Case Background
This criminal appeal arose from Special (POCSO) Case No. 08 of 2014 decided by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna.
The prosecution case was that a minor girl, referred to in the judgment as P.W. 6 Ms. J., was living in village Bhogipur under Gopalpur Police Station, Patna. The accused, later the appellant before the Patna High Court, was residing in the same village.
On 16.02.2014 at about 7 p.m., Ms. J. went to the fields outside the village to attend the call of nature. While she was returning and reached near a place called Devi Sthan, the accused allegedly caught hold of her, dragged her into a Dhania (coriander) field, stuffed her mouth by tearing her clothes and then committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.
According to the prosecution, the victim was later traced by her relatives and other villagers. The accused was also caught at that time but some villagers set him free. The parents of the victim girl were allegedly advised by villagers not to lodge a case in order to “save the honour of the village”.
Despite this initial pressure, Ms. J. later went to the Station House Officer of Gopalpur Police Station and lodged a First Information Report (FIR). On the basis of this FIR, Crime No. 17 of 2014 was registered on 19.02.2014 for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (POCSO Act).
During investigation, the police got the victim medically examined by P.W. 2, Dr. Prem Lata Verma, Medical Officer at Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Patna City. The accused was charge-sheeted after the usual investigation.
The trial court framed charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, her parents, her brother, her uncle, the doctor and the investigating officers. The defence taken was that the accused had been falsely implicated. However, the accused did not lead any defence evidence.
After hearing the parties, the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, by judgment dated 25.07.2016 and order dated 01.08.2016, convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was awarded under Section 376 IPC.
Aggrieved, the convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2016 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
When the appeal came up for final hearing in 2022, it was an old matter and the appellant was in custody, with no bail granted. On 11.07.2022, no one appeared for the appellant. On 26.07.2022, the learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that he was unable to work out the appeal. No lawyer appeared for the State either.
Faced with this situation, the Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. M. Badar, decided to proceed to judgment after going through the entire record, including oral and documentary evidence. Thus, the appeal was decided on the basis of the trial court record without assistance from either side.
The High Court first noted the prosecution allegation that the victim was around twelve years old at the time of the incident. The Court underlined that rape is a “ghastly act” which causes not just physical but emotional and psychological trauma, especially when the victim is a young girl of immature age.
The Court restated the settled legal position that:
- a rape victim is not an accomplice but a victim of another’s lust,
- her evidence stands on a higher footing than even that of an injured witness, and
- if the overall circumstances show that she has no motive to falsely implicate the accused, her testimony does not require further corroboration.
The Court then examined the crucial evidence of P.W. 6, the victim.
Before recording her testimony, the trial court had asked the child some preliminary questions to ensure she understood the questions and could give rational answers. Only after being satisfied of her competence did the court proceed to record her evidence.
In her deposition, Ms. J. stated that on 16.02.2014 at about 7 p.m., after relieving herself in the field, she was returning home. The accused dragged her into the Dhania field, stuffed her mouth with her clothes and committed rape on her. She also stated that she was assaulted. Soon after, her mother, father, brother and uncle found her in the field and took her home. She proved the FIR she had lodged, which was marked as Exhibit 2.
During cross-examination, she stated that she was studying in Class V in a government school. It came on record that the accused resided in her village Bhogipur with his mother-in-law, Rajo Devi. She further stated that the accused had initially been apprehended on the spot, but later managed to escape.
Significantly, in cross-examination she added that the accused had stuffed her sweater into her mouth and made her lie on the ground. She also said that when her father and brother came to the field, they gave her a big scarf, which implied that she had no clothes on her person at that time and had to be covered by them.
The High Court found that this cross-examination actually strengthened, rather than weakened, the prosecution case. According to the Court, nothing was brought out in cross-examination that could cast doubt on her version of rape by the accused.
Next, the Court considered the medical and age-related evidence.
P.W. 2, Dr. Prem Lata Verma, conducted the ossification test on the victim and opined that her bony age was between fourteen and sixteen and a half years at the time of examination. The medical officer also stated that there were no marks of injury on the body of the victim.
The Court noted that the victim herself had consistently said she was 12 years old at the time of the incident, and this claim was never challenged in cross-examination. Considering this and the medical opinion, the Court held that she had clearly not reached the age of consent and was a “child” at the time of the incident under the POCSO Act.
The incident occurred on 16.02.2014 and the medical examination took place on 19.02.2014. The High Court reasoned that because of this time gap, the absence of physical injuries or specific medical signs of rape could not be given “over bearing importance”.
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents, namely Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635 and B. C. Deva v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 122. On the strength of these decisions, the Court emphasised that if the testimony of the victim of a sexual offence is found to be truthful and trustworthy, it can be accepted even if medical evidence does not fully support the prosecution.
The High Court then evaluated the supporting witnesses.
P.W. 3, Paras Paswan, was the victim’s uncle. The accused is the son-in-law of his brother, so this witness was related to both sides. He stated that he was among the relatives searching for the victim and that they found her lying naked in the field. According to him, the victim then said that the accused had forcibly caught her, lifted her and raped her.
The Court noted that this statement of the victim to P.W. 3 was made soon after the incident and therefore was a “former statement” admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act for corroboration. This supported the victim’s version.
P.W. 4, the victim’s brother, also testified that he saw her lying unconscious in the Dhania field with torn clothes. He, too, stated that she disclosed soon after that the accused had raped her.
P.W. 5, the victim’s mother, gave a similar account. She found her daughter lying unconscious in the Dhania field with torn clothes. The victim told her that the accused had committed rape by stuffing her mouth with her clothes.
P.W. 1, the victim’s father, was also part of the search party. In “over enthusiasm”, as the High Court put it, he claimed to have actually seen the accused committing rape on his daughter. The Court rejected this part of his testimony because the other witnesses who were with him did not support this detail.
On the investigative side, P.W. 7 Krishna Murari, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he filed the charge sheet. P.W. 8, Raj Ballabh Ram, another investigating officer, stated that he recorded statements of witnesses and conducted routine investigation. He prepared the seizure memo (Exhibit 5) for the victim’s clothes and sent them for forensic examination.
The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit 7) showed that a small quantity of blood was detected on the victim’s sweater. Because the quantity was too small, serological tests could not be carried out.
After reviewing this entire body of evidence, the High Court concluded that the victim’s testimony was naturally and strongly supported by:
- the evidence of her relatives who found her lying naked/unconscious in the field with torn clothes, and
- her immediate statements naming the accused as the person who raped her.
The Court noted that cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, did not bring out any material to create doubt about their truthfulness. There was no sign of any motive for false implication.
Accordingly, the High Court found “no infirmity” in the trial court’s judgment of conviction and resulting sentence. The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. The conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine were thus confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is important for several reasons.
First, it shows that even when no lawyer appears for either side, the Court will still closely examine the record, especially in serious offences like rape under the POCSO Act, to ensure justice.
Second, it reinforces that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if found truthful and without any sign of false implication, is enough to sustain a conviction. The Court will not insist on independent eyewitnesses or strong medical signs of assault, particularly when some time has passed before medical examination.
Third, the decision underlines that pressure from villagers “to save the honour of the village” cannot override the child’s right to report a crime and seek justice. Once an FIR is lodged and the evidence supports the victim, courts will not ignore the complaint merely because there was initial hesitation or social pressure.
Finally, the case confirms that in offences under the POCSO Act, where the victim is a child below the age of consent, the key question is whether sexual intercourse by the accused has been proved. Once that is established by trustworthy evidence, the law does not excuse the offender.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the conviction of the accused for rape of a minor girl under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was justified on the evidence on record.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the victim’s consistent and trustworthy testimony, supported by her immediate disclosures and the evidence of relatives and investigation, fully proved the offence. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Issue: Whether absence of visible injuries and limited medical/forensic support could be a ground to doubt the prosecution case in a child rape matter.
Answer: No. The Court held, relying on Supreme Court precedents, that credible testimony of the victim can be accepted even if medical evidence does not strongly support rape, especially when examination is delayed.
Issue: Whether the victim was a “child” under the POCSO Act at the time of the incident.
Answer: Yes. Based on her own unchallenged statement that she was 12 years old and the doctor’s ossification test showing a bony age between fourteen and sixteen and a half years at the time of examination, the Court held she had not attained the age of consent.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635
- B. C. Deva v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 122
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 914 of 2016; arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2014
Case Title: Srikant Paswan @ Srikant Paswn v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 932
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. M. Badar
Advocates: The judgment records “None” for both the appellant and the respondent at the final hearing stage.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 04.08.2022
Trial Court: Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Special (POCSO) Case No. 08 of 2014
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
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.
