Patna High Court
Vikash @ Vikki Kumar Goswami vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.10 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2020 Thana- ISHUPUR BARAHAT District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Vikash @ Vikki Kumar Goswami, Son of Girdhari Goswami, Resident of
Village- Ishipur Barahat, P.S.- Ishipur Barahat, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Advocate
Mr. Anil kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 04-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Vide order dated 24.07.2025, we have directed the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State to instruct the officer in-charge
of Ishipur Barahat Police Station in the District of Bhagalpur to serve a
written notice upon the informant of this case with regard to the present
case being heard in the High Court. The officer in-charge of Ishipur
Barahat Police Station has, vide letter dated 02.08.2025, informed that
the informant was served with notice. Despite service of notice, the
informant has chosen not to appear in this case.
3. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
2/20
29.08.2022
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed
by learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act)-cum-7 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned
trial court’) in POCSO Case No. 72 of 2020 arising out of Ishipur
Barahat P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376,
323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO
Act‘). By the impugned order, he has been sentenced rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4
of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he has to further
undergo six months imprisonment. He has also been sentenced
simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under
Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are
to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the written application
given by the informant (PW-1). In her written application, she has
stated that on 25.06.2020 at about 05:00 PM, her daughter had gone
to attend nature’s call in the maize field, in the meantime, her co-
villager Vikash @ Vikki Kumar Goswami (appellant) committed rape
upon her and caused injuries on various part of her body by biting,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
3/20
the appellant with an intention to kill her daughter, pressed her neck
by his leg many times as a result of which she became unconscious
and the appellant fled away assuming her dead. When her daughter
regained her consciousness, she somehow reached home covered in
blood whereafter the informant panicked and due to social stigma,
she brought her daughter for treatment outside the village and after
treatment, she disclosed about the occurrence to the police. The
informant further alleged that she belongs to Harijan Community
and her family is very poor.
5. On the basis of this written application, Ishipur Barahat
P.S. Case No. 44 of 2020 dated 02.07.2020 was registered under
Sections 376, 324, 307, 506 IPC and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act
and Section 3(i)(r)(w) of the SC/ST Act against this appellant. After
investigation police submitted chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 60
of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 under Sections 376, 324, 307, 506 IPC and
Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(i)(r)(w) of the SC/ST
Act. Learned trial court vide order dated 04.09.2020 took cognizance
of the offences under above mentioned Sections. Charges were read
over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated
12.03.2021, charges were framed under Sections 376, 324, 307, 506
IPC, Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(i)(r)(w) of the
SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
4/20
6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether six witnesses and exhibited some documentary evidences.
The description of prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are given
hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Mother of the victim
PW-2 Neelam Devi
PW-3 Victim
PW-4 Mala Devi
PW-5 Dr. Neelam
PW-6 Bhagirath DasList of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Statement of the Victim u/s 164 CrPC
Exhibit ‘2’&’2/1′ Medical Report of the victim
Exhibit ‘3’ Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘4’ Chargesheet
7. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded
under Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellant denied all the
allegations and took a plea that he is innocent and has falsely been
implicated.
8. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court after examining all the evidences
available on the record found from the evidences of the informant
(PW-1), victim (PW-3) and Doctor (PW-5) that the accused has
committed rape on the victim and caused injuries on her body when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
5/20
she went to attend nature’s call in the maize field. Learned trial court
found that the Doctor (PW-5) has deposed that the victim is aged
between 14-16 years, he has found multiple injuries (bite mark) all
over the face of the victim and hymen was found ruptured. Learned
trial court observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement
of the victim (PW-3) which has been corroborated by the Doctor
(PW-5), PW-1 and PW-4.
10. Learned trial court further found that the delay in
lodging of the FIR has been explained in paragraph ‘4’ of the cross-
examination of the informant (PW-1) that treatment has taken time.
Learned trial court found that the prosecution has proved the
foundational facts that the victim is aged below 16 years and accused
has committed rape upon her.
11. Learned trial court after appreciation of the evidences
available on the record found that the prosecution has been able to
prove charges under Sections 323 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the
POCSO Act, accordingly, the appellant has been convicted for the
offences under sections 323, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO
Act.
Consideration
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the
trial court records.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
6/20
13. On going through the entire materials, we find that in
the present case the occurrence is said to have taken place on
25.06.2020 at 5.00 PM. The F.I.R. (Exhibit-P-3) has been lodged by
mother of the victim on 02.07.2020. In her written information, she
has disclosed that when her daughter reached home, she was in pool
of blood. The informant with a sense of her prestige took her
outside for her treatment. It is important to note that she does not
disclose the place where she had gone with the victim. Further in
the written information, the informant (PW-1) has stated that when
her daughter got well then she disclosed the occurrence which took
place with her whereupon the informant came to lodge the F.I.R. on
02.07.2020. Thus, from this part of the statement in F.I.R. it would
appear that since 25.06.2020 the victim did not disclose to her
mother about the occurrence until the date of lodging of the F.I.R.
In course of trial, the informant (PW-1) has identified her thumb
impression on the written information (Exhibit-P-3) submitted
before police. She has stated that when she had been in search of
the victim she found that victim was coming and when she asked as
to what had happened with her then she disclosed the occurrence.
Therefore, in trial PW-1 has deviated from her case in the F.I.R. She
had come to know about the occurrence on 25.06.2020 itself. PW-1
has disclosed for the first time in trial that she had taken the victim
for her treatment to her Samadhi’s place namely ‘Gangti Bihari’ in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
7/20
Jharkhand. We, however, find that no paper showing treatment of
the victim at Gangti Bihari, Jharkhand has been brought in
evidence.
14. In her cross-examination, she has stated that for
treatment she had gone to Gangti Bihari and had returned within
one day, she was not treated anywhere else. It is evident from the
deposition of PW-3 that she has not stated about any injury on her
private parts. In cross-examination only she has stated to have gone
to Gangti Bihari for treatment but returned within one day.
Whereas, her mother has in order to explain the delay in lodging the
F.I.R. stated that it took 7-8 days in the treatment.
15. P.W.1 has neither disclosed the name of the doctor
who treated the victim in the state of Jharkhand nor named her
Samadhi. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that she had
not seen the occurrence and her daughter was telling her about the
occurrence only she was there with her daughter. She has stated
that she had lodged the case after 7-8 days because it took time in
treatment by doctor. This court finds that prosecution has not
brought any reliable piece of evidence to prove the fact that the
informant had taken her daughter (victim) to Gangti Bihari in
Jharkhand and she was treated there by a doctor.
16. P.W. 2 is related to P.W.1 She is Bhabhi of P.W.1. She
has stated that the victim had told her about the occurrence. She has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
8/20
stated there were bleeding from the vagina of the victim and the
victim had mark of teeth bites on her cheek. This witness has,
however not stated that the P.W. 1 had taken the victim to Gangti
Bihari Jharkhand for treatment. She is completely silent about the
place where victim was treated. She is not an eye witness and has
made statements as told by the victim.
17. P.W. 3 is the victim of this case. In her examination-
in-chief she has stated that this appellant committed rape on her and
gave her teeth bites on her cheek and lip. He had pressed her neck
by his legs whereafter she became unconscious. When she regained
consciousness then she reached her home. This witness has not
stated that she had disclosed the occurrence to her mother (P.W.1)
or to her Buaa (P.W.2). She has also not stated that P.W.1 took her
to Gangti Bihari Jharkhand for treatment and that she had received
any treatment there.
18. PW-4 is also Bhabhi of PW-1. She has deposed on the
line of PW-2 as a hearsay witness.
19. PW-5 is Dr. Neelam, the Medical Officer at Pirpainti
Referral Hospital who examined the victim (PW-3) on 30.07.2020.
she has deposed as under:-
” 1. I examined the Victim of Ishipur Barahatt P.S Case no
44/2020 and foun d the following :-
I. Weight 35 KG
Height 150 CM
Teeth Upper 13 lower 14
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
9/20Found multiple injury over the face lacerated (Bite
of teeth)
II. Axillary – Not present
Breast – mild developed
pubic hair scanty
Vagina – No external injury
Hymen was ruptured
III. Two vaginal swab taken sealed and sent to pathology
department of J.L.N.M.C.H., Bhagalpur for detection of
spermatozoa.
IV. Sent to x-ray department J.L.N.M.C.H, Bhagalpur for x-
ray of wrist, elbow and pelvis joints for age determination.
2. I received report on 13-08-2020
3. According to pathology department report memo no 173
dated 04-07-2020 spermatozoa not found.
4. According to X-Ray No. 227 dated 03-07-2020 age on
radiological ground appears to be between 14-16 years.
MI- Black mole on the tip of the nose.
OPINION:- She is under minor.
Epiphysis of eliac crust and digital part of radial ulna are
not fused.
5. Both reports have been prepared by me in my pen and
bears my signatures.
1 identify the same. The injury reports are marked as
Exhibit No.2, & Exhibit 2/1.
Cross examination on behalf of accused person:-
6. It is is not true that i have not prepared my report
properly”
20. The age of the victim has been found between 14-16
years as per Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2/1.
21. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant that in this case since the victim has been found aged
between 14 to 16 years as per Exhibit ‘2’ and Exhibit ‘2/1’
respectively, considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajak Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh reported in (2018) 9 SCC 248 and the judgment of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
10/20Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Court
on its own Motion Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. Ref.2/2024
judgment dated 02.07.2024) reported in 2024 SC OnLine Delhi
4484, a margin of plus/minus two years in the age is required to be
considered. In the case of Rajak Mohammad (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph ‘8’, ‘9’ and ’10’
as under:-
“8. On the other hand, we have on record the
evidence of Dr Neelam Gupta (PW 8), a Radiologist
working in the Civil Hospital, Nalagarh who had
given an opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was
between 17 to 18 years.
9. While it is correct that the age determined on the
basis of a radiological examination may not be an
accurate determination and sufficient margin either
way has to be allowed, yet the totality of the facts
stated above read with the report of the radiological
examination leaves room for ample doubt with
regard to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The
benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in
favour of the accused.
10. We will, therefore, have to hold that in the
present case the prosecution has not succeeded in
proving that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date
of the alleged occurrence. If that is so, based on the
evidence on record, already referred to, we will
further have to hold that the possibility of the
prosecutrix being a consenting party cannot be
altogether ruled out.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
11/20
22. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajak Mohammad (supra), a
Division Bench of Delhi High Court while considering a reference
held in paragraph ’46’ of its judgment as under:-
“46. As an upshot of our foregoing discussion, the
Reference is answered as under:-
(i) Whether in POCSO cases, the Court is
required to consider the lower side of the
age estimation report, or the upper side of
the age estimation report of a victim in
cases where the age of the victim is proved
through bone age ossification test?
Ans: In such cases of sexual assault,
wherever, the court is called upon to
determine the age of victim based on ‘bone
age ossification report’, the upper age given
in ‘reference range’ be considered as age of
the victim.
(ii) Whether the principle of ‘margin of
error’ is to be applicable or not in cases
under the POCSO Act where the age of a
victim is to be proved through bone age
ossification test.
Ans: Yes. The margin of error of two years
is further required to be applied.”
23. We have also noticed from the Exhibit ‘2’ prepared
on 02.07.2020 that on the said date, the doctor had found multiple
teeth bite over the face and the right cheek below the neck. The
time of injury mentioned thereon is 72 hours whereas the
prosecution case is that occurrence took place seven days ago. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
12/20
nature is mentioned as “only mark at neck”. The injury has been
found simple. Exhibit ‘2’ is being reproduced hereunder:-
“I have examined and found the following
injury:-
Multiple teeth bite over the face
Rt cheek
below the neck
Im Mole on the tip of the nose
Time of injury 72 hours
Nature only mark at neck
Nature simple”
24. Exhibit ‘2/1’ has been prepared on 13.08.2020. PW-5
has stated that both the reports have been prepared by her, she was
suggested by the defence that she had not prepared the report
properly. In Exhibit ‘2/1′, it is recorded besides other things that
X-ray of both wrist joint for age determination was taken. The X-
ray report from Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital
(JLNMCH) vide X-ray No. 227 dated 03.07.2020 has been
mentioned. It appears that at two places there are overwriting in
this report. At first, with regard to the number of upper teeth there
is an overwriting and it appears that after first writing ’14’ it has
been overwritten as ’13’. Similarly, in the lower part of the report,
it is recorded “by radiologically and pathologically in my opinion
age is in between 14-18 years all report was countersigned and
attached with this report.” The figure ’14’ seems to have been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
13/20
overwritten for ’16’. It is evident that the countersigned reports
attached with Exhibit ‘2/1’ have not been brought in evidence,
therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
overwriting at two places in the report and suppression of the
attached reports with Exhibit ‘2/1’ would go against the
prosecution.
25. We notice from the statement under section 164
CrPC that the victim disclosed before the learned Magistrate that
she was a student of Girls Secondary School, Ishipur but the date
of birth of the victim as per school admission register has not been
brought on record. Based on the discussions hereinabove and the
judicial pronouncements on the subject, by giving a margin of two
years is the upper extremity of the age, we would hold that the
victim in this case is major and she would not come within the
meaning of the word ‘child’ as defined under Section 2(12) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in
short ‘Act of 2015’).
26. The learned trial court has relied upon Exhibit ‘2’ but
has not taken note of the fact that the doctor had noticed that the
time of injury was 72 hours. Exhibit ‘2’ nowhere mentions of any
complaint of sexual violence against the victim girl. It is not
known who produced the victim girl for examination before PW-5
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
14/20
on 02.07.2020. In this regard, the requisition of the I.O. has not
been marked exhibit. In his deposition, the I.O. (PW-6) has stated
that he had inspected the place of occurrence but nothing could be
found. The prosecution case is that the appellant had committed
rape on the victim in a maize field. The victim has stated that she
had become unconscious there and when she regained
consciousness then she came back to her house but the I.O. has not
found anything at the place of occurrence. According to him, the
place of occurrence is the maize field of Dr. Kamaldhari but
Kamaldhari has not been examined by the I.O. In such
circumstance, the submission of the defence that if the maize field
would have been the place of occurrence then there would have
been sign of some trampled and crushed maize plants gains
importance. Non-examination of the owner of the land and there
being nothing at the place of occurrence, the prosecution case with
regard to the occurrence at the given place is not getting
corroborated. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand on
its own leg.
27. With regard to the injury on the body of the victim,
the I.O. (PW-6) has stated that there was a sign of injury caused by
quarrel (marpeet) on the left side cheek but no other injury apart
from that was found. This statement of the I.O. (PW-6) is contrary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
15/20
to Exhibit ‘2’ wherein multiple teeth bite over face and right cheek
below the neck have been recorded. The injuries being only 72
hours old, the prosecution is unable to prove that those were
caused on 25.06.2020 during commission of rape.
28. It further appears from the deposition of the I.O.
(PW-6) that in the boundary of the place of occurrence there is a
farmhouse but the I.O. had not recorded the statement of Jeetu
Ram or the workers who were working in the poultry farm. PW-6
had also not seized the clothes of the victim. We have noticed in
the evidence of the informant that when the victim met her, she
was in pool of blood, PW-2 has gone to the extent of saying that
she was bleeding from her vagina but the doctor (PW-5) has not
found any injury on the vagina and the I.O. (PW-6) had not seized
the clothes of the victim, therefore, the case of the prosecution that
the victim was in pool of blood is not getting corroborated. The
immediate circumstance which would have been present at the
place of occurrence has not been brought in evidence.
29. At this stage, the victim has stated that her mother
had taken her to Bihari, Jharkhand where she was treated by a
private doctor. As has been found hereinabove, the victim (PW-3)
has stated in course of trial that she had come back/returned from
Bihari, Jharkhand within one day. No treatment paper showing her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
16/20
treatment by a private doctor has been brought in evidence.
Neither the victim nor her mother or any other witnesses of the
prosecution has disclosed the name of the doctor. If these
circumstances are taken into consideration together, the time of
injury recorded in Exhibit ‘2’ would be very important. The time
of injury as recorded by PW-5 is 72 hours. It means no occurrence
had taken place on 25.06.2020. In fact, the defence has in course
of cross-examination of the victim (PW-3) has suggested to her
that no such occurrence had taken place with her and she had
lodged a false case against the appellant who is her co-villager.
30. In course of his statement under section 313 CrPC,
the appellant has stated that he had enmity with his neighbour who
has got this case lodged against him. This plea of the appellant
must be considered keeping in view the entire surrounding facts
and circumstances. The informant (PW-1), who is the mother of
the victim, is an illiterate lady but she has submitted a written
application dated 02.07.2020 which is the basis of the present FIR.
Who has written this application has not come in the prosecution
case. There is a thumb impression on the written application but
nobody has identified the same. Thus, the writer of the written
application does not want to identify himself and the fact that
nobody has identified the thumb impression of PW-1 further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
17/20
suggests that there was a conscious effort not to get identified with
PW-1 or the victim in the police station.
31. We have found from the evidence of the I.O. that he
examined the victim (PW-3) only on 20.07.2020 i.e. after about
eighteen days of the submission of the written information. On the
base of these materials on the record, we are of the considered
opinion that the victim in this case would not come in the category
of a sterling witness. There are material contradictions in the
statement of the victim and her mother. While her mother has, in
order to explain the delay in lodging of the FIR stated that she had
taken the victim to her samdhi’s place in Gangti Bihari, Jharkhand
where time was taken in her treatment which caused delay in
lodging of FIR, the victim has stated that she had returned from
Bihari within one day. There is nothing on the record to show that
the victim had suffered injuries on 25.06.2020.
32. On going through the statements recorded under
Section 313 CrPC, we have noticed that the prosecution has not
brought to the notice of the appellant the date and place of
occurrence. The evidence of the doctor (PW-5) and the report
(Exhibit ‘2’) which have been taken into consideration for the
purpose of conviction of the appellant were not brought to the
notice of the accused-appellant. We, therefore, find that at the stage
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
18/20
of Section 313 CrPC, the appellant was not given appropriate
opportunity to explain the evidences brought by the prosecution
against him. As regards the importance of the statement under
Section 313 CrPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported
in (1984) 4 SCC 116 held in paragraph ‘143’ and ‘144’ as under.
“143. Apart from the aforesaid comments there is one
vital defect in some of the circumstances mentioned
above and relied upon by the High Court viz.
Circumstances 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. As
these circumstances were not put to the appellant in
his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 they must be completely
excluded from consideration because the appellant did
not have any chance to explain them. This has been
consistently held by this Court as far back as 1953
where in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State
of Madhya Pradesh14 this Court held that any
circumstance in respect of which an accused was not
examined under Section 342 of the Criminal
Procedure Code cannot be used against him. Ever
since this decision, there is a catena of authorities of
this Court uniformly taking the view that unless the
circumstance appearing against an accused is put to
him in his examination under Section 342 of the old
Code (corresponding to Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973), the same cannot be used
against him. In Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of
Maharashtra15 this Court held thus: [SCC para 5, p.
440: SCC (Cri) p. 58]
14. AIR 1953 SC 468 : 1953 Cri LJ 1933
15. (1976) 1 SCC 438 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 56
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
19/20“The fact that the appellant was said to be
absconding, not having been put to him under
Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be
used against him.”
144. To the same effect is another decision of this
Court in Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat16
where the following observations were made: [SCC
(Cri) p. 653, para 3]
“In the first place, he stated that on the personal search
of the appellant a chedi was found which was blood
stained and according to the report of the serologist, it
contained human blood. Unfortunately, however, as
this circumstance was not put to the accused in his
statement under Section 342, the prosecution cannot
be permitted to rely on this statement in order to
convict the appellant….”
33. In the totality of the materials which we have
discussed hereinabove, it is recorded that the prosecution has not
been able to prove the primary facts which may form foundation
for bringing this case under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
Further, this Court finds no plausible evidence to prove
commission of ‘rape’ upon PW-3 on 25.06.2020. Thus, neither the
charge under Section 376 IPC nor under Section 4 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence on
the other hand has been able to create enough doubt in the
prosecution story for various reasons. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court giving the
benefit of doubt to the appellant.
16. AIR 1979 SC 1566 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 652 : 1979 Cri LJ 1137
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.10 of 2023 dt.04-08-2025
20/20
34. The appellant is in incarceration in connection with
this case, so he will be released forthwith if not wanted in any
other case.
35. This appeal is allowed.
36. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court’s records be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 14.08.2025 Transmission Date 14.08.2025