Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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