Failure to Prove Victim's Age & Shoddy Investigation Undermines POCSO Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits 3 in Gang-Rape Case - 2025-03-05

Court Orders & Legal Analysis.

Patna High Court Acquits Three in Gang-Rape Case, Cites Botched Investigation and Failure to Prove Victim's Age

PATNA: The Patna High Court has acquitted three men convicted of gang-rape, overturning a trial court's decision by highlighting a "lopsided" and "miserably failed" prosecution case plagued by material inconsistencies, a shoddy investigation, and a critical failure to legally establish the victim's age under the POCSO Act.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, allowing the criminal appeal, set aside the 2021 conviction and 20-year sentence of Sonu Tarjan Saddam Hussain and two others, granting them the benefit of doubt. The court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with contradictions and that the victim could not be considered a "sterling witness" due to significant prevarication in her testimony.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed on August 10, 2019, alleging that a minor girl was abducted while returning from school and gang-raped by the three appellants. The Chapra POCSO court convicted the men under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (gang-rape) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The trial court had relied heavily on the victim's testimony, deeming her a "sterling witness."

Appellants' Arguments: Unraveling the Prosecution's Narrative

Before the High Court, the appellants' counsel systematically dismantled the prosecution's case, pointing out numerous fatal flaws:

Doubtful FIR: The defence argued that the First Information Report (FIR) and the seizure list of the victim's clothes were anti-dated and anti-timed. This was substantiated by the victim's mother (PW-2), who testified that she had not met the police on the day of the incident and that the seizure documents were prepared the following day.

Contradictory Testimony: The victim's account of where she was abducted from changed between her initial statement (on the way from school) and her court deposition (from her own house).

Failure to Prove Victim's Age: The prosecution failed to provide any valid proof of the victim's age, such as a school certificate or a medical ossification test, as mandated by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The victim stated her age as 17 in the FIR but claimed to be 15 during her deposition nearly two years later.

Flawed Medical and Forensic Evidence: The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report found no semen on the victim's undergarments. While semen was detected on one accused's underwear, it was never matched with any samples. Furthermore, crucial evidence like the victim's school uniform was never seized, and a sanitary pad recovered by the police was never sent for forensic analysis.

Shoddy Investigation: The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to visit the victim's school, examine key witnesses who prepared seizure lists, or properly document the chain of custody for forensic samples.

High Court's Scrutiny and Landmark Observations

Justice Prasad, in a detailed judgment, concurred with the defence's submissions, finding the prosecution's case unsustainable. The court made several critical observations:

On the Victim's Age: The court held that proving the victim was a "child" under the POCSO Act is a foundational requirement for the prosecution. > "It is for the prosecution to prove the minority of the victim for application of the POCSO Act... the learned trial court has completely missed out on an important aspect of the matter that is the determination of age of the victim."

On the "Sterling Witness" Claim: The court rejected the trial court's finding that the victim was a "sterling witness," citing inconsistencies and suppression of facts. Quoting the Supreme Court, the judgment reiterated that a sterling witness's testimony must be of "very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable." The court found the victim's evidence did not meet this standard. > "On the touchstone of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when we examine the evidence of the victim, in our opinion, she would not be put in the category of a sterling witness."

On Investigative Lapses: The court strongly criticized the investigation, noting the failure to collect primary evidence, examine crucial witnesses, and the suspicious anti-dating of the FIR. > "The FIR and the seizure list shown to have been prepared in PMCH on 10.08.2019 are antedated and antetimed documents which are required to be considered with all circumspection and care."

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court acquitted the appellants of all charges. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions, especially in heinous cases, are based on robust, credible, and legally sound evidence, and that the procedural safeguards of a fair trial are meticulously followed.