Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a detailed judgment dated 8 April 2021, the Patna High Court decided two connected criminal appeals — Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2459 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1850 of 2017 — arising from a single case of child sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The case stemmed from Nautan Police Station Case No. 118 of 2015 (District West Champaran). The trial court had convicted one accused for the offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fines. Four other co-accused persons were convicted under Section 17 of the POCSO Act (abetment) and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment each.
The appeals challenged these convictions before the High Court.
Background and Facts
According to the complaint filed by the victim’s mother on 3 May 2015, her 10-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted by a neighbour while she was alone at home. The accused allegedly entered the house around 3:00 PM on 1 May 2015 and committed the offence.
When the mother returned from Varanasi the next day, she found her daughter in critical condition. She alleged that four men — relatives of the accused — prevented her from reporting the incident to the police and took the family to another village, Kaithwaliya, under the pretext of settling the matter through a panchayat.
The police, upon learning of the incident, rescued the victim and her parents and brought them to M.J.K. Government Hospital, Bettiah, where the victim was medically examined and the FIR was registered.
Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court found that:
- Sharma Sahani, the main accused, had committed rape upon the minor girl.
- His relatives — Madan Sahani, Munna Sahani, Jagdish Sahani, and Nitish Sahani — had aided or abetted the crime by restraining the victim’s family from reporting it.
Accordingly, the main accused was convicted under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, while the others were convicted under Section 17 (abetment).
Arguments on Appeal
For the Appellants (Accused):
- There was delay in lodging the FIR without reasonable explanation.
- The medical report did not confirm recent sexual assault, which contradicted the prosecution story.
- The case was allegedly fabricated due to a family land dispute.
- Testimonies of witnesses, especially the victim’s mother and neighbour, contained contradictions.
- No concrete evidence showed that the other accused had instigated or abetted the crime.
For the State and Informant:
- Minor discrepancies do not discredit the victim’s testimony in sexual offence cases.
- The victim’s consistent statements and her identification of the accused were sufficient for conviction.
- In rape cases, corroboration by medical evidence is not mandatory if the victim’s account is trustworthy.
Court’s Observations and Findings
Justice Birendra Kumar, writing the CAV judgment, discussed both legal principles and factual details extensively.
1. Credibility of Victim’s Testimony
The Court reaffirmed that the evidence of a rape survivor stands on par with that of an injured witness.
- Women in Indian society are often reluctant to report sexual assaults due to fear of stigma and social ostracism.
- Therefore, if a victim comes forward with a consistent and convincing account, her testimony deserves full credence.
- Minor contradictions or delays in reporting cannot discredit her unless clear signs of false implication exist.
The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
- Motilal v. State of M.P. (2008) 11 SCC 20
- Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21
2. Delay in Lodging FIR
The Court accepted the prosecution’s explanation — the victim’s family was forcibly confined by the accused and later taken to another village. The police rescued them and recorded the statement immediately after the rescue. Hence, the delay was justified and not suspicious.
3. Alleged Land Dispute
The Court found no evidence of any ongoing land dispute between the families. Documents produced by the defense related to unrelated cases where the victim’s family were not parties.
4. Medical Evidence
The medical board found no fresh injuries but confirmed that the victim’s hymen was old torn, consistent with prior sexual activity.
The Court observed that lack of fresh injuries does not invalidate the charge because the victim was taken to several places before medical examination, possibly affecting the evidence of physical trauma.
5. Victim’s Age
The medical board assessed her age as between 11 and 13 years, confirming she was a child under the POCSO Act.
6. Abetment Charges (Section 17 POCSO)
The Court clarified that abetment under Section 17 requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or active aid in committing the offence.
- There was no evidence that the four co-accused had participated in or encouraged the main offence.
- Their alleged act of preventing the victim’s mother from going to the police occurred after the offence and thus did not amount to abetment.
Court’s Decision
- Conviction of Sharma Sahani (main accused):
Upheld. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the victim’s testimony was reliable and consistent.
He remains convicted under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act with 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. - Conviction of other four accused (for abetment):
Set aside. The Court acquitted Madan Sahani, Munna Sahani, Jagdish Sahani, and Nitish Sahani, holding that their actions did not constitute abetment as defined under the law.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- Strong Protection for Child Victims:
The Court reinforced that credible testimony of a child victim can be sufficient for conviction under POCSO without medical corroboration. - Balanced Judicial Approach:
While affirming the main conviction, the Court carefully distinguished between primary offence and abetment, ensuring innocent persons are not punished merely due to association. - Clarification on Abetment:
This case serves as an important reference for interpreting Section 17 of the POCSO Act — post-offence actions like threatening or restraining cannot amount to abetment unless linked to the commission of the crime. - Guidance for Investigating Agencies:
Police must record statements promptly, ensure medical examination without delay, and collect corroborative evidence to avoid procedural loopholes.
Legal Issues and the Court’s Reasoning
- Whether conviction can rest solely on the victim’s statement?
✅ Yes. If the victim’s testimony is consistent and credible, corroboration is not mandatory. - Whether delay in FIR discredits the case?
❌ No. Delay was satisfactorily explained due to confinement by the accused. - Whether co-accused were guilty of abetment under Section 17?
❌ No. Their alleged conduct occurred after the offence and lacked active participation. - Final Outcome:
- Appeal of main accused dismissed.
- Appeal of co-accused allowed; they were acquitted.
Judgments Cited by the Court
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
- Motilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 20
- Raju & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133
- Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21
Case Title
Appellants vs. State of Bihar
(Arising from Nautan P.S. Case No. 118 of 2015, West Champaran District)
Case Numbers
- Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2459 of 2017
- Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1850 of 2017
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 612
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar
(CAV Judgment dated 08 April 2021)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Bashishtha Narayan Mishra — for the appellants
- Mr. Z. Hoda & Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh — for the State
- Mr. Sachida Nand Rai — for the informant
Link to Judgment
MjQjMjQ1OSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-FHYSNY–am1–dPms=
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.
