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) 1105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Mannu @ Saddam @ Md. Mannu Sadam, S/o. Islam Khalifa @ Md. Eslam - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.550 Of 2021
Decided On : 30-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

The prosecution must prove the victim's age as below 18 for POCSO applicability; failure to do so leads to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 342, and 120

(B) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Conviction and sentencing of appellant for rape and related offences - The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines, finding the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court later found that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as below 18 years, which is essential for POCSO applicability. (Paras 1, 10, 44, 54)

(B) Presumption of Innocence - The prosecution must prove foundational facts for presumption under POCSO Act; mere lodging of FIR does not imply guilt. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of raping a minor, but the prosecution could not prove the victim's age as under 18, leading to doubts about the applicability of the POCSO Act. The victim's testimony was inconsistent, and medical evidence did not support the claims of force. (Paras 3, 41, 54)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority and the charges under IPC beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 54, 55)

Issues: The main issues were whether the victim was a minor at the time of the offence and whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 33, 44)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must provide credible evidence of the victim's age and that the absence of such evidence undermines the applicability of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in sexual offence cases. (Paras 19, 54)

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2021 and 19.07.2021 respectively passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Aurangabad, Bihar, in G.R. No. 72 of 2018, C.I.S. No. 72 of 2018 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. From perusal of the impugned order of sentence, it transpires that in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months. Under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-and, in case of default to pay the fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Court has also found the informant as victim of the crime and recommended District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad to pay Rs.4,00,000/-to the victim towards compensation. In case of any interim compensation being already paid to the victim, the same has been directed to be adjusted against final compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Prosecution case

3. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report received by the Aurangabad Mahila Police Station on 25.10.2018 is that on 21.10.2018 at about 4:00 P.M. the friend of the informant, namely, GuriyaPerween, took her to Dev market to purchase some articles for practical. Thereafter, she took the informant to her home. Thereafter, elder brother of her friend namely, Mannu @ Saddam, who is appellant herein, confined her to a room. When she tried to come out from the room, the appellant gagged her and kept her confined in the room and committed rape upon her whole night. In the next morning, when the appellant went out from the room to take water, she started crying calling the name of Guriya. Hearing her sound, GuriyaPerween came to her. The informant asked her to take her with herself. Thereafter, Guriyatook her with herself at about 4:00 A.M. to Aurangabad where both of them stayed in a Mosque at Kasai Mohalla. In the evening, she was again persuaded to go to Ranchi by bus wherefrom she was taken to Gumla. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of mousi of her friend at village Satbarva. Her mousi informed the brother of the informant and thereafter, her brother Shahnawaz Alam and Shahzad Alam reached there and taken to Dev Police Station on 25.10.2018 at 10 O’clock. Thereafter, she was sent to Mahila Police Station, Aurangabad.

Factual backgrounds

4. On the basis of the written report, Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018 was lodged against the appellant and co-accused GuriyaPerween for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 343, 376, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet bearing No. 29 of 2018 dated 24.12.2018 was submitted against both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 343, 376, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act. On her application, GuriyaPerween was declared juvenile and her case was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board.

6. Charge under Sections 343, 376, 120(B) of the India

    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 Back to top