Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Sanjeet Das, S/o. Late Banwari Das @ Banwari Mochi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 353 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - RAPE AND CHILD PROTECTION - IPC SECTION 376(3), POCSO ACT SECTIONS 4, 6 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 376(3) of the IPC, which pertains to the punishment for rape of a woman under certain circumstances, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which deal with the punishment for sexual assault against children. The court highlighted the importance of credible evidence and the necessity for thorough investigation in cases involving serious allegations of sexual offenses, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for multiple offenses, including rape under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, based on allegations that he kidnapped and raped a minor victim over a period of six years. The victim resurfaced with two children and reported the incidents to her mother, leading to the filing of an FIR. However, during the trial, both the victim and her mother retracted their statements, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the victim's age, the circumstances of her disappearance, and the lack of credible evidence supporting the allegations. The investigation was deemed inadequate, and the testimonies of key witnesses were not reliable. The court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt for the charges of kidnapping and rape under the IPC and POCSO Act, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the necessity for a thorough investigation and credible witness testimonies in cases involving serious allegations of sexual offenses.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for the sole appellant; Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the informant (mother of victim) and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, vide judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge POCSO Act, Nalanda, Biharsharif in POCSO/G.R. Case No. 2673 of 2018, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 68 of 2018. He has but been acquitted for the charges under Sections 365, 342, 504 and 506 of the IPC. By order dated 28.02.2023, curiously, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant also for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, in which there does not appear to be any recorded conviction, to undergo R.I. for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, which amount has been directed to be given to the victim. In the event of default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to further suffer S.I. for six months. For the offence under Section 376(3) of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for twenty years, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, which amount shall also be given to the victim. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant would have to suffer S.I. for six months.
3. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. The victim (P.W. 2) disappeared for about six years. No case was lodged with respect to her disappearance. She resurfaced only on 03.07.2018 with two children in her lap. She told her mother about what had happened to her in the past six years.
5. This perhaps is the basis for the mother of the victim (P.W. 1) to lodge the written report, addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila Police Station, Biharsharif, leading to the registration of the Mahila P.S. Case No. 68 of 2018, dated 08.07.2018, under Sections 365, 376, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
6. According to the written report lodged by P.W. 1, as referred to above, it has been alleged that the victim reached her home on 03.07.2018 and informed her that she was kidnapped by the appellant and kept in confinement. During the period of confinement, she was raped a multiple of times and she also was forced to deliver two babies. P.W. 1 has further asserted that the appellant, who is a teacher in a local government school, had always put up a pretence of helping the family in searching out the victim, but nobody knew that he himself was the perpetrator of the crime. The appellant is said to have threatened the victim of serious consequences in case she reported about the occurrence.
7. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, the subject FIR was lodged. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was tried.
8. The Trial Court, after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution found the prosecution version to be correct, so far as the appellant is concerned.
9. The informant (mother of the victim), however, has not supported the prosecution story at the Trial. She, in her cross-examination has stated that she had never given any statement to the police. The victim had never told her after her re-emergence after six years as to who had kidnapped her. The victim is already married and resides in her matrimonial home. The victim was in constant communication with her and had never complained against anything. She could identify the appellant in the dock only because the appellant is a co-villager.
10. The father of the victim though has not given a complete go by to the prosecution case, but has expressed his clear intention of not prosecuting the appellant.
11. It has been argued that from the deposition of the father of the victim, it would appear that his reluctance to support the prosecution case is not out of his hav
The judgment underscores the critical importance of credible evidence and thorough investigation in sexual offense cases, reaffirming that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt f....
The court established that in cases involving minors, the prosecution must clearly prove the age of the victim and the absence of consent, and any ambiguity in these areas can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must conclusively establish the victim's age under the POCSO Act, and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony can undermine the case against the accused, warranting acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal due to significant doubts regarding witness credibility and procedural violations.
The absence of medical evidence does not negate the credibility of a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, and minor inconsistencies do not render it untrustworthy.
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....
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
