IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 96 and 101 of 2022
(14.12.2023)
Dilip Rai (in 96)
Vinay Rai (in 101) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323/34 and 342/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 53A – Gang rape, hurt and wrongful restraint of minor girl – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Medical Officer testified that no injury was found on body of prosecutrix – Entire case rests upon evidence of prosecutrix – Narration or improvement in her evidence speaks volumes against her and her credibility stands shaken – Father of prosecutrix testified that victim was aged about 13 years on the date of occurrence – Contrary to it, Medical Officer has testified that age of victim was about 18 years – Because of such contradictions, an agile and active Court can differentiate between genuine case from frivolous and concocted one – In order to prove offence under Section 376 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, medical evidence plays crucial and important role – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act is liable to be set aside – Evidence of other witnesses is hearsay – There are various contradictions in statements of each of witnesses – Under Section 53A of Cr.P.C it has become necessary for prosecution to go in for DNA test, in order to connect crime with that of accused – In spite of having sufficient materials to prove guilt of accused, prosecutrix has failed to send dead spermatozoa for DNA test to prove that appellants have committed offence against prosecutrix – Solitary evidence of prosecutrix is not of sterling quality – Medical evidence is not corroborating with oral evidence of witnesses – Benefit of doubt has to be extended to appellants – Appellants acquitted from all charges – Appeals allowed. (Paras 14 to 24)
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—Both the above stated criminal appeals have arisen out of common judgment dated 07.12.2021 and sentence order dated 14.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Saran at Chapra. In all, two accused were prosecuted for the commission of alleged offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 323/34, 341/34 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully restraining the prosecutrix and then committing rape on her. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence on record found both the accused guilty for commission of the above-said offences and convicted them as under:—
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 96 of 2022
| Convicted under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | |
| Dilip Rai and Vinay Rai | U/s 6 of the POCSO Act | RI for 25 years | 1,00,000/- | SI for one year |
|
| Section 323/34 IPC | RI for 06 months |
|
|
| Section 342/34 IPC | RI for 06 months | |||
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge VI-cum- Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Saran at Chapra dated 07.12.2021 and 14.12.2021 respectively, the present appeals are filed by the appellants who are the accused in S.T. POCSO No. 28 of 2020 which arose out of Dighwara PS Case No. 72 of 2020.
3. A thumbnail sketch of the instant case is as follows:—
The prosecutrix i.e. PW-5 was the resident of Manopur Dighwara District-Saran. As per the written application the prosecutrix’s age was not mentioned. On 13.03.2020 at about 1.00 ‘O’ clock (midnight) the appellants i.e. Dilip Rai and Vinay Rai came to her, caught both her hands and when she started shouting Dilip Rai tied her mouth with his towel, took out a knife from his pocket and placed it on the throat of the victim and threatened her stating that if she shouts he would kill her and later he would also kill her father who was at home. The written application further discloses that Dilip Rai having caught hold of the hand of the victim, took her to Gachhi in his lap for which the victim defended by hitting him with punches and also slapped him. Further, Dilip Rai torn her clothes due to which, she became naked and he started raping her while the other appellant hold both of her hands. Later Vinay Rai raped her then Dilip Rai caught hold of her hands and the entire incident took place for more than an hour. Later, the prosecutrix/victim reached home and informed the incident to her family members. The written application also discloses that both the accused threatened her not to inform about the incident to anyone or else they would kill her and her father.
4. Basing on the written application, Dighwara PS of Sone Sub-Division, Saran District has registered the FIR on the file of Dighwara PS Case No. 72 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020 at 8.30 am. In the said FIR, the same content was mentioned that both the accused had participated in the commission of the said offence. On the strength of the said FIR investigating machinery was set into motion and the prosecutrix was sent to medical examination. On the same date i.e. 13.03.2020 at about 3.40 pm, the prosecutrix was examined by PW-6 Doctor Kiran Ojha of Sadar Hospital, Chapra. Her medical report and the evidence would be discussed at a later stage. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saran at Chapra on 13.03.2020. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of both the aforesaid statements clearly indicates that she had given the names of present appellants describing as perpetrators of the offence.
5. The record also reveals that FIR lodged by the prosecution was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate on the same date. During course of investigation both the accused were arrested.
6. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted by the police. The accused w
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwik
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for sexual offences against a minor, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and corroborative evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act based on strong testimonial and medical evidence, affirming that negative DNA results do not undermine the prosecution's case.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
The court ruled that without credible evidence or reliable testimony, suspicion alone cannot support a conviction under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with sufficient and credible evidence; failure to do so invalidates a conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.