SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3948

PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY, JJ
Guddu Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.369 of 2024 | POCSO Case No. 60 of 2019 | Nokha P.S. Case No. 297 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP

Court grants bail due to uncertainties in prosecution case and prolonged appellate process.

Headnote:The appellant was convicted under Sections 376 and 366/34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, leading to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, with appeals for bail pending. Notably, issues arose regarding the victim's age and contradictions in her testimony. The Court found that while the prosecution presented a compelling case, doubts about the circumstances led to a decision favorable to the appellant, concluding that granting bail was justified given the appeal's timeframe. The Court allowed bail with conditions while recognizing the provisional nature of its observations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

9 03-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 28.02.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 01.03.2024 in connection with POCSO Case No. 60 of 2019 (CIS No. 60/2019), arising out of Nokha P.S. Case No. 297 of 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Rohtas at Sasaram for the offences under Sections 376 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (in short the ‘POCSO Act’). He has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months for the offence under of the POCSO Act and to undergo imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section

366(A)/34 of the IPC.

4. The prosecution case is based on the written information submitted by the mother of the victim girl on 20.11.2018 in which she has alleged that her daughter (‘X’) had gone to perform puja in the Kali temple from where the five named accused persons had taken away the victim girl by alluring her. She has stated in her written information that despite hectic search, the victim girl could not be traced and the accused persons were threatening her.

5. It is submitted that though the victim girl had gone missing on 17.11.2018, but the First Information Report was given to the police station after three days. It is pointed out that the victim girl returned on 30.11.2018. The I.O. (P.W. 5) has stated that the informant (P.W. 3) has stated that the appellant had brought the victim girl left her in the police station, whereas, the I.O. (P.W. 5) has stated that the victim was recovered on 30.11.2018 from Baraon Mor and she came to the police station with a lady constable. Her statement was recorded and she was brought to the Court for recording of her statement, whereafter she was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Sasaram for the medical examination.

6. Learned counsel submits that in course of trial, the I.O. (P.W. 5) has stated that he had not recorded the statement of the victim and the informant had not stated in her re-statement that the appellant and Arun Chaudhary had forcibly taken away the victim girl on their motorcycle. He further submits that the medical examination report of the victim was conducted by P.W.

6, who did not find any recent sign of intercourse.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record as on what basis the age of the victim was determined between 14 - 15 years. He has given much emphasis on his submission that on a bare look at the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it would be found that she has given a completely different picture as to how she left her house and despite the fact that the appellant was not ready to take her outside, she called him and then both reached Sasaram from where they reached Ludhiyana via Mugalsarai. From the tone and tenor of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it would appear that she has never alleged any forcible act with her, though she has stated that she has established physical relationship with the appellant. It is submitted that in course of trial the victim has taken a complete ‘U’ turn and has made allegations for the first time, contrary to her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is, thus, submitted that the victim in thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top