Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and GUNNU ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 206 of 2022
(8.11.2023)
Satyamanu Kumar Singh ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012–Section 4–Appellant is alleged to have raped a seven year child–there are no eye witnesses to the incident the victim herself has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case–furthermore, the presence of other witnesses is doubtful in view of the statements of father and grandfather of the victim (PWs 7 & 9) –father of the victim (PW-7) himself stated that he did not speak with the victim–medical evidence is not corroborated with the oral evidence, therefore, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant–thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused have committed sexual assault/rape on the victim girl either on her genitals or penetration on the victim who was aged about 7 years–further, medical evidence do no reveal about the unnatural offence in order to attract the punishment under Section 377 I.P.C. –no iota evidence on record to prove that the appellant has committed the offences punishable under Section 376)2) or 377 of the I.P.C. –the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act applying Section 29 thereof also cannot be sustained–finding of the trial Court that accused committed rape on the victim solely relying upon the 164 statement cannot be sustained–conviction and sentence set aside–appellant directed to be released forthwith. (Para 32 to 35)
(2013)14 SCC 266–Referred.
Gunnu Anupama Chakravarthy, J. – This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge VI-cum- Special Judge, POCSO Act, Buxar in POCSO Case No. 18/2015 (which arose out of the case No. 137 of 2013 of Dumraon P.S), wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f), 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act as under: –
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 206 of 2022
| Appellant’s Name | Convicted under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine(Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Satyamanu Kumar Singh | 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. | Imprisonment for life | 1,00,000/- | S.I. for 1 year |
|
| 377 of the I.P.C. | R.I. for 10 years. | 50,000/- | S.I. for 6 months |
|
| 4 of the POCSO Act | R.I. for 20 years | 1,00,000/- | S.I. for 1 year |
2. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. We are not disclosing the name of the victim and the prosecution witnesses in this case as the matter pertains to POCSO Act as well as under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
4. We have heard Mr Bindhyachal Singh, Learned Senior counsel for the appellant the Learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Bihar.
5. The criminal law was into motion basing on the written application given by P.W.-7, who is the father of the victim girl. It was alleged in the written complaint that on 12.07.2013, at around 07:30 P.M., the appellant who lives next to the their house took his daughter/victim, aged about 7 years, to his house and raped her. The victim returned home crying and informed about the incident to her mother i.e. P.W.-1. Further, P.W.-1, called the informant i.e. P.W.-7, informed him about the incident who inturn gave the written information to the Police/Incharge of the Police Station, Dumraon.
6. Basing on the said written application, a case was registered vide Crime No. 137 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. During the course of the investigation, the victim was referred to medical examination on the same date in the mid-night. Later the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was recorded on 15.07.2013. Again, the victim was medically examined on 17.07.2013 by a team of doctors. The Police have also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on completing the investigation laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. The trial court took cognizance for the said offences on 26.07.2013 and later the case file was committed to the Court of sessions. The Sessions Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 377 of the I.P.C. on 31.10.2013. Further, the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was added on 25.01.2016. The appellant pleaded not guilty for the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. During the pendency of trial, the appellant was granted the privilege bail order dated 28.01.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 853 of 2014. The appellant remained in custody from 12.07.2013 to 01.02.2014, thereafter, he was on bail. Further, the appellant surrendered on 14.12.2021 and again bail was granted on 31.01.2022 and was taken into custody on 07.02.2022 and since then he is in jail.
8. In order to prove the case against the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt, the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses i.e. P.W. 1-mother of the victim, P.W. 2-paternal aunt of the victim, P.W. 3-maternal grandmother of the victim, P.W. 4 - aunt of the victim, P.Ws. 5 and 6 panch witnesses, P.W. 7 - father of the victim, P.W. 8 victim herself, P.W. 9 - grandfather of the victim, P.Ws. 10 and 11 - the doctors, P.W. 12 - Investigating Officer and P.W. 13 - judicial officer.
9. In addition to the oral evidence of the prosecution’s witness, the prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence i.e., Exhibits 1 to 15 viz. Exhi
The judgment underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, the importance of establishing the victim's age under the POCSO Act, and the need for reliable witness testim....
Point of Law – Kidnapping and abduction – Conviction - victim, who is found to be an unreliable witness - appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt
Section 157 of Evidence Act makes it clear that a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied upon for purpose of corroborating statements made by witnesses in committal court or even to ....
Sexual assault on girl child – If evidence of witness is cogent, consistent and unwavering she qualifies as a sterling witness upon whose evidence conviction of perpetrator can be based.
The statement of a deceased victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot solely support a conviction; the prosecution must prove the victim's age and provide corrobor....
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
