Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1972
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. PURNENDU SINGH, J
Ramjee Prasad Kamkar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.369 of 2004|CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 401 of 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhas Chandra, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. S. A. Ahmed, APP
The conviction in sexual offence cases must rely on consistent and credible testimony, and failures in this regard warrant acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366A, 120B, and 376 - Appeal against conviction for kidnapping and rape - Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of supporting medical evidence. Conviction based on uncorroborated victim testimony deemed unsafe. (Paras 27, 28, 29)
(B) Appeal - Benefit of doubt - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt when prosecution's case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal. (Paras 26, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping and rape of a minor. The victim's inconsistent statements and absence of medical proof led to challenges against the conviction.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to prove charges, resulting in acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the adequacy of corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of consistently reliable testimony to sustain a conviction in sexual offences, as emphasized in precedent cases.
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction set aside and appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction based on trial judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the prosecution case and investigation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on behalf of appellants regarding insufficient evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments on behalf of the state supporting the conviction. (Para 8) |
| 5. hearing and consideration of arguments. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. examination of witnesses in the trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. defendants' statements under section 313 of crpc. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. key sections of ipc relevant to the case. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. reliability of victim’s testimony and case precedents. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 10. inconsistencies in victim’s testimony. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 11. medical evidence's impact on the reliability of the case. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 12. conclusion on prosecution's failure to establish charges. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 13. final ruling and disposal of appeals. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2025
As learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused has failed to appear when this matter was taken on Board for final hearing, therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Abhas Chandra, learned Advocate, present in Court, as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in disposal of the appeal.
2. At the very outset, learned Amicus Curiae informs that the appellant no. 1 namely, Ramjee Prasad Kamkar alias Ramjee Singh and the appellant no.2 namely, Upendra kumar Kamkar alias Upendra Singh, of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 369 of 2004 had died during the pendency of the present appeal and the Appeal against them stood abated vide order dated 19.02.2025.
3. The appellants have preferred the memo of Appeals under sub-section 2 of Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) for setting aside the Judgment of Conviction dated 8.5.2004 (hereinafter referred to as impugned Judgment); and Order of Sentence dated 11.5.2004 (hereinafter referred to as impugned Order) passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)- IVth Bhojpur, Ara (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Sessions Trial Number 497 of 1998 arising out of Bihia Police Station Case Number 159 of 1997, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellants Saraswati Devi and Jitendra Prasad Kamkar under Sections 366A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ); and ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years for the offence under Sections 366-A and 120B and further appellants Jitendra Prasad Kamkar was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 376 . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, as is apparent from the written application lodged by the informant (P.W. 4), namely Nirmal Kumar on 1.11.1997, is that on 19.9.1997 his sister Rita Kumari aged about 14 years, who was a student of Class IXth in Kasturba High School, Bihia, did not return from her school in the afternoon and her family members started looking for her. Rita Kumari (victim) was taught by a tutor named, Jitendra Prasad, who used to teach her at the house of the informant and in conspiracy with his brother Upendra Kumar Kamkar, Ramjee Prasad and his wife (father and mother of Jitendra Prasad), kidnapped her by inducement and got her concealed somewhere. Jitendra Prasad was also traceless in spite of vigorous searches and on being asked the appellants not only abused the informant rather also threatened to kill him. The informant further stated that there was delay in reporting the case due to engagement in search and looking for the victim and accused.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application of P.W. 4, namely Nirmal Kumar, Bihia (Ara) P.S. Case No. 159 of 1997 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the police against all the four accused persons, whereafter cognizance was taken by the learned C.J.M., Ara u
