Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 3425 of 2017 and 280 of 2018, the Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Justice Birendra Kumar, set aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced by a Fast Track Court in Gaya for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The High Court found serious inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and inadequate proof regarding her age — both crucial to sustaining the charges.

Background

The prosecution’s case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) dated 3 February 2011, lodged by the victim’s father, who claimed that his 15-year-old daughter went missing from home on 20 January 2011. He later alleged that two men from nearby villages — the appellants — had induced his daughter to accompany them.

Police traced the girl and one of the accused, Rajesh Chaudhary, who were produced before the Magistrate. The girl’s statement under Section 164 CrPC revealed a different story: she said she was 19 years old, had been in a voluntary relationship with Rajesh for about a year, and had gone with him to Delhi of her own will after her family objected to their association. She added that they had performed a court marriage in Gaya before returning to Bihar.

The two accused were later tried before the Fast Track Court-II, Gaya, which convicted both under Section 366-A (procuration of minor girl) IPC, and further convicted Rajesh under Section 376 (rape) IPC. Rajesh received seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, and the co-accused Anil Chaudhary got five years’ imprisonment.

Court’s Examination

The High Court carefully reviewed the trial evidence and found several legal and factual inconsistencies that undermined the prosecution’s case.

1. Inconsistency in the Victim’s Statements

• In her statement before the Magistrate, the girl stated she was 19 years old and had voluntarily gone with Rajesh to Delhi, where they lived as husband and wife.
• During trial testimony, she reversed her position, claiming the accused had kidnapped her at knifepoint while she was returning from the fields.
• The Court noted that such contradictions about the “manner, nature, and place of occurrence” made her testimony unreliable.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court precedent Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012 8 SCC 21), which defined the standard of a “sterling witness.” The High Court observed that the prosecutrix’s evidence failed to meet this standard, as she changed her version multiple times.

2. Unreliable Proof of Age

The prosecution insisted the girl was a minor, but:

• The doctor who conducted radiological tests estimated her age as 18 ± 6 months, meaning she could be an adult.
• The school certificate submitted was merely a letter from a headmaster without production of the admission register or official seal proving authenticity.
• The medical expert who performed the ossification test did not testify before the court.

Citing Supreme Court cases including Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013 Cri LJ 3976), the High Court reiterated that the best evidence of age is the matriculation certificate or official birth record, not mere estimates.

Given these gaps, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove minority, which was crucial for both the kidnapping and statutory rape charges.

3. Absence of Corroboration

Other witnesses — the victim’s mother, sister, and father — had only hearsay information. The doctor (P.W. 5) found no signs of recent sexual assault and noted evidence of an old consensual relationship. There was no independent evidence linking the accused to abduction or forcible act.

Court’s Findings and Reasoning

1. Victim’s testimony not credible:
   The Court held that her inconsistent statements disqualified her as a “sterling witness,” meaning her testimony could not alone sustain conviction.
2. Age not proved beyond doubt:
   The prosecution failed to bring reliable documentary evidence; only approximate radiological age was given. Citing Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018 9 SCC 248), the Court observed that when doubt remains regarding the victim’s age, the benefit must go to the accused.
3. Lack of corroboration:
   No witness saw the alleged abduction, and the physical evidence indicated an old relationship rather than recent assault.
4. Failure of prosecution to meet evidentiary burden:
   Without credible testimony or proof of minority, conviction under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC could not stand.

Final Decision

• The convictions and sentences of both appellants were set aside.
• The appeals were allowed in full.
• Anil Chaudhary, who was on bail, was released from all bond obligations.
• Rajesh Chaudhary, who was in custody, was directed to be released immediately.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal conviction must rest on consistent and reliable evidence — especially in sensitive cases involving allegations of kidnapping or sexual assault.

Key takeaways:

• A victim’s testimony, while vital, must withstand the test of consistency and credibility.
• Courts must insist on strict proof of age when minority determines the nature of the offence.
• Approximate medical age assessments or unverified letters from schools are insufficient proof.
• The principle of benefit of doubt remains central to criminal jurisprudence — particularly where prosecution fails to produce reliable evidence.

For investigators and prosecutors, this case underscores the need for robust documentation and careful handling of statements to prevent miscarriage of justice. For the public, it highlights that courts balance compassion with objectivity, ensuring that conviction follows only when guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

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

• Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident:
  → No reliable proof; age not established beyond doubt.
• Whether the victim’s testimony could be relied upon without corroboration:
  → No; her statements were inconsistent and lacked corroboration.
• Whether conviction under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC was sustainable:
  → No; prosecution evidence was insufficient.
• Outcome:
  → Conviction and sentence set aside; both appellants acquitted.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012 8 SCC 21)
• Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2020 3 SCC 443)
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna @ Shambhu Nath (2016 1 SCC 696)
• Sunil v. State of Haryana (AIR 2010 SC 392)
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013 Cri LJ 3976)
• Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018 9 SCC 248)

Case Title

Appellants v. State of Bihar

Case Numbers

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3425 of 2017
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 280 of 2018

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 347

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and Appearance

• For the Appellants: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
• For the State: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, A.P.P.

Link to Judgment

MjQjMzQyNSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-dzeBqbE6k4E=

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.