The Patna High Court, in a recent judgment, acquitted two individuals who had been convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Division Bench overturned the lower court’s verdict due to lack of medical and documentary evidence supporting the prosecution’s claim of gang rape. The case had originated from an incident reported in May 2021 in the Vaishali district, Bihar.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case involved two appeals: one by the convicted individuals seeking acquittal and another by the prosecutrix (the alleged victim) seeking enhancement of the sentence. The prosecution had alleged that the minor victim was gang-raped by eight individuals, including the appellants, following a land dispute in the village.
According to the FIR lodged by the victim, she was allegedly abducted and sexually assaulted while her mother had gone ahead, leaving her behind at their old house. She named multiple accused, including the appellants. The FIR was registered promptly on the same day. The victim claimed she was admitted to a health center and then taken to the hospital due to unconsciousness.
However, upon judicial scrutiny, the medical examination conducted the same day by Dr. Shweta Shalini revealed no signs of recent sexual activity or injury suggestive of rape. The hymen was intact, and there were no traces of spermatozoa. In fact, the doctor gave contradictory statements—initially mentioning multiple injuries but later confirming no signs of sexual assault.
Further investigation exposed inconsistencies. The investigating officer testified that the victim had not mentioned rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Moreover, no site map was prepared, no clothes were seized for forensic examination, and no medical tests were conducted on the accused as per Section 53A CrPC.
Adding complexity, the case was entangled in a web of ongoing civil and criminal disputes between the two families over land. The defense produced several FIRs, a title suit, and proceedings under Section 144 CrPC, showing longstanding animosity. It was revealed that on the same day as the alleged incident, another FIR had been filed against the victim and her family by a relative of the accused.
The Court, after evaluating the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements, the lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the apparent motive arising from prior land disputes, found the allegations unreliable. The victim’s credibility was further questioned as she failed to clearly establish her age as a minor, and her statements were found to be contradictory.
The High Court noted that while courts must be cautious in handling testimonies in sexual offence cases, the facts and evidence in this case did not support a conviction. The Court stressed that justice must rest on strong, consistent, and reliable evidence.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment underscores the importance of thorough investigation and reliable medical evidence in cases of sexual violence. It also highlights how misuse of criminal law for personal vendetta, especially in matters rooted in civil disputes like land ownership, can lead to wrongful accusations. For the public and law enforcement, the case serves as a reminder that every allegation must be scrutinized fairly and impartially.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that even in sensitive cases like sexual assault, the burden of proof cannot be diluted. Victim testimonies must be consistent and supported by corroborative evidence when required.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the conviction under IPC Sections 354(A), 354(B), 323, 341, 342 and Section 8 of POCSO Act was sustainable?
- No. The High Court found lack of credible evidence to support even these lesser charges.
- Whether the allegations of gang rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- No. The medical report and contradictions in witness statements led the Court to conclude the allegations were false.
- Whether the appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 372 CrPC was valid?
- No. The Court dismissed the victim’s appeal, noting that the conviction itself was unsustainable.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Rajesh Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200
- Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614
- Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202
Case Title
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 207 of 2024
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3159 of 2023
Case Number
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 207 of 2024
Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 103
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
- Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate – for the prosecutrix
- Mr. S.K. Lal, Mr. Ravish Mishra, Ms. Keertika Sakshi – for the appellants
- Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP – for the State
- Ms. Vandana Kumari – for the informant
Link to Judgment
NSMyMDcjMjAyNCMxI04=-OuteH6FWR5E=
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.
