The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey acquitted the appellant, Ranjeet Sah, giving him the “benefit of doubt” after finding that the prosecution’s evidence was unreliable, the victim’s age was not properly assessed, and the testimony of key witnesses did not inspire confidence.
The appeal was filed by Ranjeet Sah against the judgment of conviction dated January 5, 2023, and the order of sentence dated January 18, 2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Gopalganj. The trial court had sentenced him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) of the IPC and five years under the POCSO Act.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a fardbeyan (first information statement) recorded on September 9, 2018, by the victim’s mother. She alleged that on the previous day, September 8, 2018, at around 3:00 PM, the appellant, Ranjeet Sah, lured her minor daughter to his house on the pretext of boiling milk. Inside the house, he allegedly closed the door, threatened her with a sword, and committed rape. The informant stated that her daughter, initially frightened into silence, disclosed the incident the next day. She also claimed that a village boy named Raju had heard her daughter’s cries and knocked on the appellant’s door, allowing the victim to escape.
Following an investigation, Barauli P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 was registered, and charges were framed against the appellant under Section 376(2) of the IPC and relevant sections of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court found him guilty, holding that the victim was a “sterling witness” whose testimony was corroborated by other evidence.
Arguments Before the High Court
On Behalf of the Appellant:
The appellant’s counsel, along with an Amicus Curiae, raised several grounds challenging the conviction. It was argued that there was an unexplained delay of over 24 hours in lodging the FIR. The defence pointed to the non-examination of crucial witnesses, including a girl named ‘Isha’ who was allegedly with the victim, and the failure to seize the victim’s clothes or medically examine the appellant as mandated by Section 53A of the Cr.P.C.
Significant inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were highlighted, including improvements made from her initial statement to her court deposition. The credibility of the alleged eyewitness, Raju Kumar (PW-3), was questioned, describing him as a “chance witness” whose conduct was unnatural.
The Amicus Curiae further argued that the trial court committed a serious procedural error by altering the charge from Section 376(2) IPC to the more severe Section 376(3) IPC at the fag end of the trial, without affording the appellant a proper opportunity to defend against it, thereby causing “grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice.”
A key contention was the improper determination of the victim’s age. The defence argued that the school admission register produced was a “forged document” and unreliable, while the medical report estimated her age between 15-16 years. Citing judgments, the defence submitted that applying a two-year margin of error, the victim’s age could be considered 18, taking her out of the purview of the stringent provisions applied.
On Behalf of the State:
The Additional Public Prosecutor defended the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the victim’s testimony was credible and corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The State maintained that the victim’s age as a minor was duly established by the school register and the medical report. It was contended that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applied, as the defence failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence and found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case.
On the Victim’s Age:
The Court found the school admission register (Court Exhibit no. 01) to be wholly unreliable. It observed, “By no stretch of imagination, it would inspire confidence of this Court.” The judgment noted that the pages were manually numbered, not part of a bound register, and contained inconsistencies. The Court concluded, “it would not be safe to attach any evidentiary value to these pages of so-called admission register.”
Relying on the medical report which placed the victim’s age between 15-16 years, and referencing judicial pronouncements in Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P. and Court on its own Motion vs. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that the upper extremity of the age, along with a margin of error, would be 18 years. It stated that the trial court “committed grave error in relying upon the court exhibit no.01 and thereby taking a view that the victim girl was below 12 years on the date of occurrence.”
On Witness Testimonies and Evidence:
The Court found the victim’s testimony did “not inspire confidence.” It noted that a friend named ‘Isha’ was introduced into the narrative only a day after the FIR was registered and was never examined in court, which was a critical omission.
The testimony of the eyewitness Raju (PW-3) was deemed highly suspect. The Court observed his conduct was “highly unnatural,” questioning why he did not immediately inform the victim’s family, who lived just a few houses away. It also noted that he drastically improved his statement during cross-examination to claim he had seen the act with his own eyes, a fact he had not stated to the police.
The investigation itself was criticized. The Court found the Investigating Officer’s (IO) deposition to be “highly doubtful,” pointing out that the IO never recorded the victim’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., failed to properly inspect the scene of the crime, and did not examine any independent witnesses from the locality.
The medical evidence also did not support the charge of rape. The Court highlighted the doctor’s findings that there was “no mark of sexual violence on the private part of the victim,” “no tear or laceration,” and that she “seems like habitual sexual relationship made.”
The Verdict
Concluding its analysis, the Division Bench stated, “On overall analysis of the evidences on the record, we are of the considered opinion that in this case neither the age of the victim girl has been properly assessed by the learned trial court nor the ocular and documentary evidences on the record have been duly appreciated.”
The Court found the witnesses to be untrustworthy and the delay in the FIR to be detrimental to the prosecution’s case. Finding it unsafe to sustain the trial court’s conviction, the High Court allowed the appeal.
“In result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the appellant of the charges giving him benefit of doubt,” the Court ordered, directing the immediate release of Ranjeet Sah from custody.
