The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a Homeguard who was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged sexual assault of a five-year-old girl. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed that the medical evidence ruled out the possibility of rape and that the child victim admitted to being tutored by her parents and the police.
In the judgment delivered on November 25, 2025, the Court allowed the appeal filed by the convict and directed his immediate release.
Case Background
The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction dated November 9, 2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Patna. The appellant had been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000.
The prosecution’s case was based on a written report filed by the victim’s mother on August 24, 2020. She alleged that the appellant, who lived in a room north of her quarter and worked as a Homeguard, forcibly took her daughter into his room and sexually assaulted her. The initial complaint alleged that the accused rubbed his private parts against the victim’s anus, causing scratches. However, during the trial, the allegations evolved into penetrative sexual assault involving bleeding.
Arguments Raised
The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to test the competency of the child witness before recording her deposition. He highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution’s case, noting that while the initial report mentioned “rubbing,” the testimony during the trial alleged penetration and bleeding, which was not supported by medical evidence.
The defence further submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated due to prior enmity. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed that the victim’s father held a grudge because the appellant had complained to their superior officer about the father’s habits of consuming alcohol and stealing rations.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal, arguing that the victim was a minor between 5 to 6 years of age and her statement should be sufficient to prove guilt. He contended that the redness and swelling found during the medical examination corroborated the prosecution’s version.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court conducted a detailed examination of the evidence and found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case.
1. “External Rubbing” is Not Penetration The Bench noted a stark contrast between the ocular evidence and the medical report. While the parents testified to bleeding and injury to the vagina and anus, the doctor deposed that “no mark of injury was found on the person of the victim.”
Critiquing the Trial Court’s findings, the High Court observed:
“The medical evidence rules out a case of rape… evidence of penetration to any extent was not found by the doctor and in absence of any such evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be sustained in law and the Trial Court has grossly misdirected itself in treating external rubbing as ‘penetrative sexual assault’ as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.”
The medical report stated that only redness and swelling were found near the anal opening, which the doctor admitted during cross-examination “may have been caused by fall on hard surface.”
2. Tutored Witness The Court expressed serious reservations regarding the reliability of the child victim’s testimony. The Bench pointed out that the victim explicitly admitted to being coached.
“We have observed that in her deposition the victim (P.W. 2) has in paragraph-20 admitted that her parents have tutored her to give evidence in the Court. While in paragraph-21, she has stated that earlier she was told by ‘Daroga Ji’ (police officer) then she had given her evidence,” the Court noted.
Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Pradeep vs. State of Haryana and P. Ramesh vs. State, the Bench reiterated that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of a child witness that does not inspire confidence.
3. Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act Addressing the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Veerpal @ Titu vs. State. The Bench held that the presumption of guilt only operates once the prosecution proves the “foundational facts” beyond reasonable doubt.
“In the context of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the foundational facts through cogent evidence,” the Bench held.
4. Defence of Enmity The Court found the defence’s claim of enmity plausible. The appellant’s statement regarding the dispute over the victim’s father’s conduct was corroborated by the victim herself, who admitted that the officer and his wife used to scold her father.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
“We are of the view that in the present case the medical evidence rules out a case of rape and hence it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of the child witness,” the judgment stated.
The Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and directed to be released forthwith.
The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae and directed the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay him an honorarium of Rs. 15,000.
