Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Dr. Anshuman set aside judgment of conviction by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad, acquits accused in case of kidnapping and alleged rape in 2015 due to inconsistencies in victim's evidence, lack of corroborative medical evidence, fabricated allegations

In Deepak Kumar @ Sunny vs. State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 23-page long judgement dated March 18, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "26. On careful appreciation of evidence, we can categorize the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution into three categories:(i) victim being the eye-witness of the incident, (ii) PW-2 to PW-5 as family members of the victim hearsay witnesses and, (iii) PW-7 to PW-9 expert witnesses.  27. Evidence of the hearsay witnesses is of little or no significance, as they did not even see the appellants forcibly taking away the victim on the night of 15.05.2015. The victim's evidence is not wholly reliable; rather, it is mostly unreliable, because there is no explanation as to why the victim remained silent regarding the alleged commission of rape by the appellants in the course of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. Thus, the Court is at liberty to hold that the story of rape was subsequently manufactured by the victim. It is needles to say that when there are two views which the Court can arrive at upon assessment of evidence, the view that supports the innocence of the accused shall be accepted. 28. Thirdly, the expert opinion does not suggest any recent commission of rape within three days prior to the medical examination of the victim. On the contrary, the medical report indicates that the victim had prior sexual experience. 29. In view of above finding, we are of the firm opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and are set at liberty. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other case." The case was filed in the High Court on August 1, 2018 and registered on August 8, 2018. It was heard along with Yogendra Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar.It was heard by eight different judges during September 2018-February 2026. The arguments were concluded and judgement was reserved on February 25, 2026. 

Prior to the verdict, a Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar has passed a 6-page long order dated July 23, 2024, wherein, it had concluded:10. Considering the nature of allegation against the appellants, we are not inclined to suspend their sentence during the pendency of the appeal, notwithstanding the  fact that two other co-accused persons/coconvicts have been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. We say so for the reason that the victim has not named those co-convicts in her deposition before the Trial Court and thus, their cases are different from the appellants. 11. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellants is rejected. 12. However, looking at the mandate of Section 374 (4) of the Cr.P.C., we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry for preparing the paper book of this case and getting this case listed for final hearing within first five case in the second week of November, 2024, commencing from 11th of November, 2024." Subsequently, Justices Ashutosh Kumar became the Chief Justice of Guwahati High Court. Therefore, Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman heard and adjudicated the matter.    

Both the criminal appeals filed by the convicts had challenged the judgment of conviction dated May 3, 2018 and order of sentence dated May 10, 2018 passed by the  Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad in GR Case No. 864 of 2015/46 of 2015 arising out of Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015.

The appellants had challenged their conviction under Section 366A of the IPC where they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three months and under Section 376D of the IPC sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- as well as section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) awarded thereunder. The trial court directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The principle grounds urged assailing the impugned judgment are misappreciation of evidence by the learned trial court, undue reliance on interested family witnesses, material contradictions between the victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and her deposition in Court, absence of independent corroboration, lack of medical support for forcible gang rape and the Investigating Officer's finding that the case was unfounded against appellant Yogendra Singh.

Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 was registered on May 16, 2015 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the victim, (hereinafter called as the 'informant'), alleging inter alia that in the night of 15/16 May 2015 at about 12:00 at midnight her minor girl (name of the victim girl is not disclosed and she is described as victim), then aged about 15/16 years, was kidnapped from her house situated at Village Balia within P.S. Amba in the District of Aurangabad. It was alleged by the informant that the covillagers, namely, Yogendra Singh, Deepak Kumar Singh @ Sunny, Rahul Kumar, Pradeep Singh and Sonal Kumar kidnapped her for the purpose of illicit intercourse or to marry her illegally. The trial court's record shows that the victim was rescued on May 18, 2015 near the Haat (market) situated by the side of a Shiva Temple in the same village in early morning. Her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on May 20, 2015. The victim was medically examined on May 19, 2015 by a Medical Board. The accused persons were arrested. The I.O. examined available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the CrPC and on conclusion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against Deepak Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar Singh while final report was submitted against the accused Yogendra Singh, Pradeep Singh and Sonal Kumar. On the basis of the said charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the charge-sheeted accused persons on January 5, 2016. Since the offence punishable under Section 366A/376D of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Special Court under the POCSO Act for trial and disposal.

The following case laws were referred:

    Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra 1990 (1) SCC 550

    Ganesan v. State (2020) 10 SCC 573

    Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130

    Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171

    Nirmal Premkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police 2024 INSC 193

    Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21

    Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443

    State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210 : AIR 1990 SC 658]

    Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614

    Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191

       Evidence in Trial Court

    7. The victim girl was examined during trial as PW-1. She deposed in her evidence that on 15.05.2015 at night she was sleeping on the roof of their house with her mother and other family members. She woke up hearing some sounds coming from the ground floor. She thought that her grandfather was asking for water. She came down and found that someone was knocking at the entrance door of their house. She opened the door immediately, appellant Deepak Kumar Singh, Rahul Kumar and Sonal Kumar gagged and blind-folded her. She was forcibly taken in a four-wheeler to some distance and confined her to a dark room. PW-1 further deposed that the appellants repeatedly raped her one by one for three days. On 17.05.2015, Yogendra Singh and 2/4 other persons visited the said house where she was confined and the appellants discussed about either releasing her or committing her murder. The appellants also threatened her that she and her family members would be killed if she discloses the incident. One Pradeep Singh also threatened her. On the next day in the early morning she was again blind-folded and dropped at a place. The victim could understand that she was dropped in front of a Haat situated by the side of a Shiva Temple of their village. Then after 2/3 minutes of her release, police arrived at the spot and rescued her and took her to the local police station.

    8. During investigation of the case, she made statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. In her statement she identified all the accused persons and narrated the incident which had alleged been committed upon her by the appellants. In her crossexamination she denied that she was having any romantic relationship with any of the appellants or that she tried to implicate the appellants falsely. It is important to note at this stage that the deposition of PW-1 appears to be consistent with the evidence of other witnesses in relation to the charge of kidnapping, but lacks precision regarding the place where she was allegedly confined. It is important to note that the deposition of PW-1 is materially inconsistent with her previous statement under Section 164 of the CrPC which described only a story of kidnapping by three persons without any mention of rape by the appellants or giving threats to her. This omission goes to the root of the offence under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

    9. PW-2, is the mother of the victim. It is ascertained from her deposition that on 15.05.2015, she woke up from her sleep at about 02:00 am at night and found her daughter (victim herein) who was sleeping by her side missing. She also discovered that the main gate of the house was open. On her call, other family members of the house woke up and they conducted search for the victim in the village. It is also found from her deposition that she was previously threatened by appellants, namely, Deepak Kumar Singh, Rahul and Sonal not to make a fuss or the girl would be killed. On the following morning also, the family members of the victim vigorously searched to find out the girl. During such time, Yogendra Singh and Pradeep Singh threatened the husband of PW-2. thereafter, he lodged FIR in the local police station. The victim was recovered on 18.05.2015 in the morning. She narrated the entire incident to her parents and other family members. PW-2 came to know from her that she was taken to a dark room by a car and the appellants committed rape upon her. However, the medical officer did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the victim.

    10. PW-3, Baban Singh is the grandfather of the victim. In his deposition he stated on oath that he woke up from sleep at about 2:30 am on 15.05.2015 to learn that the victim was missing with the main gate of their house open. He also took part in conducting search in their village for the victim girl and received threats from Yogendra and Pradeep not to make a fuss or the victim would be killed. The evidence of all the witnesses on the prosecution is consistent about her recovery on 18.05.2015. The witness also stated that the victim was sexually assaulted by the appellants but the medical officer did not find any injury. PW-4 is the father of the victim on the basis of whose fard beyan, Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 was registered on 16.05.2015. It appears from the statement made in the FIR that in the dead hours of night of 15.05.2015, he woke up hearing the call of his wife and came to know that the victim was missing and entrance door of his house was open. He and other family members conducted search of the victim in the village and heard a rumour that the victim might be kidnapped by Rahul, Deepak @ Sunny and Sonal. He further deposed that he asked about the matter to Yogendra Singh, father of Depak but Yogendra Singh and one Pradeep threatened him seeing that his daughter would be killed. On the 18.05.2015 victim was recovered, then only he came to know that the appellants confined her in a room and committed rape on her for three days. It is pertinent to note that the informant did not state anything about receiving threats from Yogendra Singh and Pradeep in her FIR. No such statement was also made by him before the police.

    11. The evidence of PW-5, Amit Kumar is the same as that of the evidence of other witnesses.

    12. From the evidence of PW-6, S.I. Surrendra Prasad, conducted investigation of the case. It appears that after registration of Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 on 16.05.2015, he conducted raid to recover the victim girl and on 18.05.2015, she was recovered from a place in her village near the Haat in front of a Shiva Temple. The victim had no injury mark in person. Her medical examination was conducted on 19th May 2015 and statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on 20.05.2015.

    13. It is already recorded that in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC the victim did not state anything about the commission of rape by the appellants and that Yogendra Singh and Pradeep Singh visited the room where she was confined and talked to the appellants either about her release or committing her murder. In her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the victim stated her age as 17 years.

    14. PW-7, Dr. Vikas Kumar Singh, PW-8, Dr. Bibhuti Prasana and PW-9, Dr. Rina Kumari where posted at Sadar Hospital Aurangabad. They constituted a Medical Board to examine the victim medically. From the evidence of PW-9, Dr. Rina Kumari, it appears that she examined the victim on 19.05.2015 at about 01:10 pm. She did not find any marks of violence on the body, back, breast, thigh or in and around the private part of the victim. She also found ruptured hymen and vagina admitting one finger easily. There was no abnormal discharge, bleeding, injury on her vulva, vagina, perineum, etc. The patient did not make any complaint of tenderness or bruising. The Medical Board opined that she had undergone sexual act. From the Radiological as well as Dental Report, PW-7 and PW-8 opined that the approximate age of the victim is between 15 and 16 years.

    15. The FIR and relevant medical records were duly exhibited during trial. Defence case as disclosed from the crossexamination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC appears to be complete denial of the allegation made out against them. The defence also examined two witnesses, One Ramashish Mahto was explained as DW-1. He is the resident of the same village. He deposed that as per his knowledge goes, no incident took place with the daughter of the informant on the night of 15.05.2015 and the appellants were falsely implicated in this case.

    16. PW-2, Sanyog Kumar Singh is the son-in-law of Pradeep Singh. It is ascertained from his evidence that he was present in Balia from 07.05.2015 to 18.05.2015. He denied that the victim was kidnapped by the appellants. According to him, the victim remained at home throughout and the entire prosecution's case is false.

    Decision by the Trial Court.

    17. This Court at the very beginning of the judgment has recorded that the trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record convicted the accused persons/appellants and sentenced them of various descriptions for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC and Section 376D of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

   Findings of the Division  Bench of the Hgh Court

    18. It is found from the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 that their evidence is absolutely hearsay in nature. Except the victim, none of the above-mentioned witnesses are the eye-witness of the occurrence. They did not see the appellants knocking at door of the informant at dead hours of night on 15.05.2015. They did not see the victim girl opening the door or that three miscreants, namely, Rahul Kumar, Deepak Kumar Singh @ Sunny and Sonal gagged and blind-folded her and forcibly took her by a car and confined her in a dark room. They heard the incident from the victim girl after she was recovered on 18.05.2015 by the police.

    19. It is needless to say that in plethora of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of sexual assault, the evidence of the victim is of utmost importance. The victim's evidence cannot be equated with the evidence of accomplice. She is a victim of crime. A victim does not generally make a false statement regarding commission of an offence at the cost of her virginity and womanhood. In Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1990(1) SCC 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the position of law regarding appreciation of evidence of a prosecutrix in the following words:-

        "16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. For the above reasons we think that exception has rightly been taken to the approach of the High Court as is reflected in the following passage:

        "It is only in the rarest of rare cases if the court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so trustworthy, truthful and reliable that other corroboration may not be necessary."

        With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony if there is independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation."

    20. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim when she was missing. Therefore, he did not know whether the victim had been ravished or not. According to the prosecution's case and the statements of the witnesses, the family members of the victim came to know about the commission of sexual assault by the appellants only after she was recovered. It is already recorded that she was recovered on 18.05.2015. Her medical examination was done on 19.05.2015 and the victim made her first statement recorded judicially under Section 164 of the CrPC on 20.05.2015. Surprisingly enough, she did not make any allegation of the commission of rape by the appellants before the learned Magistrate. Except for the allegation of kidnapping, she did not utter a single word. This is where serious abnormalities lie between the prosecution's case, the initial statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, and her subsequent evidence on oath.

    21. The victim herself stated that she was about 17 years old at the relevant point of time. The Medical Board, by way of an ossification test and dental examination, found her approximate age to be between 15 and 16 years. From the report of PW-9, Dr. Rina Kumari, we find that the victim was welloriented, therefore, when a girl aged about 15-17 years was kidnapped and she was raped repeatedly by three appellants for three days, it is natural and probable that she would at least resist the perpetrators of offence from committing such heinous act. In her evidence, she stated the appellants committed rape upon her against her will forcibly, if there is a forcible physical relationship upon a girl by three persons for three days, there must be some injury marks on different parts of her body. But the medical officer (PW-9) did not find any mark of violence on her body. On the other hand, she found old rupture of hymen and the vagina easily admitting one finger meaning thereby the victim had previous experience of sexual intercourse.

    22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, laid down "three categories" for appreciating the testimony of a single witness. When the evidence of witness in Court is inconsistent with her earlier statement under Section 164, witness false into the third category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such cases, the Court must exercise caution and cannot convict an accused on that testimony alone. It must look for corroboration in material particulars from independent sources. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision categorized the witnesses into three categories. They are as (i) wholly reliable witness, (ii) wholly unreliable witness and, (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The Court can base its conviction on the basis of evidence of a single wholly reliable witness. No conviction is based on wholly unreliable witness. In case of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness, Court must exercise caution and cannot convict on that testimony alone.

    23. The law on the point of appreciation of evidence of a particular witness has developed in course of time. In Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned the term "sterling witness". The Hon'ble Apex Court further describes the nature and quality of sterling witness in the case of Rai Sandeep (supra) in paragraph no. 22 and held as under:-

        "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

    24. In Ganesan v. State reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the issue which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as to whether in the case involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on sole evidence of the prosecutrix. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the following paragraphs of Vijay v. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 :-

        "5. Shri. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix was a major and it was a case of consent. He has further submitted that conviction cannot be based on the sole deposition of the prosecutrix. There is no other evidence to corroborate her version. The prosecutrix's statement suffers from material discrepancies. On the date of examination of the prosecutrix no physical injury was found on her person or on her private parts. The prosecutrix had given the most improbable and unacceptable version of events that the appellant continued to rape her for about two hours. Then one another accused raped her for about an hour. Also, in spite of the fact that the appellant and others had been arrested on the next date of the incident, the investigating officer did not conduct the test identification parade. The prosecutrix was examined on the next day i.e. on 7-12-1988 by Dr. Rupa Lalwani, Medical Officer (PW 3), and the said medical officer referred her for a radiological test to determine her age, but the report of the said test has never been brought on record. Thus, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellant had falsely been enroped in the crime.

        6. On the other hand, Shri. Siddhartha Dave along with Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the State of M.P., vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. The non-production of the report of the radiological test and not holding the test identification parade would not discredit the investigation or the prosecution case. The non-existence of any injury on the person of the prosecutrix cannot be a ground to disbelieve her version. The prosecutrix had such a social background that she did not have any sense of time, duration, etc. and, thus, she was not able to give a precise account of each activity of the incident. She had lost her father; and was an uneducated, rustic villager, who came from a very poor family. The discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses or the prosecutrix are such that the same are not sufficient to demolish the prosecution's case. In a rape case, an accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

        7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

        8. Before we proceed to examine the impugned judgments of the courts below and the facts of the case, it may be desirable to refer to the settled legal principles which have to be applied in the instant case.

        9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210 : AIR 1990 SC 658] this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under : (SCC p. 559, para 16)

        "16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."

    25. Thus, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court not only in Ganeshan (supra) but also in Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 that to hold an accused guilty for commission of offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. The said principle has subsequently being followed in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 and Nirmal Premkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police reported in 2024 INSC 193.

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter observed: "The conviction was reversed due to material contradictions between the victim's Section 164 statement and deposition, alongside a lack of medical evidence and independent corroboration."

Arwal district gets its first civil court, Arwal's name linked to massacres of landless peasants by police, killings of Dalits in Laxmanpur-Bathe (1997) and killings of no-Dalits in Senari (1999)

Arwal's first full district court was inaugurated on September 10, 2026 some 25 years after the district was carved out of Jehanabad on August 20, 2001 to bring justice near to residents of the district who had to travel around 35 km to Jehanabad for their court proceedings. It is the newest district in Bihar. Priort to this Arwal district used to have a Sub-divisional Court of Jehanabad Judgeship. The new court was inaugurated by Justice Sudhir Singh, the senior most judge of Patna High Court. Earlier, Baliram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, government of Bihar read out the notification. Prajesh Kumar has been made first Principal District and Sessions Judge of Arwal district court. With the inauguration of the Arwal Civil Court, Bihar now has 84 Court Complexes and some 270 establishments. 

 

The name "Arwal Pargana" appears in early British colonial legal records maintained at Fort William. After the devastating Bengal Famine of 1770, there was heavy depopulation in western Bihar and the Arwal region, of the East Bengal. Judicial diaries submitted to the Governor-General in Council at Fort William recounted one instance, where nine individuals from Arwal died in colonial jails after being put in custody on "suspicion of robbery". It highlighted the draconian and rudimentary nature of early British East India company's penal administration over Bihar from their Calcutta headquarters. Prior to 1861, local appeals from the regional Mufassal (provincial) courts in Bihar were sent to the Sadar Diwani Adalat (for civil cases) and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat (for criminal cases) located in Calcutta. Post 18621, the Calcutta High Court was formally established on July 1, 1862, which absorbed the older Sadar courts and assumed absolute appellate jurisdiction over all districts in Bihar, including the territories surrounding Arwal. Colonial-era cases originating from the Arwal and greater Gaya regions that reached the Calcutta High Court primarily revolved around: major litigation involving complex landlord-tenant clashes, zamindari debt, estate attachments, and the collection of unauthorized cesses (known as abwabs). Arwal’s proximity to the Son river and the British-built Son Canal system resulted in numerous disputes over water taxes, agricultural output, and land acquisition. Severe criminal offenses or cases involving European subjects in the Mufassal were routinely referred up to the high court benches in Calcutta. The cases from Arwal ceased to go to Calcutta following the establishment of the Patna High Court in 1916, which took over judicial authority for the newly carved-out province of Bihar.

In recent times, Arwal's name is etched in history as the site of police massacre dated April 19, 1986. Under C.R. Kaswan, Superintendent of Police (SP), police had opened fire on a peaceful peasant gathering called by the Mazdur Kisan Sangram Samiti (MKSS) at the Gandhi Library in Arwal over a 26-decimal plot of disputed land. The firing resulted in the deaths of over 21 landless peasant workers. It was described as the "Jallianwala Bagh of Bihar".  

A writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court and a PIL was filed regarding this massacre in the Supreme Court. In Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 AIR 355, Justices Rangtnath Misra and M.M. Dutt delivered a 5-page long judgement dated December 19, 1986. It was authored by Justice Misra. The judgement recorded that it was alleged that on April 19, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the then district of Gaya. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. Separate unofficial inquiries held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21 and there was no justification for the firing. It appeared to the Court that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families on the other were parties. Even though several people died and many more were injured by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police started a false case being Arwal PS Case No. 59 of 1986 and therein implicated several innocent people including even some of the people who had been killed in the firing. The writ petition had had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or make an order or direction in the matter of payment of full and proper compensation to the victims-relations of the dead and to the people who were injured by police firing; for a direction to withdraw the police case referred to above; (3) for a direction to Respondent 1 to settle the land in dispute with the nine poor families and to give a direction for instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity. 

During the pendency of the writ application, the State Government directed an inquiry therein by Vinod Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. The inquiry was completed and the report was furnished to the government. On the orders of the Court, the report was produced before the Supreme Court with a claim of privilege against its disclosure. B.D Sharma, Assistant Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made a report. That document was summoned and was produced before the Court, in respect thereof the Union Government also claimed privilege.

Supreme Court heard the matter while a writ petition was pending before the Patna High Court prior to filing of this application under Article 32. It was prayed that the writ petition pending in the High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court so that both the matters can be heard together. Justice Misra observed: "We are of the view that it would be appropriate that the matter is examined by the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce material before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will be in a position to call for documents and, if necessary, affidavits of parties concerned as and when necessary while dealing with the matter; and without notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties in the writ petition before the High Court an order of transfer may not be appropriate. In these circumstances, we have not thought it proper to have the writ petition in the High Court transferred to this Court. On the other hand, we have considered it expedient and proper in the interest of justice to dispose of some aspects of the matter now and leave it open to the petitioner to canvass the other aspects by getting itself impleaded before the High Court in the pending writ petition or by the filing of an independent application."

Supreme Court's judgement reads: "We direct that:(1) Without prejudice to any just claim for compensation that may be advanced by the relations of the victims who have died or by the injured persons themselves, for every case of death compensation of Rs 20,000 and for every injured person compensation of Rs 5000 shall be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. These payments be made within two months hence. (2) In case the petitioner gets impleaded in the pending writ petition before the High Court or files a separate writ petition and presses for disclosure of the report of Mr Kumar, the High Court may examine the question as to whether the report will be made public and in the event of privilege being claimed, the question of privilege will also be examined by the High Court. (3) We have read the report furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and since the report is not relevant to the point in issue, it is not necessary to ask the High Court to call for the report. We direct that the report be returned to the appropriate Ministry from where it has been brought. (4) The investigation of the pending police case shall be completed within three months from now. In case charge-sheet is submitted, it would be open to the petitioner or any other aggrieved party to challenge the maintainability of the charges in accordance with law." 

Arwal' name bring back the memory of the Senari massacre case. This incident occurred in Senari village (Arwal). In the infamous Senari massacre case 34 people of dominant caste members were killed allegedly by cadres of the banned Maoist Communist Centre in 1999 amid caste wars in Bihar. Senari village, in Jehanabad district at the time of the incident, now falls in Arwal district. The high court set aside the guilty verdict by a lower court. Senari village, in Jehanabad district at the time of the incident, now falls in Arwal. A division bench of Justices Ashwini Kumar Singh and Arvind Srivastava ruled that the prosecution witnesses “are not reliable” and the appellants deserved to be given the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution had failed to prove the participation of the appellants in the crime with credible evidence. Altogether, 23 witnesses and five doctors who conducted autopsies on the deceased recorded their statements before the court. Prior to this, on November 18, 2016, the Jehanabad district court had sentenced 10 persons to death and awarded life imprisonment to three others. The court had acquitted 23 others for lack of evidence. Those awarded the death penalty were Bacchesh Singh, Buddhan Yadav, Butai Yadav, Satendra Das, Lallan Pasi, Dwarika Paswan, Kariban Paswan, Godai Paswan, Uma Paswan and Gopal Paswan. On the evening of March 18, 1999, alleged members of the Maoist organisation forced 34 people to line up near a temple at Senari village and killed them by slitting their throats and shooting them. Chinta Devi, whose husband Awadh Kishore Sharma and son Madhukar alias Jhabbu were among those massacred, was the complainant in the case. She died in 2011. The Senari massacre, one of the last in a series of caste-related killings, was carried out in retaliation to the Lakshman-Bathe massacre in which 58 Dalits were killed. This massacre was a mass killing of Dalit villagers that took place on the intervening night of November 30–December 1, 1997 in Arwal. Laxmanpur-Bathe village near the Sone river in Arwal district, (then part of Jehanabad district). 58 to 61 Dalit and landless villagers—including women, pregnant women, and young children—were slaughtered. The armed members of the Ranvir Sena, an upper-caste militant group. The attack was intended to terrorize and suppress landless agricultural laborers who were organizing themselves. A Patna civil court convicted 26 men, sentencing 16 to death and 10 to life imprisonment, calling it a "stigma on civil society" on April 7, 2010. Patna High Court's verdict dated October 9, 2013 acquitted all 26 accused individuals, citing unreliability of prosecution witnesses and a lack of sufficient evidence. 

 

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The legal remedy for the Laxmanpur Bathe and Senari massacres remains pending in the Supreme Court as of 2026. Both cases followed a similar legal trajectory, wherein, lower trial courts initially convicted the accused, but the Patna High Court overturned those rulings and acquitted everyone. The Bihar government later filed appeals, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear." 

 

As to C.R. Kaswaan who led the indiscriminate firing by Police in Arwal, Dr. Krishna observed:"Kaswan is remembered as the notorious General Dyer of Bihar who served in Arwal, Jehanabad under Bindeshwari Dubey, the 17th Chief Minister of Bihar during1985-1988. Demonstrating short memory, it is quite ironical that Kaswan, violator of human rights was invited to speak and preside at a seminar and inter college debate on the Contemporary human rights issues at Lalahans Raj Phutela College of Law campus in association with Citizen’s Forum on Human Rights-Sirsa Chapter, Haryana. Notably, a book titled Glimpses of Reality by Kaswan was released at the seminar on "Security of Women, Contemporary Justice System and ‘From Minorityism to Nationalism’ held at Lal Somnath Auditoriuam at CMK National College Sirsa. The Conference was jointly organized by Lal Hansraj Phutela College of Law and Adhivakta Parishad Haryana where a n commemorative magazine of the Adhivakta Parishad was also released. The organisers forgot about the Arwal massacre of April 1989 led by Kaswan and the fact that Sonali Das of The Times of India Ranchi on October 7, 0224 had reported about Jharkhand High Court's direction to the Bihar Accountant General (AG) to stop the pension of C R Kaswaan in a corruption case in connection with the appointment of a constable, Jwala Ram, in 1992. Ram had filed a petition in the court in 1992, challenging the appointment of two of his junior colleagues as constables, while his appointment was sidelined by Kaswaan, when he was senior SP of Ranchi and was heading the district selection committee for appointments. The court had disposed of the case in 2002, directing the government to make the relevant appointment. When the government failed to take any step, Ram once again filed a contempt petition in the High Court in which the government submitted that relevant file of the selection committee is missing and since it was in the custody of Kaswaan he was the only person who can trace it. The state police department despite its best efforts is unable to locate Kaswaan who was residing in Punjab after his retirement. Kaswan had opted for the Bihar cadre after bifurcation of the state in 2000. Justice Vikramiditya Prasad had directed the AG Bihar, to stop Kaswaan''s pension till the time he appeared before the DGP in Jharkhand. The move was aimed at pressurising the retired IPS official for his personal appearance in the court so that the file can be traced. The case of missing files and fate of the case filed by Jwala Ram is not known." 

 

Kaswaan retired as an Inspector General (IG) of Police. He has been posted as SP in places like Arwal and Ranchi and was DIG Champaran Range. Is it not true that in general, violators of human rights end up facing charges of corruption? Has the High Court been able to trace the file which was with Kaswaan?

 

Bihar's Department of Home directed to apprise High Court about number of cases where inquiries have been instituted after it pointed out lapses of prosecution and investigation

In Upendra Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court’s Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish delivered a 94-pagelong judgement dated October 13, 2026, wherein, it concluded: “114. In ultimate analysis, we find that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. We can see on the face of the materials on the record that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case….116. In result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court and acquit the appellants of the charges giving them benefit of doubt. The appellants are said to be in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 117. These appeals are allowed. 118. Before we part with this judgment, it would be necessary to observe that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. Further, we can see on the face of the materials on the record clearly show that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case…." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.    

Justice Prasad issued directions to the State. It reads: "121. In recent times, this Court has given directions to the Department of Home, Government of Bihar and the DGP, Bihar to look into the matters in which due to lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers, acquittals have taken place. It is not known whether the orders of this Court are being complied with and the directions in this regard have yielded any significant result. In the opinion of this Court, it is high time for the Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the DGP, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution to sit together and review its policy in this regard. 122. We are of the opinion that the manner in which the Investigation Agency has conducted the investigation negligently, which has been discussed in preceding paragraphs, would be required to be reviewed by a team of Senior Police Officers. 123. We direct the Director General of Police, Bihar to constitute a three-member committee of Senior Police Officers of repute to take a view on the manner in which the investigation was done by the I.O. and based on that report, take an appropriate view of the matter in administrative side within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this Judgment. 124. The action taken in this regard be informed to the appellants. The appellants shall be at liberty to pursue the matter. 125. This Court calls upon the Department of Home, Government of Bihar to apprise the Court as to its policy in the matter of reviewing the cases where lapses on the part of the prosecution and the investigation have been pointed out by this Court. In how many cases inquiries have been instituted and with what result be informed to this Court within one month from today. Such report of the Department of Home shall be placed before this Court for perusal even as these appeals stand allowed. 126. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Department of Home Government of Bihar, Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Bihar.”

The appeal was heard and adjudicated along with the appeals in Binda Yadav @ Binda Lal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Mithilesh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Chandraghosh @ Chandrabhushan Singh @ Chandragosh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Ajay Yadav & Ors. vs.  The State of Bihar and Ramkrishna Yadav @ Krishna Kumar & Anr.The State of Bihar.   

These appeals were preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated April 3, 2023 and the order of sentence dated April 12, 2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial Case No. 65 of 1998 arising out of Karpi (Arwal) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 IPC and further, under Section 307/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was based on the fardbeyan of informant Shiv Narayan Singh (P.W 12). The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) Officer in-charge of Sahar Telpa (O.P.) on August 9, 1996 at 5.00 am at Keyal Aahar near place of occurrence. The informant alleged that there is a big Ahar situated in north-west side of his village where water get stored for irrigation, the villagers of Asadhi used to cut the Ahar and, therefore, due to aforesaid reason they were watching bandh and on the said night, the informant along with Bharat Singh (deceased) Manger Singh (deceased), Ram Niwas Singh (deceased) and Nawlesh Singh (deceased), Pramod Kumar (injured P.W 13), Karu Kurmi (P.W 2), Gung Kurmi (P.W 3) and Ravi Kurmi (P.W 21) were watching the said Ahar and they were in the Jhopari (hut) and on the alleged date in night i.e. September 8, 1996 at 11 pm, they heard movement (Ahat), he made query “who are you”, then 30-40 unknown persons who were wearing half pant and ganji, came near the Jhopera armed with rifle and gun and one person told that they belong to a Party and asked them to be mum. Further it is alleged that some persons came from western side and some remained in Eastern side. Further it is alleged that from western side one person came and took a lathi from Jhopari and assaulted Karu Kurmi, he also started assaulting Bharat Singh with lathi and further one person who was standing on eastern side flashed the torch and another person standing by the side of that person fired with rifle at Manger Singh causing injury on his right eye, the said person caused firearm injury to Bharat Singh on right hand and on neck and thereafter, the another person caused fire-arm injury to Ram Niwash Singh on right neck who died on the way to hospital and the same person caused fire-arm injury to Navlesh Singh causing injury on his neck. According to the informant, the same person also caused fire-arm injury to injured Pramod Kumar who was brought to Hospital, Jehanabad and further an another person assaulted Premnath Singh on his hand by lathi and thereafter, they went towards western side from the Bandh. It is further alleged that fifteen to thirty minutes after going of the accused persons, the informant, Bhola Singh, Premnath Singh, Karu Kurmi, Gung Kurmi, Ravi Kurmi were going towards eastern side of the village and on the way so many persons met in the raasta who were coming towards Bandh after hearing the sound of firing and thereafter they came to Jhopari and flashed the torch and found that Manger Singh, Nawlesh Singh and Bharat Singh had already died, Ram Niwas Singh and Pramod Singh were in injured condition. Some of them were crying and then some remained there for watching the dead body and some persons took Pramod Singh and Ram Niwash Singh to Hospital and some persons went to police for informing. Further, later on he got to know that Ram Niwas Singh died in the way and Premnath Singh was taken to Jehanabad Hospital. Further he also got to know that one accused person sustained fire-arm injury who was taken away by the accused persons and in clear words the informant stated in the fardbeyan that this crime has been committed by Majdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad (M.K.S.P) Extremists, the informant and his associates have seen some of the accused persons from close range and they claimed to identify them by face, if shown to them. The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) on which Premnath Singh (P.W 8) also signed. 

On the basis of the fardbeyan Karpi P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996 dated August 9, 1996 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 342, 323, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against unknown 30-40 M.K.S.P. extremists. After investigation police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 79 of 1996 dated November 15, 1996 against twenty four accused persons, namely, (1) Dharm Dev Yadav, (2) Dhananjay Yadav, (3) Sushil Kumar, (4) Rajaram Yadav, (5) Mithlesh Yadav, (6) Bipin Yadav, (7) Rajendra Yadav, (8) Paras Yadav, (9) Ram Krishan Yadav @ Krishan Kumar, (10) Ajay Yadav, (11) Baijnath Yadav, (12) Bhagwan Yadav, (13) Ramnarayan Yadav, (14) Chandraghosh @Chandrabhushan Singh, (15) Baleshwar Yadav, (16) Daya Singh, (17) Satyendra Singh, (18) Vishwanath Singh, (19) Upendra Yadav, (20) Binda Yadav, (21) Naresh Yadav, (22) Ramraj Singh, (23) Basant Yadav (absconder) and (24) Nagendra Yadav (absconder).

By order dated January 18, 1997 cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323, 307, 212, 201/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was taken. Sufficient materials were found to proceed against them. Thereafter, vide order dated January 19, 1998, the Magistrate directed the Office to prepare the police papers for supply to the accused persons in attendance. The Magistrate observed that all the processes were exhausted for securing presence of two absconded accused persons namely Nagendra Yadav and Basant Yadav and disposed of the Trial No. 453 of 1998 relating to the above two accused persons declaring them absconder and directed to deposit the records in the record room. The trial No. 302 of 1997 pertaining to rest of the twenty two accused were committed to the court of sessions where trial court numbered the trial as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998. Charges were read over and explained to the twenty two accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998 vide order dated July 21, 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

During trial, accused, namely, Raja Ram Yadav died and proceeding against him stood abated vide order dated November 16, 2011. Further, Paras Yadav died on January 18, 2023 in the hospital and vide order dated February 2, 2023, proceeding against him also abated. So far as one absentee accused Ram Narayan Yadav is concerned, vide order dated December 16, 2014, separate record was opened against him being Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2014. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty seven witnesses and exhibited several documents. 

Justice Prasad observed:"The I.O’s of this case damaged the prosecution case by not following the safe rule of prudence to go for T.I.P. In absence of T.I.P., there is no corroborative evidence to the testimony of these witnesses on the identification. 101. This Court finds that both the I.O.s failed in their duty to conduct a bonafide fair investigation in this case. They decided not to apply for T.I.P. Even the senior police officers like Superintendent of Police did not supervise the ongoing investigation, they failed to ensure proper and fair investigation. It seems they were bent upon hushing up the whole prosecution case right from beginning. 102. In the kind of evidence present on the record, it is evident that in a case of brutal murder of four persons, the investigation was not proper, even as the informant had disclosed in the fardbeyan that the villagers from Asadhi village used to breach/cut the ahar which serves as storage of water for irrigation and that the accused were persons of sangathan and the name of Dhananjay Singh and other accused who were resident of village had come in course of investigation of the case, no effort was made to conduct a raid in their houses to seize the firearms which were used in the occurrence." 

Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The High Court intervenes whenever it finds that there were lapses on the part of the prosecution and there was negligent investigation in cases have erred in their approach toward offenders, and acted contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court." He added: "Now Bihar's Department of Home is under obligation to apprise High Court about the number of cases where inquiries have been instituted after the Court pointed out lapses of prosecution and investigation. Justice Prasad's judgement is a lesson in how to write a judgement for all the judges of the High Court and the trial court."