Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Vinay Kumar S/o Late Sant Rai @ Sant Kumar @ Sant Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1268, 1327 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 120 of 2021
Decided On : 07-10-2024
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 (!)
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, Room No. 2 at 20:30 hours. In her fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘1/1’) the informant has stated that as usual on 23.08.2015 at 10:00 am, she went to graze her she-goats towards Nahar along with neighbours children, namely, (1) Tara Pravin (PW-2), (2) Zeba Pravin, (3) Md. Arif and (4) Md. Mahboob. After some time, the informant saw that (1) Jalebi @ Kamlesh, (2) Bihari Mahto @ Pagla and (3) Saryug Chaudhary all having hasua in their hand were going to cut grass. In the meantime, at 12:10 pm the informant’s she-goat while grazing reached to other side of the Nahar where Jalebi @ Kamlesh and Saryug Chaudhary were cutting grass to which the informant requested them saying that “Bhaiya, send my she-goat my side (“Bhaiya meri bakri ko meri taraf haka do”). After sending she-goat towards the informant, they said that “bhaiya nahi saiyan bolo.”” Whereafter she got frightened and started running, in the meantime, from behind Saryug Chaudhary caught both of her hands and pressed her mouth. Jalebi @ Kamlesh also came there. Thereafter, Saryug Chaudhary took off her paijama and threw the same in the paddy crop field and started committing rape on her, Jalebi @ Kamlesh had pressed her mouth. When Jalebi was committing rape on her, Saryug Chaudhary was pressing her mouth. Thereafter, they called a person who was cutting grass nearby to commit rape on the informant, on which that person also committed rape on her. Bihari Mahto @ Pagla was keeping vigil over this incident. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away after seeing Chandeshwar Mahto a co-villager of the informant who was passing-by from there. The informant took her paijama in her hand and started running in necked condition and after crossing over the canal reached the place where other children of her neighbour were grazing she-goats. The informant stated that Zeba Pravin and Tara Pravin saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place where the occurrence took place, was paddy field situated other side of the ‘nahar’ which comes under Bihta Police Station. With all the children, somehow she went to her house and told about the occurrence to her relatives who took her to Maner Police Station.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Bihta P.S. Case No. 678 of 2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376A/376D IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act against (1) Jalebi @ Kamlesh (2) Bihari Mahto @ Pagla, (3) Saryug Chaudhary and (4) unknown person from Hiramanpur (Vinay Kumar). After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 360 of 2015 dated 20.10.2015. On the basis of this chargesheet. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 19.11.2015. Charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 16.02.2016,
The prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act does not relieve it of this burden.
The prosecution must prove foundational facts, including the victim's age, to establish guilt under POCSO Act; discrepancies in evidence warrant acquittal.
The prosecution must prove allegations of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in the victim's statements and lack of corroborative evidence resulted in acquittal.
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 prosecution must prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; reliance solely on the victim's testimony is insufficient if unsupported by corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence must be corroborated with medical evidence and other reliable sources.
In sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act, the prosecution must provide overwhelming evidence beyond the victim's testimony, which must be credible and consistent.
The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction in rape cases if credible, with no requirement of corroboration unless substantial doubts arise.
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
