The Patna High Court, in a common oral judgment dated 11 December 2024, set aside the conviction and life sentence of three appellants who had been found guilty by the trial court under Sections 323, 341, 376(DA), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma allowed Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1018, 1085, and 1141 of 2023 and directed the immediate release of the appellants, if not wanted in any other case.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case arose from an FIR lodged at the Mahila Police Station, Gaya, in which a minor girl alleged that on 30 November 2022 she was taken on a motorcycle to a mausoleum area and, inside a parked container, subjected to sexual assault by three persons. The written report was submitted six days later on 6 December 2022, leading to registration of Mahila P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 under the relevant provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the Special Judge, POCSO Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Gaya, convicted the accused and imposed, inter alia, rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of their lives for the POCSO offence, with additional sentences for the IPC offences.

On appeal, the High Court examined whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench carefully assessed witness testimonies, the medical evidence, the investigative steps (including the Test Identification Parade, or TIP), and the manner in which the age of the victim was established. The Court found several fatal weaknesses in the prosecution case:

1. Star witnesses did not support the prosecution version against the appellants. The father, brother, and sister of the victim spoke generally about an alleged incident but did not attribute the act to these appellants; some were declared hostile. Most significantly, the victim herself materially departed from the FIR version at trial, stating that although an attempt was made in a container near a mausoleum, she could not identify the perpetrators. She also denied having given a written report at the police station. At trial, she expressly stated that the persons standing in the dock were not the ones who had attempted or committed the alleged act. This undercut the core of the prosecution case.
2. The TIP process and identification evidence were unreliable. The investigating officer had sought a Test Identification Parade despite the appellants being local persons and despite the allegation that they were named. The Court noted that the victim claimed she was shown photographs of the appellants at the jail premises before the TIP. There was no dock identification by her during trial. These circumstances created serious doubt about the fairness and probative value of the identification.
3. Medical evidence did not corroborate the allegation of recent sexual assault. The doctor assessed the victim as a minor (approximately 14 to 15 years), but the medical report did not find signs of recent sexual intercourse or injuries on the private parts. While the State rightly argued that absence of injury is not conclusive in sexual offences, the Court treated this as one more circumstance that failed to support the prosecution case, especially when read with the other infirmities.
4. Forensic and investigative lapses persisted. Although stained cloth articles were said to have been sent for forensic examination, no report was produced, and the trial court did not insist on it. The appellants were not subjected to medical examination under Section 53A CrPC, and the investigating officer did not provide a convincing explanation for this omission. These lapses significantly weakened any scientific linkage.
5. Age determination was not carried out in the manner contemplated by law. The investigating officer placed complete reliance on a date of birth certificate from the Statistical Department, which is not the preferred document for establishing the age of a minor in such prosecutions. While the Court observed that it is not necessary in every case to undertake elaborate age determination if the minority is plain and undisputed, the overall picture here—especially the absence of reliable identification and corroboration—meant that the case still had to stand on its own evidentiary legs, which it did not.

After evaluating these facets cumulatively, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges with a direction for their immediate release unless required in another case.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This judgment underscores foundational criminal law principles that protect against wrongful conviction:

• Reliability of Identification: Where identity is central, courts expect a fair and unimpeachable identification process. A TIP requested despite naming of local accused, exposure to photographs prior to TIP, and absence of dock identification may collectively erode evidentiary value.

• Witness Credibility and Consistency: When the prosecutrix and close family members do not attribute the crime to the accused at trial—and some turn hostile—the prosecution must present other strong corroborative evidence. Without it, reasonable doubt arises.

• Investigative Diligence: In sexual offence cases—especially those involving minors—police must (i) promptly secure and produce forensic reports, (ii) comply with Section 53A CrPC for accused medical examination, and (iii) carefully and lawfully establish the victim’s age using appropriate documents and methods. Lapses can be decisive.

• Medical Evidence as a Piece of the Puzzle: While absence of injuries does not negate sexual assault, courts will evaluate medical findings in conjunction with other evidence. If other pillars (identification, corroboration, scientific evidence) are weak, neutral or negative medical findings can tip the balance toward acquittal.

For the government and investigating agencies, the case is a reminder to strengthen protocols around TIPs, evidence preservation, age determination, and forensic follow-through. For the general public, it demonstrates that courts will scrutinize every element of proof and will not sustain convictions unless the prosecution meets the high standard of beyond reasonable doubt—an essential safeguard in criminal jurisprudence.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt
— Decision: No. The victim’s trial testimony did not identify the appellants; she stated those in the dock were not the assailants. The TIP was tainted by prior exposure to photographs and lacked corroboration by a dock identification.

• Whether medical and forensic evidence corroborated the allegation of recent sexual assault
— Decision: No. The medical report did not show signs of recent sexual intercourse; crucial forensic (FSL) results were not produced; and Section 53A CrPC examination of the appellants was not undertaken. These gaps deprived the case of scientific support.

• Whether inconsistencies and hostility among material witnesses undermined the prosecution case
— Decision: Yes. The victim and close relatives either did not support the naming of the appellants or turned hostile. With the edifice of identification and corroboration weakened, reasonable doubt persisted.

• Whether the trial court’s approach to age determination and reliance on documents was adequate
— Decision: The High Court noted deficiencies in proof of age (reliance on a Statistical Department certificate rather than the preferred documents/methods). Though minority may be apparent in some cases, here the deficiencies, taken with other weaknesses, contributed to the failure of proof.

Case Title
Criminal Appeals (DB) by three appellants vs. State of Bihar, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022, District Gaya.

Case Number
• Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1018 of 2023
• Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1085 of 2023
• Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1141 of 2023

Citation(s)
2025 (1) PLJR 295

Coram and Names of Judges
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
• For the appellants (in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 1018/2023 & 1085/2023): Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate; Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ritik Thakur, Advocate.
• For the appellant (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141/2023): Mr. Manish Kumar No. II, Advocate; Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate; Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
• For the State in all three appeals: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP.

Link to Judgment
NSMxMDE4IzIwMjMjMSNO-eik–ak1–GOA–ak1–sOY=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.