The High Court of Judicature at Patna has formally acquitted an appellant, Sambhu Sada, of charges related to the alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, overturning a 2015 judgment from the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, presiding over the criminal appeal, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, citing significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a failure to meet the requisite legal standards for conviction.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the victim’s father, who alleged that on September 12, 2010, the appellant and others abducted his daughter. While the trial court had initially sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment for rape and four years for the procurement of a minor, the High Court found that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary consistency and corroboration required to sustain such a conviction. The acquittal highlights the court’s commitment to the principle that a criminal conviction must rest on certainty rather than mere suspicion.

Scrutiny of Witness Credibility

Central to the appeal was the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses, specifically the victim’s father, who claimed to be an eye-witness, and the victim herself. During the appellate proceedings, Justice Jha observed that the father’s testimony was fundamentally flawed. Despite claiming to have seen his minor daughter being taken away, his conduct—failing to raise an alarm, chase the perpetrators, or notify the police promptly—was deemed inconsistent with natural human behaviour. The two-day delay in filing the formal report, compounded by material improvements in his testimony during the trial, created a substantial shadow of doubt over his account of the event.

Regarding the victim’s testimony, the court noted that it could not be characterized as "wholly reliable" or of "sterling quality." Her version of events shifted throughout the legal process; whereas her initial statement before a judicial magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure attributed the rape solely to the appellant, her subsequent deposition in court fluctuated, initially implicating all three accused before narrowing the allegation back to the appellant. Justice Jha noted that these variations were not merely minor lapses in memory but struck at the core of the prosecution’s narrative.

"Where her testimony suffers from material contradictions, improvements and circumstances which create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version, the Court cannot convict merely because the allegation is of a serious nature," the court remarked. The lack of independent witnesses regarding the recovery of the victim and the failure of the investigating officer to establish the precise location of her confinement further weakened the prosecution's position.

Legal Standards for Statutory Offences

The court also addressed the sustainability of the charges under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to the procurement of a minor girl for illicit intercourse. Relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana , the High Court held that the section requires evidence of intent to force or seduce a minor for intercourse with another person . In this case, the allegations were directed at the appellant himself, meaning the essential statutory ingredient—the intent for the victim to be seduced by a third party—was entirely absent from the evidence.

The ruling emphasized that the appellate court’s jurisdiction is not merely a formality but an essential duty to verify the soundness of the conviction. While acknowledging the sensitivity required in sexual assault cases, the court cautioned that this should not result in the dilution of the burden of proof. Justice Jha emphasized that the prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be true."

"The accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court proceeds to convict and that the prosecution has to elevate its case from the realm of 'may be true' to the plane of 'must be true,' as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge," the judgment stated.

Final Disposition and Procedural Consequences

The court noted that the medical evidence, while not explicitly ruling out an offence, failed to provide the necessary corroborative link to the appellant at the alleged time and place of the occurrence. Given the absence of scientific evidence connecting the appellant to the crime and the significant contradictions in the oral testimony, the court concluded that it was unsafe to uphold the conviction.

The operative order requires that the appellant be acquitted of all charges and that his bailors and sureties be discharged from their liabilities. Any fines paid by the appellant are to be returned immediately. Furthermore, the court expressed appreciation for the assistance provided by the appointed amicus curiae, ordering a payment for his services through the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.

The trial court records are to be transmitted back to the lower court, effectively closing the case against the appellant. This decision serves as a significant reminder that in the eyes of the law, the presumption of innocence is not eclipsed by the initial conviction; it continues until the prosecution meets the rigorous test of establishing guilt through evidence that is both cogent and trustworthy.