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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 396 with 426 of 2023
(6.2.2025)
Aman Yadav @ Aman Kumar & Anr. (in 396)
Kundan Yadav @ Kundan Kumar (in 426) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s Praveen Kumar (in 396); Ranjeet Kumar, Dilip Kumar (in 426).
For the State : M/s Binod Bihari Singh, APP (in 396); Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP (in 426).

Headnote:

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5(g)/6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376DA – Rape of girl child – Life sentence – Mere fact of non-availability of victim for examination cannot be fatal for prosecution case and Court should decide case on the basis of available evidence – In absence of substantial oral evidence corroborated with medical evidence it can be construed that appellants shall be presumed to be innocent of charged offences and that statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration or contradiction but cannot be sole basis for conviction – Victim girl has given conflicting statement with regard to occurrence – Medical evidence does not show any sign of rape qua victim girl – Since prosecution has failed to lead cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence to establish commission of offence of rape beyond all reasonable doubts, no presumption arises under Section 29 of POCSO Act – Appellants acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt – Appeals allowed. (Paras 37, 38, 40, 42 and 43)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 157 – Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, however same is a formal statement made before an authority competent to investigate a fact which may be used for contradiction under Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or for corroboration of witness who makes such statement under Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 41)

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The aforesaid appeals, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") arise out of the same judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.02.2023 and 04.03.2023 respectively, passed in POCSO Case No.81 of 2020 (arising out of Ekchari P.S. Case No.18 of 2020) by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Judge"), hence, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 10.02.2023, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C.") and under Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act") and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life i.e. for the remainder of their natural life under Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act with fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 376DA of the I.P.C. considering the provisions contained under Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 04.08.2020, the victim girl had submitted her written report before the Officer- Incharge, Ekchari Police Station. In the written report, the victim girl had stated that on 29.07.2020 at about 6 p.m. in the evening, while she was going from her house to Basa, on the way three persons, namely, Aman Yadav (appellant No.1 of the first case), Ravi Roshan Yadav (appellant No.2 of the first case) and Ankush Kumar Yadav, by showing weapons and knife had forcefully taken her in a field and had committed wrong with her as also had assaulted her when she had raised alarm and ultimately she became unconscious. The victim girl is stated to have been thrown on the banks of river Ganges at Badi Chataiya. In the morning at about 4 a.m., the victim girl had stated to have regained consciousness, whereafter her family members had taken her back to her house. It has also been stated in the written report that she is a poor girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste.

3. On the basis of the said written report of the victim girl, a formal F.I.R. bearing Ekchari P.S. case No.18 of 2020 was registered by the Station House Officer, Ekchari P.S. on 4.8.2020 at 15:30 hours under Sections 341, 323, 376, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act against Aman Yadav (appellant No.1 of the first case), Ravi Roshan Yadav (appellant No.2 of the first case) and one Ankush Kumar. After investigation and finding the case to be true qua the appellants, the police had submitted charge-sheet on 30.09.2020 under Sections 376DA of the I.P.C., Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(ii)/3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1989"). Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 376DA of the I.P.C., Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(w)(ii)/3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 vide order dated 25.01.2021. On 03.12.2021, charges were framed by the learned Trial judge against the appellants under Sections 376DA of the I.P.C., Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(w) (ii)/ 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, 17 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence. While P.W.1 Sikandar Ravidas, P.W.2 Bindeshwari Paswan, P.W.3 Pappu Yadav and P.W.4 Moti Yadav are hearsay and formal witnesses, P.W

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