statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a minor, was allegedly sexually assaulted, leading to the appellant's conviction under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the POCSO Act. However, the evidence did not establish the victim as a child, and there was no evidence of force or undue inducement by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in presuming the victim to be a child and applying statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act. It also noted the absence of evidence of force or undue inducement by the appellant, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the establishment of the victim as a child and the presence of evidence of force or undue inducement by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court erred in presuming the victim to be a child and applying statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act. It also emphasized the absence of evidence of force or undue inducement by the appellant.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge of commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2020 and the order of sentence dated 05.10.2020, passed in T.R. No. 131 of 2020/R.N. No. 1448 of 2018, arising out of Khanpur P.S. Case No. 162 of 2018, by the trial court, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Convicted under Sections | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine | In default of fine | |
| 376 of the Indian Penal Code | R.I. for 20 years | Rs. 30,000/- | One year simple imprisonment |
| 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act | R.I. 30 years | Rs. 50,000/- | Two years simple imprisonment |
2. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently with set off for the period of judicial custody.
3. Heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
4. Briefly narrated, the prosecution’s case, as disclosed in the written statement of the informant, (PW-6), is that his sister (the victim, PW-8), a minor had gone to ease herself in a nearby agricultural filed on 31.10.2018 at 8 a.m. when three persons including this appellant caught her and sexually assaulted her. The victim was dumb and after hearing sound of her murmuring, the witnesses Satyanarayan Sahni (PW-2), Shyam Sahni (PW-4) and Santosh Sahni (PW-7) proceeded towards them and found that the appellant was committing rape on her. All the aforesaid persons caught hold of the appellant and were bringing him in the village. In the meanwhile, he managed to escape from their clutches. The victim was thereafter taken to hospital for treatment.
5. For the occurrence, said to have taken place at 8 a.m. in the evening on 31.10.2018, the FIR came to be registered at 10:45 am on the same day, disclosing the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The police submitted the charge-sheet upon completion of investigation, whereupon cognizance was taken by an order dated 15.02.2019. Charges came to be formally framed on 09.03.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. At the trial, altogether 9 witnesses came to be examined. It is to be noted that the statement of the informant was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which he supported the prosecution’s case. The statement of Satyanarayan Sahni (PW-2) and Arun Sahni (PW-5) were also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation, who supported the prosecution’s case.
6. It is noticeable that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that the victim was a child as on the date of occurrence, i.e. below 18 years. The Medical Board, upon examination, found the age of the victim to be more than 18 years. The mother of the victim (PW-3) did not support the prosecution’s case and denied to have ever stated before the police that her daughter was aged about 15 years. PW-4, who, according to the prosecution’s case, as disclosed in the fardbayan, had also seen the occurrence, did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-2, in his testimony at the trial deposed that he had seen this appellant raping the victim, whereafter he had caught hold of the appellant who was found nude. He had, thereafter, put on his clothes. When he and other passersby, who had seen the occurrence were attempting to take him towards the village, he somehow or the other managed to escape. PWs-5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. PW-7 has not supported the prosecution’s case and has been declared hostile. The Medical Officer, in his evidence, deposed that there was no
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to establish the victim as a child and the absence of evidence of force or undue inducement in cases of sexual assault....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including medical reports and witness testimony, to establish the commission of sexual offences. Additional....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the victim's age beyond all reasonable doubt and the reliability of the victim's testimony in c....
As per Section 9(m) of Act, whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years will come under definition of aggravated sexual assault.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the victim's age in cases involving the POCSO Act, and failure to do so undermines the validity of charges related to sexual offences against minors.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts in cases involving sexual offences against children, and corroboration of evidence, especially in cases of material improvement in the victim's testimony....
The court confirmed conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing victim testimony's reliability and the statutory presumption of guilt established by the prosecut....
The court upheld the conviction under POCSO, confirming that credible victim testimony and medical evidence sufficiently established the appellant's guilt in the sexual assault of a minor.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
