In Ranjay Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ritesh Kumar delivered a 27-page long judgement dated July 1, 026, wherein, it concluded:"55. In ultimate analysis, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim in this case which this Court has found as no wholly reliable piece of evidence. The impugned judgment and order are, therefore, set aside. 56. This appeal is allowed." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.
The Court observed:"52. While this Court finds that there are some evidence that the victim girl had suffered abortion but save and except the statement of the victim that she was subjected to rape 6-7 months ago by this appellant and one Gaurav Kumar, there is no corroborating evidence to take a safe view of the matter that the appellant is guilty of commission of rape on the victim girl. Suppression of age of the victim has to be kept in mind and the fact that the prosecution witnesses are not wholly reliable would further create doubt in the mind of this Court in taking a clear view of the commission of offence by this appellant. The victim in this case is not a wholly reliable witness. She has stated that she had no complaint against this appellant. This statement of the victim is significant. Why is she saying that she had no complaint with the appellant. 53. We have further noticed that the occurrence in this case is said to have taken place about 6-7 months prior to the date of lodgment of the case i.e. 25.05.2018. The date of occurrence would, therefore, relate back to 6-7 months prior to 25.05.2018. At the relevant time, Section 376(3) IPC was not in existence. It has been inserted vide Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2018 with retrospective effect from 21.04.2018.
Justice Prasad observed: "54. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 6-7 months prior to amendment, the minimum punishment prescribed under these provisions were 7 years but the learned trial court seems to have proceeded to convict the appellant under these provisions and awarded him a sentence under the newly substituted/amended/inserted provisions. The learned trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- fo committing offence under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 376(3) IPC in view of the mandate under Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Section 376(3) IPC, Section 5(j)(ii) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act reads: "376 1[(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim."
Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act reads:"Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which-(i) ...... (ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;[6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.--(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.] "
The appeal was filed in the High Court for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated February 2, 2023 and the order of sentence dated February 6, 2023 passed by Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-6th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in a POCSO Case of 2018 which arose out of Muffasil (Lakho O.P.) P.S. Case of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. By the impugned order, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution case was based on the written application of the father of the victim (PW-2) wherein he stated that on May 25, 2018 at around 08:00 A.M., his daughter told him that her stomach was aching. Then for treatment, he brought his daughter to the nearby private hospital, where the doctor told him that his daughter is pregnant. Thereafter, when the informant repeatedly asked his daughter then she told him that about 5-6 months ago, when she was coming from school alone, then (1) Ranjay Singh (appellant) and (2) Gaurav Kumar caught hold of her and took her inside the maize field and committed rape upon her
one after another. The victim also alleged that they threatened her not to disclose this to anyone otherwise they will kill her and her father. On the basis of the written information of the informant, FIR being Muffasil (Lakho O.P.) P.S. Case was registered on May 25, 2018 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act against (1) Ranjay Singh and (2) Gaurav Kumar. After investigation, Police submitted first chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 435 of 2018 dated July 20, 2018 against Gaurav Kumar keeping investigation pending against Ranjay Kumar. The trial court vide order dated August 6, 2018 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act against accused Gaurav Kumar and after finding him juvenile in conflict with law, learned trial court sent his records to the Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai vide order dated August 6, 2018 and ordered for opening of supplementary records against Ranjay Singh, the appellant. Later on, supplementary Chargesheet dated August 31, 2018 was submitted against Ranjay Singh, the appellant under Sections 376(D), 313, 506/34 IPC and Section 5(8) of the POCSO Act. By order dated March 6, 2019, the trial court found that the cognizance of the offence in the case was already taken, accordingly, fixed the case for supply of police papers. After supply of police papers, charges were explained to the appellant in Hindi which he denied and claimed to be tried, accordingly, the charges were framed vide order dated April 8, 2019 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited several documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment