Prosecutrix Not a Sterling Witness; Age Not Proved Below 18: Patna High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Rape Under POCSO Act

“When the version of the victim is inconsistent, unsupported by medical evidence, and her age is not conclusively proved to be below 18, a conviction under POCSO cannot be sustained” – Patna High Court

In a crucial ruling Patna High Court acquitted Mohan Mishra @ Baba @ Pyara Mohan Mishra, previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, setting aside his 22-year sentence. The Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey found that the prosecutrix’s testimony lacked consistency, her age was not conclusively established, and the investigation suffered from grave procedural lapses.

Setting a precedent on the legal treatment of contradictory testimony and disputed age in sexual offence cases, the Court held:

“The prosecutrix cannot be categorised as a ‘sterling witness’ and the age determination conducted by the prosecution does not rule out the possibility of the victim being above 18 years at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

Medical Report Shows Healed Injuries; No Proof of Recent Assault”: Court Says Allegations Not Supported by Science or Procedure

“The prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 53A and 54 CrPC; no medical examination of the accused was conducted despite his arrest on the same day” – Patna High Court

Patna High Court quashed the conviction of a 55-year-old man, who was accused of raping a minor girl inside a hotel room after taking her for religious rituals. The Court found that the prosecution’s narrative was riddled with contradictions, and the evidence relied upon by the trial court was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering the verdict in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 443 of 2023, arising out of Delha P.S. Case No. 170 of 2020, the Division Bench held that the alleged victim's version changed repeatedly across her written complaint, her Section 164 CrPC statement, her deposition during trial, and even in her statement before the doctor. The Court added:

“There is a sea of difference in her statements, and the core of the prosecution case is unsupported by any credible medical, forensic or corroborative witness evidence.”

Victim’s Testimony Failed the Supreme Court’s ‘Sterling Witness’ Test

At the heart of the acquittal lay the Court’s assessment that the prosecutrix could not be treated as a "sterling witness" as defined in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court observed:

“A ‘sterling witness’ is one whose testimony is of such high quality that it requires no corroboration. The prosecutrix here gave different versions of the incident – from saying her father met her at ‘Naika Pul’ after she fled the hotel, to later claiming he came home and took her back. Even her account of where the offence occurred is inconsistent.”

The Court noted that the mother of the victim, who was examined as P.W.5, gave a version that directly contradicted her daughter's. While the victim claimed no one was home when she left, the mother stated she had consented to the girl going for puja with the appellant.

“When the testimony of the prosecutrix is not only internally inconsistent but also externally contradicted by other key witnesses, such testimony cannot be accepted as the sole basis for conviction,” the Court held.

Prosecution Failed to Prove Victim Was a Minor

While the charge under the POCSO Act depended entirely on the victim being a minor, the Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish her age. The school admission register, produced only after the defence had concluded its case and after the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded, was dismissed as unreliable.

The Court highlighted that:

“The school record was not from the first attended school, bore no seal or signature of any authority, and was marked only for identification. It cannot be treated as legal proof of age under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act.”

The medical report placed the victim’s age between 16–17 years, but the Court applied the standard margin of error of two years, as mandated by the Delhi High Court in Court on its own Motion v. State (NCT of Delhi) and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P..

“Applying the permissible ±2 years margin, the victim could be 18 or older. Hence, charges under the POCSO Act are unsustainable.”

Forensic and Investigative Gaps Proved Fatal to Prosecution

The Court noted with grave concern that the investigation was marred by procedural failures. The prosecution did not produce CCTV footage, visitor records from the hotel, or even call detail records. The victim’s clothing, allegedly soaked during the incident, was never seized. Despite the accused being arrested the same day, no medical examination of the accused was conducted, violating Sections 53A and 54 of the CrPC.

In the words of the Court: “These investigative lapses are not minor irregularities but serious deficiencies that go to the root of the prosecution’s case.”

The medical officer (P.W.1) testified that there were no fresh injuries and the hymen lacerations were old and healed. The victim, the doctor noted, was “most probably habituated to sexual intercourse.”

“When neither the medical evidence supports recent sexual assault nor the victim’s version remains consistent, and when the age is also not proved, it is legally impermissible to convict,” the Court stated.

Trial Court Ignored Glaring Contradictions and Lacked Caution

The High Court expressed its disapproval of the trial court’s approach, stating that:

“The learned trial court erred in brushing aside significant contradictions as minor and failed to appreciate the lack of corroboration or authenticity in documentary and testimonial evidence.”

In evaluating the victim's credibility, the Court stressed that the core issue was not just inconsistencies, but material contradictions on critical aspects — such as the place of occurrence, presence of family members, the sequence of events, and even the identity of the hotel.

Setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 04.02.2023 and 20.02.2023 respectively, the High Court held: “We are of the opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain the conviction. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of all charges.”

Date of Decision: 01 November 2025