Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Verma, JJ.
Sandeep Rai @ Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Ray, Son of Jivachh Rai @ Jibachrai - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar -Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.720 of 2021
Decided On : 23-10-2024
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. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the conviction and charges. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. defense challenges evidence and victim's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 3. inconsistencies and delay in reporting raise doubt. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. legal provisions and prior case laws discussed. (Para 21 , 24 , 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. lack of credible evidence leads to reasonable doubt. (Para 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 43) |
| 6. conclusion and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
We have heard Mrs. Shama Sinha, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 6 read with 5(k) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga in POCSO G.R. Case No. 51 of 2018. By order dated 30.09.2021, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 25 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer SI for six months under Section 376 (3) of the IPC; RI for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer SI for three months under Section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST Act.
3. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. A special child of less than 14 years is alleged to have been raped by the appellant. While the appellant was on the act, the occurrence was witnessed by the mother of the victim who has been examined as PW-2 in this case. She has lodged the FIR. The other witness to the occurrence is the sister-in-law of the victim who has been examined as PW-1. We have deliberately avoided naming the aforenoted witnesses.
5. The mother of the victim (PW-2) has alleged in the written report dated 30.10.2018 that on 18.10.2018, her daughter (victim) had come out of her house to attend to the call of nature but she did not return even after a long time. Sensing some trouble, PW-2 along with her daughter-in-law (PW-1) came out of the house and started looking for the victim in the field where wild grass grew. She saw that the appellant had mounted himself over the victim and the victim was trying to dislodge him. When she flashed torch light at the face of the maelfactor, she identified her to be the appellant, a resident of the same village. On shrieks of the mother and sister-in-law, the appellant ran away. PW-2 found the body and clothes of the victim totally soiled. She was in great pain. Since the victim was dumb, she gestured towards her mother and sister-in- law, indicating that she had been physically violated and perhaps raped. The victim was brought back home. PW- 2 informed about this occurrence to her relatives. A panchayati was convened but the appellant and his mother refused to abide by the decision in the panchayat. It was only thereafter that a written report was lodged after 12 days on 30.10.2018.
6. Based on the aforenoted written report addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Kusheshwar Asthan Police Station, a case vide Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No. 260 of 2018 dated 30.10.2018 was registered for investigation under Sections 147 , 341, 342, 376, 504 and 506 of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant whereupon he was tried.
8. The Trial Court, after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom two witnesses, viz., Sri Chand Sada (PW-3) and Rambabu Sharma (PW-4) had turned hostile, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
9. While assailing the judgment of the Trial Court, Mrs. Shama Sinha, the learned Advocate submitted that the facts of the case present a very gory picture where a special child was raped by the appellant; but if the evidence at the trial is analysed, it
A delayed FIR and procedural lapses in investigation undermine prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused when doubt arises.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and the need for sensitivity in child sexual assault cases.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt in sexual assault cases; inconsistencies in witness testimony and absence of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court affirmed that a victim's testimony can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime and the mandatory minimum sentence under the POCSO Act.
(1) Delay in transmission of FIR to court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more – Where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and unacceptable, long delay has to be taken note of by C....
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal due to significant doubts regarding witness credibility and procedural violations.
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
