Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP.

Case Summary: Sandeep Rai @ Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Ray v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (DB) No.720 of 2021)

Judgment Details
- High Court of Judicature at Patna, decided on 23-10-2024 by Ashutosh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Verma, JJ. (!) (!)
- Appellant acquitted on appeal due to delayed FIR, procedural lapses, and insufficient evidence creating reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Charges and Conviction (Trial Court)
- Convicted under IPC Sections 147, 341, 342, 376(3), 504, 506; POCSO Act Section 6 r/w 5(k). (!) (!)
- Sentences ordered to run concurrently. (!)
- Trial examined 8 prosecution witnesses; PW-3 and PW-4 turned hostile. (!)

Facts of the Case
- Victim, a special (deaf/dumb) child under 14 years, allegedly raped by appellant in a field on 18.10.2018 while attending to nature's call. (!) (!)
- Incident witnessed by victim's mother (PW-2, FIR lodged by her) and sister-in-law (PW-1); appellant identified via torchlight and fled. (!) (!)
- Victim gestured indicating violation; body/clothes soiled, in pain; family informed, panchayat held but unsuccessful. (!)
- FIR lodged 12 days later on 30.10.2018; police visited place of occurrence (PO) on same/next day per some witness statements. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Prosecution Evidence
- PW-1 (sister-in-law): Claimed statements given to police same night (8-10 PM), including victim's. (!) (!)
- PW-2 (mother): Field trampled, blood droplets (not collected); victim's clothes blood-smeared, unconscious for 4 days; no victim shown to initial IO. (!) (!) (!)
- Victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement based on gestures; recorder not examined. (!) (!) (!)
- Medical exam (PW-6, Dr. Suchandra, 01.11.2018): No injuries/stains; old healed hymenal tear (possible from other causes); no spermatozoa; age 14-15 years; negative pregnancy test. (!) (!)
- PW-7 (Usha Devi): Recorded victim's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement (despite victim being non-verbal). (!)
- IO (PW-8): Visited PO, sent clothes to FSL (Exhibit-5: no blood/semen detected). (!)
- No medical exam of appellant under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Defence Arguments and Inconsistencies
- False case due to dispute over reaping crops from appellant's field. (!) (!) (!)
- Unexplained 12-day FIR delay despite police knowledge same night; panchayat outcome unknown. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Inconsistencies: PW-1 claims immediate police statements vs. delayed FIR; unknown scribe of FIR. (!) (!) (!)
- Hostile witnesses (PW-3, PW-4: co-villagers ignorant of incident). (!)
- FSL report negative; no collection of blood spots; flawed investigation. (!) (!)

Key Legal Issues
- Reliability of victim's gesture-based testimony without examining recorder. (!) (!) (!)
- Impact of delayed FIR and non-compliance with Section 53-A Cr.P.C. (medical exam of accused). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Adequacy of investigation in sexual offense cases involving child victim. (!) (!)

Court Findings and Ratio
- Prosecution case unreliable due to delays, inconsistencies, flawed probe (no Section 53-A exam, unexamined key persons, negative FSL). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Gesture evidence alone insufficient without corroboration; medical evidence inconclusive. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Benefit of doubt to accused where prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, especially with procedural lapses. (!) (!) (!)
- No effective challenge to victim's minority. (!)

Result
- Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges; directed for immediate release if not wanted in other cases. (!) (!) (!)