1. Appeal against acquittal in POCSO Act rape case where prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Pat) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Soni Kumari, D/o. Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Ranjit Singh and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.749 Of 2019
Decided On : 03-09-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Shyam Nandan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP., Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
For the Appellants :Mr. Shyam Nandan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP., Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of medical evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376 and 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 12 - Acquittal of accused in a sexual assault case - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of medical evidence and material contradictions in witness statements - The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 39, 40)
(B) Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable or perverse - The appellate court cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court. (Paras 15, 41)
Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 14, alleged that the accused forcibly entered her home and assaulted her. The trial court found contradictions in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence to support the charges.
Findings of Court:
The trial court concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution established the victim's age and whether the evidence supported the charges of sexual assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that contradictions in witness statements and lack of medical evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeal dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue trial court erred in acquitting accused despite sufficient evidence; state defends acquittal citing witness contradictions and lack of medical or forensic evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal upheld as reasonable based on proper appreciation of evidence and applicable legal principles. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
4. Whether the prosecution proved the victim was below 18 years of age as a foundational fact under the POCSO Act?
Yes. The victim's age was established as 14 years and 9 months through birth certificate and school admission records, confirming she was a child below 18 years as required under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
5. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
No. The court found material contradictions in prosecution witness statements regarding the room's door, the father's entry, and the FIR lodging. No external injury or spermatozoa was found, and seized clothes were not sent for forensic examination, creating reasonable doubt. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 39 , 40 )
6. What principles govern an appellate court's interference in a trial court's order of acquittal?
The appellate court may interfere only if the trial court's view is unreasonable, suffers from patent perversity, misreads material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible and only the guilty view is supported by evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 41 )
7. How do the presumptions under the POCSO Act apply and can they be rebutted by the accused?
The presumptions under the POCSO Act are rebuttable. Once raised, the accused can rebut them through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by leading defence evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. (Para 22 )
JUDGMENT :
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
The present appeal has been preferred by the victim/informant and her father impugning the judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi in Trial No.25 of 2017, arising out of Sursand P.S. Case No. 129 of 2017, whereby respondent No. 2 viz., Sanjiv Kumar Singh has been acquitted of charges framed under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report of the victim/informant addressed to Officer-in-charge, Sursand Police Station, District-Sitamarhi is that the victim is aged about 14 years. On 12.05.2017 her father had gone to Sursand market and mother had gone to Anganwari Centre and she was alone at home. Her house is situated on the boundary of the village. In the meantime, at 12 O’clock her neighbour Sanjiv Kumar Singh, who is respondent no.2 herein, entered into her courtyard and forcibly took her in room. When she raised voice, her mouth was closed by him by putting his hand and he started committing rape upon her. Despite efforts, she could not raise voice because her mouth was shut up by the respondent no.2 by putting his hand on her mouth. In the meantime, incidentally her father came and after hearing her crying, he entered into the house. Then he started fleeing away. But the victim and her father raised hulla and on their hulla, many people assembled there. Respondent no.2 made unsuccessful effort to flee away. He was apprehended by the people and taken to police station.
3. On the basis of the written report, Sursand P.S. Case No. 129 of 2017 was registered against the sole accused, namely, Sanjiv Kumar Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. After investigation charge-sheet bearing No. 148 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 was submitted against the sole accused. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act were framed against the Respondent no.2, which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the following six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:
(i) P.W.-1- Mother of the victim
(ii) P.W.-2- Father of the victim
(iii) P.W.-3-Victim/informant
(iv) P.W.-4- Dr. Deepa Singh
(v) P.W.-5- First I.O. of the case
(vi) P.W.-6- Shyam Bihari Upadhyay, I.O.
6. The prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences:
(i) Ext.-1 & 1/2- Signature of Ranjit Singh, victim and Ganesh Singh respectively on the seizure list
(ii) Ext.-2- Signature of the victim on the written report
(iii) Ext.-3-Original Registration number of the victim issued by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
(iv) Ext.-4-Original date of birth certificate of the victim
(v) Ext.-5-Original Admit Card of the victim issued by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
(vi) Ext.-6 to 6/1-Signatures of Dr. Deepa Singh and Dr. Sangita Jha on medical report
(vii) Ext.-7-Report of Medical Board
(viii) Ext.-8-Endorsement on written application
(ix) Ext.-9-Seizure list
(x) Ext.-10-Arrest Memo
(xi) Ext.-11-Charge-sheet
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the sole accused examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, during which he was confronted with incriminating circumstances which had come in the prosecution evidence, so as to afford him opportunity to explain those circumstances. During the examination, he admitted that he had heard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against him, but he claimed to be innocent and stated that when he was on way to his home, Ranjeet Singh, Ganesh Singh and his wife Mamta Devi prohibited him from going on that pathway and started abusing and assaulting him and got him seated at their home and informed the police and police recorded the statement of the informant and took all of them to police station and the
