SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 720

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Vinay Kumar S/o Late Sant Rai @ Sant Kumar @ Sant Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ramakant Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Sinha, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Kumar Shivam Sinha, Santosh Kumar, Krishn Murari Prasad, Pratik Mishra
For the Respondents: Shashi Bala Verma, Abhimanyu Sharma, Ajay Mishra

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; sole reliance on victim’s testimony is insufficient if unreliable (!) (!) (!) - Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not automatically compel conviction by presumption; foundational facts and beyond-reasonable-doubt proof are still required (!) (!) (!) - The trial court’s misappreciation of evidence and unresolved discrepancies led to acquittal; absence of corroboration and inconsistencies undermined conviction (!) (!) (!) - Exhibit 8 (admit card) was found not conclusive proof of the victim’s age; the court failed to properly determine age under Juvenile Justice Act standards (!) (!) (!) - The high court acquitted the appellants, setting aside trial court verdicts and ordering release; emphasis on ensuring proper evidentiary standards in POCSO cases (!) (!) - Critical concerns over suppression and admissibility of medical and police documents; non-examination of key witnesses and officials prejudiced the defense (!) (!) (!) (!) - The need for corroborative evidence and proper testing (e.g., DNA) in gang-rape cases where medical findings are inconclusive (!)

What is... the standard of proof required in sexual offences as discussed in this judgment?

What is... the effect of Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO Act on prosecutorial burden in this case?

What is... the appellate court's conclusion regarding the credibility of the victim and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction?


JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. These three appeals have been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 30.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Special Case No. 127 of 2015 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 678 of 2015.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and by the impugned order, the appellants have been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘1/1’) of victim (PW-1) recorded by the S.I. Pratima Kumari, (PW-6) of Rupaspur Police Station on 23.08.2015 in PMCH, Patna Maternity Ward,

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top