Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, ANSUL, JJ.
Md. Pappu @ Md. Saba Uddin Son of Late Md. Sirajuddin - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.14 of 2019
Decided on : 03-02-2026
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118 – Child witness – It is duty of Trial Court to examine a witness having tender age to ascertain whether he/she is prevented from understanding questions and give reasonable answer thereto – Deposition of a child witness must contain questions which a Trial Judge asks in order to find out his mental capability and rationality and understanding of question. (Para 16)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 53-A – Rape of girl child – Life imprisonment – Special Judge did not record questions or interrogatories after which he was ascertained that victim had capability to understand and give reasonable answer regarding incident – There is nothing remarkable in evidence of Investigating Officer – Trial Court did not consider that evidence of victim as well as her father is surrounded by dark cloud of suspicion and their evidence cannot be considered as reliable, trustworthy and cogent – It is open for Court to take adverse presumption that victim and informant did not approach Trial Court with clear picture of incident and their evidence cannot be believed – Medical examination of victim is absolutely necessary and forms a piece of very important evidence to ascertain reliability of evidence of victim – Similarly, medical examination of accused specially in a case of sexual atrocities is obligatory in view of Section 53A of Cr.P.C. – In the event, case is required to be proved by DNA profiling, it is duty of Medical Officer under Section 53A to collect samples of accused for DNA profiling – Accused had not been examined after his arrest under Section 53A of Cr.P.C. – It is only medical examination of accused which can amply prove capability of accused – There is no explanation as to why he was not medically examined – Evidence of de facto complainant is not that of sterling quality – Evidence on record is not sufficient to prove foundational fact of prosecution case – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 17, 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 37, 42, 45, 46, 47 and 48)
Cases Referred:
Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21; Nirmal Premkumar vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC Online SC 260; Subrata Biswas vs. State, 2019 SCC Online 1815 – Relied.
State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 421; Rafiq vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SCC 559 – Referred.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging conviction and sentences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. details of victim's testimony and medical evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. arguments on evidential reliability. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. discussion on medical examination and evidential standards. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. prosecution's burden and impermissible assumptions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. finding against trial court's decision. (Para 46 , 47) |
| 8. conclusion and order for release. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. The correctness of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence, dated 29th of September, 2018 and 5th of October, 2018, respectively, is under challenge in the instant appeal.
2. It is necessary to mention that by passing the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Patna-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in Special Case No. 122 of 2016, arising out of Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016, dated 22nd of August, 2016.
3. It is pertinent to mention, at the outset, that the learned Trial Judge recorded sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with fine of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellant. Further, it was directed that if the fine amount is recovered, 80 per cent of the same shall be paid to the victim.
4. In view of such punishment the Trial Court did not pass separate sentence under Section 376 of the IPC in compliance of Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.
5. Brief facts of the case: -
Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016, dated 22nd of August, 2016, was registered on the basis of a farde bayan submitted by the father of the victim (we are consciously not stating the name of the informant and the victim in order to conceal their identity). It is stated by the informant in his statement that his daughter, aged about 13 years, at the relevant point of time, used to stay at Sultanganj in the house of Guddun Ji. She used to perform small household work. While she was stayed in the house of Guddun Ji, one day about five months before the date of lodging farde bayan, she left the said house from some unknown place and returned on the next morning. When the informant came to know about her leaving away from the house of Guddun Ji for one night, he repeatedly asked his daughter about her whereabouts on that fateful date. But she did not say anything to her father. About one month before the date of lodging FIR, the informant noticed some physical changes in her daughter. Initially, she did not disclose anything on being asked about her physical changes. But, on the date of lodging farde bayan, she disclosed that she was pregnant. She also disclosed that one Md. Pappu took her to Darbhanga by a motor-cycle about five months before the date of lodging F.I.R. and forcibly established physical relationship with her. On the next morning, she was returned back by the accused to the house of the said Guddun Ji. The daughter of the informant did not disclose anything to her father out of fear, and there was no occasion for her to disclose the same to her mother, as her mother is mentally ill. The informant also disclosed that even after Darbhanga incident, the accused committed physical intercourse with her putting her under fear. One Thakur (Nai) (barber), namely, Chhotu Thakur saw such physical relationship between Pappu and the victim and taking advantage of the said incident, he also committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. On the basis of the said information, police registered Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 and investigation was entrusted to one Bharti Kumari, S.I. of Mahila Police Station–Patna. In course of investigation, she visi
The victim's testimony can be the sole basis for conviction in sexual assault cases, but it must be credible and consistent; otherwise, reasonable doubt prevails.
(1) Penetrative sexual assault on girl child – Evidence of approximate age of victim would not be sufficient to any conclusion about exact age of victim.(2) Medical examination of accused of rape is ....
The prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as a child under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of the conviction due to insufficient evidence and credibility issues.
The prosecution failed to establish the elements of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, leading to the quashing of conviction due to insufficient evidence and unreliable witness testimoni....
The court affirmed a conviction under the POCSO Act based on the credible testimony of the victim, emphasizing that the absence of corroboration does not question the conviction if the victim's accou....
The victim's testimony does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence and is found to be worthy of credence. The burden is on the accused to disprove the prosecution case.
The sole testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can suffice for conviction if credible, emphasizing stringent punishment under the POCSO Act.
The testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases must be consistent and reliable; significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to an acquittal.
The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act requires foundational facts to be established; mere reliance on medical evidence without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
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
