Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Patna High Court Acquits Accused in Gang Rape Case Due to Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Under POCSO

09 October 2024 9:23 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Prosecution Fails to Prove Key Elements of the Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt. On October 7, 2024, in Sarju Chaudhary @ Saryug Chaudhary & Others v. The State of Bihar, the Patna High Court acquitted three individuals convicted of gang rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court found significant inconsistencies in the victim's statements, issues with the identification of the accused, and a failure to establish the crime scene, ultimately ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellants, including Sarju Chaudhary, were accused of raping a minor girl on August 23, 2015, near a canal while she was grazing goats. The trial court had convicted them, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine. The defendants appealed, arguing that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions and procedural lapses, and the victim's testimony was unreliable.

Inconsistent Testimony of the Victim: The court noted that the victim’s statements were inconsistent at multiple stages, including during the investigation, her deposition in court, and in her initial FIR. For example, she provided conflicting accounts about how her goats crossed the canal and the location of the crime scene​​.

Lack of Proof of Age Under POCSO: The prosecution failed to convincingly prove the victim’s age as under 18 years, which was crucial for a conviction under the POCSO Act. The court found discrepancies in the school records provided and noted that the prosecution did not call essential witnesses, such as school officials, to verify the victim's date of birth​.

Failure to Establish the Crime Scene: The prosecution was unable to conclusively establish the exact location of the crime. The court noted contradictions between the investigating officer’s report and the victim’s statements about the place of occurrence, casting doubt on whether the crime occurred as described​.

No Medical Corroboration: The medical evidence presented by the prosecution was inconclusive, with no injuries or definitive signs of sexual assault observed on the victim. Additionally, the forensic evidence, including blood and semen samples, was either mishandled or failed to link the accused to the crime​.

After analyzing the evidence, the Patna High Court held that the prosecution had failed to meet the standard of proof required for a conviction. The court acquitted all the appellants, citing the lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

This judgment highlights the importance of reliable evidence and consistent testimony in cases involving serious charges. The court’s decision to acquit underscores the principle that convictions must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in sensitive cases under the POCSO Act.

 

Date of Decision: October 7, 2024

Sarju Chaudhary @ Saryug Chaudhary & Others v. The State of Bihar​.

 

Latest Legal News