The High Court of Judicature at Patna has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey set aside the trial court’s judgment, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor and that the physical relationship was consensual. The court gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt after applying a margin of error to the age determined by medical examination.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a written complaint filed by the victim’s mother on April 28, 2022, leading to the registration of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022. The informant alleged that the appellant, Rangeela Kumar, had been repeatedly raping her 16-year-old daughter for two years on the pretext of marriage, resulting in a five-month pregnancy. She claimed that when her daughter asked the appellant to marry her, he refused.
Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Special Court (POCSO Act) in Bhagalpur framed charges under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5(ञ)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
On February 15, 2023, the trial court convicted the appellant, finding him guilty of establishing a physical relationship with the victim while she was a minor. The court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. This judgment was challenged before the Patna High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in concluding the victim was a minor. It was submitted that the victim herself stated in her testimony (as PW-2) that she was 18 years old at the time of the incident, was in love with the appellant, and had secretly married him a year prior. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., also maintained that the victim was his wife and was a major when they married.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Bihar, supported the trial court’s decision, relying on the initial written complaint that alleged the victim was a minor and had been raped on the false promise of marriage.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence on record. It noted significant contradictions between the initial complaint and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
The victim’s mother (PW-1) stated during her deposition that her daughter was about 18 years old at the time of the occurrence. She admitted the case was lodged only because the appellant’s family was not ready for the marriage and that she would have no objection if the appellant were to marry her daughter now. She further stated that she had not written the complaint and had only put her thumb impression on it without knowing its contents.
The most crucial testimony came from the victim (PW-2). She stated in her examination-in-chief that she was 18 years old at the time of the incident, was in love with the appellant, and had secretly married him. She clarified that the case was lodged by her mother. In her cross-examination, she made a categorical statement, which the High Court emphasized: “it is true that the appellant had not committed any forcible rape upon her rather the relationship was made on sweet-will and volition with consent of each other… she had married the appellant on her own will and she wanted to live with him for her whole life as his wife and she did not want to file the case.”
The court also considered the medical evidence. The doctor (PW-5) who examined the victim on April 29, 2022, assessed her age to be about 17 years, with a possible variation of one year. The High Court observed that the trial court had failed to consider established judicial principles regarding age determination in POCSO cases.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajak Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 9 SCC 248, where it was held that age determined by radiological examination is not precise and a sufficient margin must be allowed. The Supreme Court had observed:
“The benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally, must go in favour of the accused… we will further have to hold that the possibility of the prosecutrix being a consenting party cannot be altogether ruled out.”
The High Court also cited a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Court on its own Motion Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2024), which held that in POCSO cases based on bone ossification tests, the upper age in the reference range should be considered, and a further margin of error of two years must be applied.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court noted that if a margin of +/- 2 years is added to the doctor’s assessment of 17 years, “the upper extremity of the age would come to 19 years at the time of occurrence.” This was consistent with the victim’s own statement that she was 18.
The court concluded that since the victim was a major, her unequivocal statement that the relationship was consensual negated the charge of rape. The judgment stated, “In such circumstance, when the victim is found to be major on the date of occurrence, her categorical statement in course of trial that the appellant had not committed any forcible rape upon her and she had entered into physical relationship with her own will and volition and that it was a consented relationship, would leave no doubt in taking a view that it was not a case of forcible rape.”
The court further held that once the victim is determined to be a major, “the basic fact for bringing the prosecution case within the scope and ambit of the POCSO Act would vanish and the presumptions as contained under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would also not be available to the prosecution.”
Decision
Finding that the trial court had committed a “grave error” in holding the victim to be a minor, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated February 15, 2023, and February 17, 2023, respectively, were set aside. The Court acquitted Rangeela Kumar, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and ordered his immediate release from jail.
