Every Instance Of Acquittal Of An Actual Culprit Revolts Against Society: Supreme Court Restores Conviction In Bihar POCSO Case

“Not every mistake is fatal – criminal procedure is meant to serve justice, not to defeat it”, the Supreme Court of India reversed the Patna High Court’s acquittal of two men convicted of repeatedly raping a minor girl, restoring their life sentence under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the High Court had wrongly let “procedure control justice,” stressing that technical irregularities in framing charges or joinder of trials could not erase overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Court’s ruling opens with a stern reminder that “it is always a matter of utter failure for the system as a whole when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules.” The justices stressed that while procedural fairness is vital, it cannot become a shield for perpetrators of grave crimes, particularly offences against children.

The case stemmed from Piro, District Bhojpur, Bihar, where in 2016 a 12-year-old girl was repeatedly assaulted by two men, Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari. Threatened into silence, the crime only surfaced when her pregnancy was discovered during a medical examination in July 2016. The trial court convicted both men, imposing rigorous life imprisonment and fines.

However, on appeal, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction, pointing to inconsistencies in witness accounts, lack of precise proof of the victim’s age, errors in the charge sheet which mentioned the wrong date, and the alleged illegality of conducting a joint trial of the two accused. The High Court concluded that these procedural defects had prejudiced the defence and caused miscarriage of justice.

“Minor variations cannot be elevated to reasonable doubt”

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misapplied the doctrine of “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Justice Sharma observed that “natural variations, errors and inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the standard of a reasonable doubt.” The victim’s testimony was described as “fairly consistent, natural and corroborated” by medical reports confirming her pregnancy and abortion. The Court highlighted that discrepancies in documents or inability of a child victim to recall exact dates are natural, and cannot dilute the statutory protections under POCSO.

The bench chastised the High Court for “raising a doubt where none existed” and stressed that “once the minority of the victim was beyond doubt, the special protection of the POCSO Act ought not to have been diluted.”

“Joint trial did not prejudice the accused – separate trials would only re-traumatize the victim”

Turning to the procedural objection, the Court acknowledged that the trial court had erred in specifying the exact date in the charges and had conducted a joint trial of two accused under Section 223 CrPC. But it held that “mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in the framing of charge does not ipso facto render the decision of the Court invalid… unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.”

The Court concluded that the accused were fully aware of the allegations, defended themselves throughout, and suffered no prejudice. Importantly, it warned that ordering separate trials would have only “harassed the victim by compelling her to face her offenders twice in the witness box for explaining the same version.”

“Procedure is not supposed to control justice”

In its most striking observation, the Court declared: “A fairly consistent and creditworthy case of the prosecution has been discarded on what could only be termed as misapplication of procedure. It takes us back to the first principle that procedure is not supposed to control justice.”

The justices condemned the trend of acquitting accused in sexual offence cases on flimsy procedural grounds, warning that “such misapplication of this principle, resulting into culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt, is equally dangerous for the society.”

By restoring the trial court’s conviction and life sentence, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that while procedural safeguards are important, they cannot override substantive justice in cases involving heinous crimes against children. The respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which the trial court must secure their custody.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025