Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra in a POCSO case

In Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated May 11, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order by Patna High Court's Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra dated March 11, 2026. The order concluded:"6. It is pertinent to note at this juncture itself and for the limited purpose of considering the prayer for bail, that the statements of the recused girls which have been recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and particularly two victims associated with the orchestra group where petitioner was working would disclose that there were no recent evidence of sexual
assault and three co-accused Gena Sah, Rajat Sardar @Rajjat Kumar @ Rajat Kumar and Subhash Kumar have since then granted regular bail by the jurisdictional High Court. Hence, on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 7. The impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the High Court is set aside and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court deems fit to impose, including the condition of directing the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing."

The petitioner was arraigned as an accused No. 11 in the FIR No. 8 of 2025, registered at Police Station Women Police Station, District Betiah, for the offence punishable under Section 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 95, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 and Section 16, 17, and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, was seeking regular bail. The record disclosed that investigation had been concluded and charge-sheet was filed and two witnesses were already examined. It was the case of the prosecution that minor girls were found in various orchestra groups who had been trafficked and they were sexually exploitated. Even according to the FIR, the petitioner was neither the owner or Manager of the orchestra group and he was only a employee (Announcer) in Chhoti New Musical Orchestra Dhamaka Group.

Earlier, in Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated March 11, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"...the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below." The name of respondent no. 2 has been kept anonymous. 

The petitioner sought bail in connection with Bettiah Mahila P.S. case of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 64, 65(1), 143(1), 145, 98 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 75 and 79 of the J.J. Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. This was the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner had renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by Justice Mishra of the High Court vide 3-page long order dated August 13, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31511 of 2025, taking into account the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence and involvement of the petitioner in the offence.  

The order dated August 13, 2025 recorded that the informant filed a complaint before the ADJ, Champaran, based on an tip-off from National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) constituted under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which led to raids at seven locations by the police team. Sixteen girls were rescued. The victims gave statements under Section 180 BNSS alleging repeated sexual assaults, exploitation for dance, and being forced into sexual activities by various accused associated with different orchestra groups.

APP for the State and counsel for the informant had opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. They submitted that on perusal of record it appeared that the several victims were minor girl. It was specifically submitted that petitioner, namely, Dhamu Sah used to inappropriately touch the body of victim, during dance on the stage, whereas petitioner, namely, Ravi Ranjan Choube @ Ravi Ranjan Choubey, had established illicit relation with one of the victims.

In compliance of the order dated January 17, 2026, a report dated February 12, 2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the report, it appeared that two (2) out of nineteen (19) charge sheet witnesses had been examined in the case. It was also reported that trial was likely to be concluded within a period of nine months. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner was languishing in judicial custody since February 23, 2025 without any rhymes or reason, having no criminal antecedent. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The APP for the State had opposed the prayer for grant of bail. The APP had further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539 (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein, in paragraph No.14, Supreme Court had observed as under: “14. Ordinarily inserious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.”  

Justice Mishra observed: "7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on." Supreme Court has reversed the order by the High Court. 

Supreme Court sets aside 2019 judgement by Justices A.P. Sahi Anjana Mishra of Patna High Court, P.K.Shahi's arguments vidicated

In Priyanka Kumari vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Anil Chandurkar delivered a 14-page long judgment dated February 18,2026, wherein, it set aside the 9-page long judgment dated April 11, 2019 by Division Bench of 42nd Chief Justice A.P. Sahi and Anjana Mishra in LPA from 2018. The librarians in Bihar whose services were terminated because the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh university from which they obtained their degrees was later declared defunct. The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court's judgment and ordered their reinstatement. It held that degrees earned when the governing law was in force and recognized cannot be invalidated due to subsequent legal developments. Notably, the case was filed in the Supreme Court on September 21, 2022, verified on November 20, 2022 but registered on February 5, 2026.

Supreme Court concluded:" From the facts on record, it is evident that the services of the appellants were terminated only for the reason that the institution in which they had studied was declared to be unrecognised. Accordingly, the orders vide which the services of the appellants were terminated have to be declared as illegal. Ordered accordingly. 18. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High Court is allowed. They are directed to be reinstated back in service, with continuity. However, considering the fact that they have not performed their duties for the intervening period, and it cannot be said to be a case where only the respondent-State is at fault, in our view, they should not be entitled to any back wages." The judgement was authored by Justice Bindal. The judgement of High Court's Division Bench was authored by Justice Sahi.  

The High Court's Division Bench had upheld the 20-page long judgement dated February 22, 2018 by Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay, the Single Judge. Justice Upadhyay concluded:"....the court finds that the University in question was established under the State Act of Chhatisgarh and the Apex Court after due scrutiny of the legislative power in the matter of setting up of the University clearly held out the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act to be ultra vires as a result thereof, the Apex Court has also quashed the notification notifying the University and as such the University constituted under Sections 5 and 6 of Chhatisgarh Act shall be deemed to be non-existent University and as such the degree obtained from such University is only a waste paper." The petitioners had obtained Bachelor of Library degree in the Sessions 2003-04 from the University of Technology and Science, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. In response to the advertisement issued in the year 2009, petitioners had applied for appointment on the post of Librarian. The University from which the petitioners had obtained B.Lib. Degree was constituted under the Act of the State of Chhatisgarh. On February 11, 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the provisions of Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana or Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 2002 and as per the direction of the Supreme Court the University ceased to exist. However, liberty was granted to such institution to take affiliation from the State University. The petitioners had claimed that Department of Education, Chhattisgarh had certified that the degree obtained in the year 2004 was a valid degree. The petitioners claimed that degree of B.Lib. obtained by petitioners was valid and genuine. The petitioners claimed that the Education Department of the State of Bihar had also, on verification, found that the certificate granted to the petitioners as legal and valid and after five years of their appointment, the petitioners had been terminated without compliance of principles of natural justice.

In his judgement, Justice Sahi had observed: "The learned Single Judge has after narrating the facts as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 has arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to the academic benefits of the said University which has been declared to be non-existent under the judgment of the Apex Court aforesaid and therefore their employment on the basis of any degree by the University was rightly terminated." 

In the case of Prof. Yashpal & Ors. and Gopalji Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors., in its 31-page long judgment, Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench declared the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 to be ultra vires and struck it down. It observed: "As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in the Gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the Universities (including respondent nos.3 to 94) are quashed and such Universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established by such Universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State Universities in accordance with the direction contained in paragraph 45 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All Writ Petitions, Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases filed by the private Universities are dismissed."

Amount determined for land acquisition compensation without any document is arbitrary, trial court judgment, decree set aside: Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, Patna High Court

Patna High Court delivered 12 judgements on October 14, 2025 in Sri Gudar Sao vs. The State of Bihar, Garbhu Rai vs. Harihar Rai, Kumari Neelam Devi vs. Sri Satish Kumar, Sunila Devi vs. Pankaj Kumar, Alok Kumar vs. Smt. Anupama Singh, Phool Kant Mishra vs. The State Of Bihar, The Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Surendra Jha vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., SIFY Digital Services Limited vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Baraa Fawzi Haameed AL Bayati vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar and Manoj Kumar vs. Krishna Mohan Kumar.

 

In Sri Gudar Sao vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 26-page long judgement dated October 14, 2025, wherein, he concluded: ''I am of the view that the learned trial court has arbitrarily decided the compensation and his conclusion was not based on the materials available on the record. The amount which he has determined for compensation was based merely on assumption without any document. 35. As such, considering above facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is set aside and in result, these appeals are allowed. 36. Office is directed to prepare the decree/award. 37. Let the records of the learned trial court with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court.'' Hetu Kishun, son of late Sri Gudar Sao pursued the case which commenced in 1994 in the High Court. 

   

All the three appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1993 passed in a Land Acquisition cases of 1990 passed by Sub-Judge 3rd, Patna whereunder the trial court awarded insufficient compensation with respect to the lands and houses which were acquired in these cases. The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding adjudication for the adequacy of the compensation for the lands and houses acquired. There having common question of law and facts of 14 cases including these cases were taken together by the trial court. The facts leading to these cases are that about 01 Acre 15 Dismil of land along with houses standing over the same belonging to these awardees within the village- Mosimpur Kurtha P.S.- Fatwah, District- Patna acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of construction of approach road to Punpun bridge by a Gazette notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on August 16, 1980. Date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act for the same was on July 1, 1982 and the award of the lands and houses were made by the Collector on September 23, 1989 and the possession of the lands and the houses were taken on May 18, 1987 by the Collector. The compensation money for the bhith lands and homestead land acquired was paid to the awardees at the rate of Rs.96,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.3,000/- only per kattha. The Collector also paid the price of the houses to the awardees varying from Rs.3,690/- to Rs.2,31,750/-. The Collector also paid 30% solatium and interest on the amount of compensation to the awardees. The awardees received compensation money so awarded under protest to the effect that the compensation money awarded by the State of Bihar either for the lands or for the houses standing over the same was inadequate. Therefore, the Collector referred these cases to the court for adjudication of the adequacy of the quantum of the compensation.

 

According to the State of Bihar, compensation was already paid for the lands and houses standing thereon was proper and adequate. On the other hand, the awardees approached the court with their respective cases that the lands of the awardees lies within the notified area of Fatwah at the corner of the main road of Patna-Ranchi national Highway. It was also the case of the awardees that Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale deed which do not represent true and real market value of the lands under acquisition and left out the true and genuine sale deed of the locality representing higher price. They claimed the price of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per kattha. They also made out their case that the Executive Engineer of the State failed to take into account the correct aspect of engineering in respect of making assessment of the value of the buildings of the awardees. He should have taken into account while determining the compensation of the buildings as to what would be real cost in erecting a building similar to existing building of the awardees at the time of notification. According to their cases, inadequate price of their buildings has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of unscientific report of Executive Engineer. However, the awardees claimed the price of their respective houses varying from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.12,95,475/-. They also claimed compensation for damages done for their business premises. 

The counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III committed error of law as also on the facts in deciding the claim of the appellants. The trial court did not appreciate correctly the pleadings of the parties, made wrong and illegal approach to the cases. It was submitted that the total houses of these awardees constructed over 0.045 acres have been acquired by the State of Bihar and paid Rs.2,10,257 and 25 paisa only which was received by the appellants/defendants under protest and they have claimed the rate of land at Rs.50,000/-per kattha and Rs.8,11,414 for the houses. Rs.28,000/- annual for the loss of business and Rs.90,000/- for loss of furniture and goods. It was also submitted that the awardees examined altogether 16 witnesses and they adduced documentary evidence, State of Bihar did not give any written submission nor did it examine any witness except OW-1, Mathura Pandey who only proved rate report over khatiyaan, sale statement, possession certificate. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellants/defendants. It was submitted that the trial court has held in its judgment that “the aforesaid document in support of the price of the land determined by the State of Bihar have no evidentiary value and as such the aforesaid documents cannot be relied upon and in these circumstances the price of lands determined by the State of Bihar on the basis of sale figure mentioned in column 8 of the sale statement cannot be relied and adopted.”

 

The counsel for the appellants relied on decisions in i) (2010) 13 SCC 710, ii) (2012) 5 SCC 432 and iii) (2025) SCC Online SC 1519.

 

The Respondents/plaintiffs relied on certain citations, such as AIR 1977 SC 580, AIR 1977 SC 560, AIR 2010 SC 170, AIR 2004 SC 4532 :: 2004 AIR SCW 4255 and AIR 2004 SC 288 :: 2003 AIR SCW 6117.
 

The trial court grappled with the following two issues: 

First issue :- The first issue was whether the compensation money awarded by the State of Bihar in respect of land was proper and adequate or it requires to be changes.

Second issue :- Second was whether the amount of compensation paid by the Collector in respect of the house of the awardees was proper and adequate and according to size, age and construction of the building under the acquisition. 

 

The trial court disbelieved the basis on which the compensation has been determined by the Collector. As the price of the land acquired has been determined solely on the basis of only one sale deed mentioned in column-8 of the sale statement as against average rate of all the sale deeds.

The counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that from perusal of the impugned judgment it emerges that the trial court relied on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR (1979) 472 in which it was held that ‘mere sale statement is not admissible in law’. Admittedly, the author of sale rate namely, Land Acquisition Officer was not examined in this case. The trial court did not rely upon the documents which were adduced by the respondents and categorically held that sale figures mentioned in Column-8 of the sale statement cannot be relied rather the trial court has relied on the sale deeds. The lands under the aforesaid sale deeds was situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands which fact was evident from survey map. The trial court also held that ‘it does not stand to my reason as to why this sale deed has not been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was simply rejected on the ground that it was executed on competitive basis although there is no such evidence on the record, so the aforesaid sale deed has to be considered in this case.”

 

The counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that recently in Manohar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Supreme Court held in Paragraphs 31, 38, 39 and 40, which reads:-
31. In the case of Anjani Molu Dessai (supra) this Court, while referring to two previous
decisions of this Court, held thus: 
"20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging  annot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.

 

In M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector, [(1 969) 1 Mad LJ 45 (SC)], a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that the proper method for evaluation of market value is by taking the highest of the
exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sale transactions. 

 

The High Court relied on decision in State of Punjab vs. Hans Raj, [(1994) 5 SCC 734], wherein it was held: "4. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.”

Now that the High Court has decided that trial court had arbitrarily decided the compensation without any document based on assumption, the judgment and decree of the trial court has been set aside and the office has been directed to prepare the decree/award, the same will have to be prepared with reference to the provisions under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. which is operational from January 1, 2014. 

 

Given the fact that the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1993 by the trial court in a 1990 case wherein the trial court had awarded insufficient compensation with respect to the lands and houses which were acquired, has been set aside by the High Court, it cannot be said that land acquisition proceedings were already been concluded. As a consequence, the appellants become entitled to benefits of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act  

  

Section 24 reads:''Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'' 

  

The CAG's audit report of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar states that "The LA Act, 1894 and the Act, 2013, provides that in case the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount with interest at the prescribed rates from the time of taking possession till it has been so paid or deposited. The Departmental circular of February 2009 provides that the land acquisition process can only be started after receipt of full cost of compensation from requiring body." 

 

Notably, the benefits of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement provided in the Act have been extended in cases of land acquisition made under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule, namely,. 

1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958
2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 
3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 
4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 
5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885

6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978
7. The National Highways Act, 1956
8. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962
9. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952
10. The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948
11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957
12. The Electricity Act, 2003
13. The Railways Act, 1989

 

 

 

Death Reference case under POCSO Act decided in 2022 by Patna High Court's Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashwani Kumar Singh reaches Supreme Court

F.I.R was registered in 2018 with Phulwarisharif Mahila Station under sections 376, 376(b), 120(B), 504, 506, 354(D) IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act 

In ZZZ vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. etc. (2025), the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) which arose out of the impugned final judgment and order dated October 19, 2022 in Death Reference No. 3/2021, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 218/2021 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 285/2021 passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashwani Kumar Singh. The two other respondents in the Supreme Court are: Arvind Kumar @ Raj Singhania and Abhishek Kumar. The Court had condoned the delay and issued notice by its order dated July 14, 2025. It came up before Supreme Court's Registrar Ms. Sujata Singh on September 15, 2025. 

The High Court's 48-page long judgement dated October 19, 2022 in The State of Bihar vs. Arvind Kumar @ Raj Singhania (2022) was authored by Justice Prasad. It was heard and decided along with Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2022).

Justice Prasad had concluded: "73. To this Court, it appears that this case cannot be equated with the cases where there is kidnapping, rape and murder of victim. It has been submitted that in the case of Pappu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022(2) BLJ 231(SC) which was case of rape and murder of a child sentence of death was commuted to life imprisonment. 74. Considering the aforesaid submissions and materials on the record, this Court while sustaining the conviction of the appellant-Arvind Kumar @ Raj Singhania converts it from 376 (DB) IPC to Section 376 IPC. Accordingly his sentence is modified and he is awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the offence under Section 376 IPC. His conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is also upheld, however, in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act no separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He is further sentenced under Section 506 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). All the sentences shall run concurrently. 75. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2021 are, thus, allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.76. In consequence thereof Death Reference No. 3 of 2021 made by the learned trial court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. is rejected."

The appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2021 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2021 were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Patna in Special POCSO Case No. 186 of 2018 (arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (b), 504, 506, 354(D), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The trial court had convicted them for the offences under Sections 376(DB) IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 120(B) IPC. As far as appellant Arvind Kumar @ Raj Singhania of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2021 was concerned, he was also convicted under Sections 506 IPC. The appellant Arvind Kumar @ Raj Singhania was awarded capital punishment / death penalty for the offence under Section 376(DB) under Section 6 of POCSO Act and a fine of Rs. 01 lakh. He was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 05 thousand under Section 506 IPC. After awarding the death penalty the trial court made a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court for confirmation of the death penalty. The reference has been registered as Death Reference Case No. 03 of 2021 and the same is under consideration together with the two appeals. The appellant Abhishek Kumar in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2021 was awarded a term of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 thousand for the offence under Section 376(DB) read with Section 120(B) of the IPC. 

A first information report was registered on September 19, .2018 with Phulwarisharif Mahila Station giving rise to P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018 under sections 376, 376(b), 120(B), 504, 506, 354(D) IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act. The informant was mother of the victim girl. It was alleged in the written complaint that the victim ‘X’ aged about 11 years was a student of New Central Public School, Phulwarisharif. She was studying in Class V for about one year. The School Principal Arvind Kumar (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2021) sexually exploited the victim girl and by making her video, under threat that the same will be made viral, he was blackmailing her. It was alleged that in this act one teacher of the school namely, Abhishek Kumar aged about 26 years (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2021) was also helped the principal. The informant alleged that there was a bed room of the principal adjacent to the class room and in the name of checking of writing, the victim girl was being taken to the said room where she was exploited. The victim girl, disclosed that her principal called her on the pretext of checking of writing through Abhishek and then he indulged in wrong act. This led to stoppage of menstruation of the victim. She had a bout of vomiting which led to a suspicion in the mind of of her mother. She got her pregnancy tested wherein the pregnancy was confirmed. The alleged act were done under threat of a knife.