Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 1222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Priyanshu Thakur S/o Ramji Thakur - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.3966 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shardanand, Adv., Ms. Shivam Prerna, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP
The conviction was quashed due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues with the victim, highlighting the necessity of establishing a solid evidentiary foundation in sexual assault cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Section 366(A), Section 366; POCSO Act, Sections 4 and 6 - Conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault - The appellant, a home tutor, was accused of kidnapping his minor student intending to marry her. Prosecution relied on testimonies and physical evidence but failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the quashing of the conviction. (Paras 2-34)
(B) Standard of Proof - The court emphasizes that the 'sterling witness' must provide a consistent, credible account that withstands scrutiny, which in this case, was not met. (Paras 22, 30)
Facts of the case:
Appellant kidnapped the victim, coaxing her during her parents' conflict. The victim initially stated she accompanied him willingly, but later alleged sexual assault after returning home. The appellant denied charges, asserting innocence.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the foundational aspect of its case, leading to the conclusion that the presumptions under the POCSO Act were not applicable.
Issues: Whether the victim's testimony met the criteria for a 'sterling witness' and if the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that doubts about the victim's credibility invalidated the conviction, affirming that the prosecution must prove its case with certainty.
Result: Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
Act Referred
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution evidence overview (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. overview of prosecution evidence. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conviction related facts and timeline. (Para 11) |
| 5. defense arguments on victim's willfulness (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. contradictory statements and testimonies (Para 13 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's review of evidence and witness credibility (Para 15 , 16 , 22) |
| 8. doubts on the prosecution's foundational case (Para 24 , 25 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. test of a 'sterling witness' and pocso act presumption. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. final conclusions and order (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal preferred by appellant/convict, namely, Priyanshu Thakur against judgment of conviction dated 10.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2023 passed by learned 7th ADJ cum Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Sasaram in connection with POCSO Case No. 41 of 2022 (arising out of Kachhwan P.S. Case No. 100 of 2021), whereby and where under appellant/convict has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 (A), 366 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and has directed the appellant to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he is directed to further undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, period of custody of accused person during trial in this case shall be set of in sentence passed by this court.
3. Case of prosecution in brief is that Priyanshu Thakur (appellant) was the home tutor of the daughter /victim (aged about 17 years). It is alleged that during dushara time a conflict occurred between appellant and the brother of informant due to which the parents of appellant told the informant that one day they will make his daughter, as their daughter-in-law. Thereafter on 23.12.2021, appellant along with others kidnapped the victim with intention to marry her.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information, Kachhwan P.S. Case No. 100 of 2021 was lodged under Section 366 (A), 366 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, against the appellant.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether four witnesses. They are:-
| Prosecution Witnesses No(s). | Names |
| P.W. 1 | Shailesh Kumar Singh (informant) |
| P.W. 2 | Victim |
| P.W. 3 | Rakesh Kumar Singh |
| P.W. 4 | Akhilesh Kumar Singh |
| P.W. 5 | Akhilesh Kumar Singh (ASI) |
| P.W. 6 | Dr. Sandhya (M.O.) |
6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon following documents/exhibits in order to prove the charges:-
| Exhibit No(s). | List of documents |
| Exhibit-P1 | The written application signed and identified by the informant. |
| Exhibit-P2 | The statement of victim signed and identified by the victim |
| Exhibit-P1/1 | Endorsement put by the SHO of Kachhwan P.S |
| Exhibit-P3 | Charge-sheet written signed and identified by the I.O. |
| Exhibit-P4 | Medical report of the victim |
| Exhibit-P5 | Mark sheet cum certificate of Secondary School Of Examination, 2020 of the victim |
7. On the basis of evidences, as surfaced during the trial, the appellant/convict was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he denied all incriminatic evidences as surfaced against him during trial and claimed his complete innocence and false implication.
8. Neither any defence witness nor any document was exhibited in support of defence by appellants/convicts.
9. Upon the basis of evidences as surfaced during the trial and also by taking note of the argument as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the learned trial court convicted appellant/convict and passed order of sentence, as stated hereinabove.
10. Being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant/convict preferred the present appeal.
11. Hence the present appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellant/convict:
12. It is submitted by learned counsel arguing on behalf of the appellant/convict, that out of love affairs victim accompanied appellant out of her own
