Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava set aside verdict by Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga in POCSO G.R. Case of 2019

In Sadir Quaraishi @ Md Sadir vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava delivered a 40-page long judgement dated June 19, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"53. In ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has erred in appreciation of the evidences available on the record. The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 54. This appeal is allowed." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad. 

The appeal was preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated July 1, 2023 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2023 passed by Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga in POCSO G.R. Case of 2019 which arose out of Jalley P.S. Case of 2019. By the impugned judgment, the appellant wasc onvicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. By the impugned order, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 376 AB of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 

The prosecution case was based on the fardbeyan of the informant (maternal uncle of the victim). In his fardbeyan, the informant had alleged that two years ago, his sister was murdered by her in-laws and his brother-in-law was sent to jail. They had four children whom the informant brought to his house and some
of the children were with his relatives. One amongst the four children ‘X’ (victim) resided with the informant and studied there. The informant took care of the house. The informant had stated that there was a marriage in his sasural so he had gone there. It was alleged that on April 6, 2019, there was a marriage in the neighbourhood of the informant in which his niece was playing with other children. Sadir Qureshi resident of the same village took informant’s niece to his place by luring her and raped her. The niece came home crying and bleeding. Informant’s mother, who was herself a heart patient, became unconscious and could not tell anyone about the incident. When the informant came home, he gathered information about the incident, after which he went to police station to lodge complain. Informant had brought clothes of the victim along with the application. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, FIR was registered. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet dated May 31, 2019 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. 6. The trial court vide order June 19, 2019 took cognizance of the offences against appellant. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed vide order dated November 15, 2019 for the offences. In course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and got exhibited certain documents.

Justice Prasad referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3245, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the conviction only on the testimony of a child witness who does not inspire confidence is not safe. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads: “8. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of
caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution.”

The judgement recorded: "No one has appeared on behalf of the informant despite service of notice." 

Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Soni Shrivastava set aside verdict by Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali in POCSO case

In Md. Alam vs.The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava delivered a 21-page long judgement dated April 20, 2026 wherein, it conclude that "....the presumption contained under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act would not be attracted." The informant/ victim boy (PW-1) "cannot be put in the category of a sterling witness for the obvious reasons showing huge contradiction in his statement. In a case under the POCSO Act, the presumption of innocence is not lost." For these reasons, the Court set aside the  judgment of conviction dated April 25, 2023 and order of sentence dated May 15, 2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Vaishali at Hajipur in POCSO case of 2021 which arose out of Mahua P.S. case of 2021. The appellant was acquitted of the charges giving him benefit of doubt. The appellant was said to be in custody. Justice Parsad authored the judgement. The Court directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case .The appeal was allowed. 

Justice Prasad observed:"The prosecution has not disclosed the date of birth of the victim boy recorded in his first school admission register. No ossification and dental test of the victim has been conducted to assess his age. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the victim would come within the definition of the word “child” as envisaged under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act." 

The appeal was preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. By the order, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 377/34 IPC, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

The prosecution case is based on the written information dated February 26, 2021 submitted by the informant/ victim boy (PW-1). In his written information, he stated that on  February 24, 2021 at about 06:30 AM in the morning, when he was sitting at the shop of Sunny Kumar and Golu Patel situated near Sahara India Office at Mahua Bazar, Samastipur Road, two persons came there and enquired from Sunny Kumar about the victim boy. On which Sunny Kumar told them that he was a good-mannered boy and was in search of some work due to his poor financial condition. Thereafter, these two persons told the victim to accompany them, they will provide him money, food and good clothes. They also said that he has to discharge their household work and assured him that he will be given opportunity for further study. Thereafter, Golu Patel told the victim boy to accompany them as they were known to Golu Patel. Those two accused persons were Ranjeet Patel and Md. Alam (this appellant). The victim boy along with two accused persons came at the house of Md. Alam on their motorcycle. Both of them told him to have food and go to sleep. He was trying to sleep, however, was not able to sleep. In the meantime, he saw that both of them started sipping alcohol from a bottle after pouring in glass and thereafter, he fell asleep. In the late night, he felt that somebody has opened his pants and trying to insert something through his anus which was painful. Thereafter, he woke up and saw that both the accused persons were naked and were doing unnatural sexual offence with him. He tried to prevent them but they threatened him to kill if he raised the alarm. These two accused persons committed unnatural sexual offence with the victim boy one by one by pressing his mouth. Thereafter, they put their clothes on and also told him to wear his clothes and threatened him not to disclose this to anyone, otherwise he will be killed. 

Thereafter, in the morning of  February 25, 2021 at about 09:30AM, both the accused persons left him on their motorcycle at the shop of Golu Patel. He felt the pain for the whole day but in the evening when he could not bear the pain, he disclosed about the said incident to his nearby neighbours and members of his family. He was taken to Mahua Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment. Later on, he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur for better treatment. He was told to inform the concerned police station. On the basis of this written information, FIR being Mahua P.S. Case No. 162 of 2021 dated March 5, 2021 was registered
under Section 377 IPC amd Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act against (1) Sunny Kumar, (2) Golu Patel, (3) Ranjeet Patel and (4) Md. Alam (this appellant). After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 817 of 2021 dated December 10, 2021 against Md. Alam for the offences punishable under Section 377/34 IPC and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. 

The trial court by its order dated December 16, 2021 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 377/34 IPC and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act against Md. Alam. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed vide order dated January 24, 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 377/34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and got exhibited certain documents.  Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. In this 313 CrPC statement, he pleaded innocence and stated that Prem Shankar and Uday Shankar had already registered case against him and they again implicated him in the this case. The Defence produced three witnesses and exhibited some documentary evidences. 

The trial court having examined the entire prosecution evidences found that the emphasis of defence regarding false implication due to previous enmity cannot be a ground to discard the witnesses' evidence if such evidence is found to be reliable while upholding conviction of an accused.

On the point of alibi taken by the defence, trial court took note of the argument of the defence counsel that at the time of occurrence, the accused being an Advocate was busy in court for preparing the filing of the bail bond and on the other hand, the learned counsel submitted that the accused was at the High Court, Patna at Mazar to join the tajposhi from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. The trial court observed that it was highly
unbelievable that a person who is an Advocate was present at three places of surroundings of 20-30 kms at the same time. 

The High Court observed that the trial court negated the submission of defence counsel regarding contradiction on the point of age of the victim boy by referring the fact that no documentary evidence was brought on record regarding the education of the victim boy as the victim boy is from very poor family and is not a school going student and his mother is rustic. The trial court took note of injury report of the victim which suggested that the victim boy was minor and concerned medical expert being PW-2 found
the case of sexual assault. The trial court found that since the accused facing trial was accused in another case also, there was no reason of false implication of the accused by another person of poor and from a Scheduled Caste family of the vicinity.

The trial court observed that on the ground of minor contradictions, the evidences of prosecution witnesses cannot be ignored, the version of the occurrence as alleged and the medical examination with the opinion of suspected case of sexual assault cannot be put outside on the ground of minor contradictions or on the ground of previous enmity. Accordingly, the trial court found that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused under Sections 377/34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The High Court noted that there is a delay of 9 days in lodging of the FIR. The application gave rise to the present FIR was signed by the victim boy, but it is his admission that the application was written by a person who met him in the Sadar Hospital at Hajipur and to whom he had explained the whole occurrence. According to the victim boy, the person was a general person and he could not give the name of the person who wrote the application. A perusal of the deposition of the victim boy (PW-1) showed that he claimed to have posted the application in the post office, but in paragraph ‘26’ of his deposition, PW-1 claimed that he had complained in the police station on 26th. In paragraph ‘21’, he claimed that he had alone gone to the police station. This statement of PW-1 created doubt as to who wrote the written application. The doubt goes deeper when the High Court found that his mother (PW-3) claimed that she had taken her victim boy to the police station at Mahua and she also said that the application was written by Darogaji. She also stated that Darogaji had recorded her statement 8 days after lodgment of the case. If the statement of PW-3 is examined, it was found that she claims to have come to know about the occurrence from her son on the next day of the occurrence in the morning, but the victim (PW-1) stated that on February 25, 2021, he had alone gone to Mahua hospital. PW-2 recorded the time of examination of PW-1 as 7.25 pm. His parents were not with him, therefore, the statement of PW-3 that she had come to know about the occurrence on the next day in the morning was not a reliable statement. PW-3 stated that she had taken the victim boy to Government Hospital, Manjhaul, whereas the victim boy says that he had alone gone to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Mahua. 

The High Court's judgement reads: "In our opinion, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 are not only contradicting each other, they are contradicting themselves also on various aspects. 25. This Court further finds that the learned trial court has itself recorded in its finding that “if the submissions of learned defence counsel is evaluated, the evidences on the point of age of the victim boy is contradictory….” Despite this, the learned trial court did not think it just and proper to determine the age of the victim in accordance with the scheme of Section 94 of the Act of 2015. 26. We have noticed hereinabove in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that how the age of the victim boy has not been disclosed by the prosecution in course of trial and the I.O. (PW-5) himself stated that he had not conducted
any verification on the age of the victim. In section 164 CrPC Statement, the victim is said to be studying in Class VIII but in course of trial, he has stated that he has studied up to Class IV....27. This Court further finds that the victim had gone to Mahua Hospital with 6-7 persons. PW-2 has stated so but the victim claims that he had gone alone. It is, thus, evident that the victim has been tutored not to disclose names of those 6-7 persons who were with him in the Mahua Hospital. Those 6-7 persons had said to PW-2 that they were from the neighbourhood of the victim and they cannot give consent. This makes the whole case
suspicious.  28. PW-2 has stated that he had not examined the source of the blood stain. He had referred the victim boy to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur but the victim had not received treatment in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. The age of injury has been mentioned as within 6 hours and the doctor has noticed fresh blood but in course of his cross-examination, PW-2 has clearly stated that the blood would clot if the injury is on the upper part, within 3-4 minutes, he had not found any bruise around the anus. PW-2 has clearly stated that he had not made any statement before police. He had not examined the source of the blood stain, therefore, in our opinion,'

The judgement  recorded: "30. We have further noticed that in this case, the police officer Krishnanand Jha, who had drawn the formal FIR, has not been examined." 

Justice Prasad observed:"The prosecution has not disclosed the date of birth of the victim boy recorded in his first school admission register. No ossification and dental test of the victim has been conducted to assess his age. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the victim would come within the definition of the word “child” as envisaged under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act." 

Petitioner directed to make an appropriate representation under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act

In Birendra Kumar Nidhi vs.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"4. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate representation before the competent authority under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." 

This was the tenth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. The other six respondents were: The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, District Magistrate, Madhubani, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani, Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani, Sub- Divisional Officer, Madhubani, Saslar, Madhubani and Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Madhubani. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that public land was encroached by some local persons.

Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur directed to pass order under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act within nine months: Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Ram Babu Singh vs.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 2-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." The respondent no. 5 was Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur. This was the sixth judgement authored by Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh. 

The other six respondents were: District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ara Sadar, Bhojpur, Circle Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur,Officer-in-Charge, Babura Police Station, Bhojpur, and Smt. Poonam Kumari Singh (61), Wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Gandhi, Semra, Bhojpur.

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Authorities to immediately remove the illegal encroachment made by Smt. Poonam Kumari Singh (61), the Respondent No. 7 over the public village road in Village Semra, Bhojpur. He had also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct a thorough and time-bound inquiry into the illegal obstruction of the public road and to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the said Respondent for criminal intimidation and obstruction of public access. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on a public land, encroachment has been made by the private parties.

Circle Officer, Saur Bazar Anchal, Saharsa directed to pass order under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act within nine months: Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh

In Ashutosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Saharsa & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 5-page long judgement dated November 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"....the petitioner is directed to make an appropriate application before the Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, who shall consider and pass an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of filing of such representation, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties, 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of." 

There were 52 other respondents who were residents of village-Kanp (West) Ward No. 10, P.S.-Saur Bazar, Saharsa. Respondent No. 5 is the Circle Officer, Saur Bazar Anchal, Saharsa. Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh authored this fifth judgement. 

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus by way of Public Interest Litigation whereby and whereunder the petitioner is the local and social worker and prayer for addressing the issue related to the structure of illegal encroachment of Gair Mazarua Aam Land (Anabad Bihar Sarkar) the aforesaid land under Mouza Kanp Thana no. 136, Khata no. 2559, Kheshra/Plot no, 8640, 8641, 8637, 8639, 8647 Total Rakwa 7 acre land Gair Mazarua Aam land has been encroached by the private respondents no. 07 to 53 in which the aforesaid land which was donated by RajMata of the Sonbarsa State under Anchal-Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa out of whom in Plot/Kheshra no. 8646 Shiv Mahade Temple (Baba Kapeshwar Nath Dham Mandir) area 3 dismal which is situated for Puja Paadh, and remaining 5 acre land there was a pond (pokhar) and over the said Mayor (Mahaar) of the pond the private respondents are forcibly encroached the Gair Mazarua Aam Land belonging to Shiv Temple Kanp. He had also prayed for removal of illegal encroachment over the land. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on a public land, encroachment was made by the private parties.

As part of Division Bench Justice Sourendra Pandey set aside judgement of conviction by POCSO judge, Muzaffarpur

On September 26, 2025, Patna High Court delivered 26 judgements in Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Jyoti Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Chunnu Das vs. The State Of Bihar, Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Dipak Kumar Rai vs. The State of Bihar, Most. Lal Muni Devi & Ors vs. Murahu Singh, Lovely Kumari vs. Punit Kumar, Rahul Kumar Raushan vs. The State of Bihar, Sikandar Paswan @ Sikendar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar, Manishankar Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar  Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Ravindra Kushwaha vs. The State of Bihar, Jai Prakash Pandey vs. The State of Bihar, Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Khushboo Sawayam Sidha Mahila Vikas Sawyamlambi Sahakari Samiti Limited vs. The State of Bihar, Lal Babu Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Ratan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Vinod Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, M/s Shubh Laxmi Tent House vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Rajendra Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Government of Bihar, Craig Allen Moore @ Crag Allen Moore vs. The State of Bihar through its Home Secretary, Patna, Vijay Bharti vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, and Brahmdeo Thakur vs. State of Bihar.  

In Suraj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 35-page long judgement dated September 26, 2025, wherein, it concluded: ''57. In the present case, as we have already observed, material contradictions among prosecution witnesses and the non-production of the alleged viral video make it difficult to convict the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence which has been led by the prosecution does not stand to prove as contemplated under Criminal Jurisprudence and therefore possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. As in the present case, we have seen that evidences contain material contradictions and the place of the occurrence being not proved without an iota of doubt. The circumstances which has been alleged by the prosecution thus remains in doubt. 58. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into account the various judicial pronouncements, we find that the conviction of the appellant cannot be upheld with the kind of evidence which is inconclusive and accordingly the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside giving him the benefit of doubt. 59. The appellant is in incarceration in connection with this case, so he will be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 60. This appeal is allowed.'' The judgement was authored by Justice Pandey. 

Justice Pandey relied on Supreme Court's decision in Raju & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 15 SCC133, wherein the Court held that though the testimony of the victim is believable at par with that of an injured witness but her testimony cannot always be presumed to be gospel truth. He also relied on the decision in Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, wherein it was held that ''11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.'' 

The criminal appeal arose out of the judgment of conviction dated October 13, 2022 and the order of sentence dated October 14, 2022 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO(W), Muzaffarpur in connection with Mahila P.S. Case of 2021. By the impugned judgment the appellant/Suraj Kumar and co-accused Jyoti Kumar were convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506/34 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the offences under Sections 376(D) IPC as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; to undergo imprisonment for a term of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to also undergo imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to also undergo imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 

The prosecution case was based on the written application dated 23.04.2021 given by the informant/victim (P.W. 1). In her written report she has stated that on April 7, 2021 at about 11:30 P.M. in the night while she went out of her house to attend the natural call, accused Jyoti Kumar and Suraj Kumar (appellant) forcibly made her to sit on the motorcycle and shutting her mouth took her towards Taraura Dam where both accused raped her one by one. Jyoti Kumar has also made video of the incident for which victim forbade him on which both of them slapped her. Victim also tried to raise alarm but on account of the place being isolated it was heard by none. Both the accused persons also threatened her to kill her father in case of disclosure of the incident to anyone. It was also alleged that the recorded video of the incident was made viral by the accused Jyoti Kumar. 

On the basis of this written application, Mahila P.S. Case No. 45 of 2021 dated April 23, 2021 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342,  376(D), 509, 506, 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.  After completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer (the I.O.) submitted Chargesheet dated June 17, 2021 under Sections 341, 342, 376(D), 509, 506 and 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 342, 376(D), 323/34, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act was taken on July 9, 2021 against appellant Suraj Kumar. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants Suraj Kumar in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence has examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and exhibited some documentary evidences in course of trial. There was only one Defence Witnesse, namely Anandi Devi. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The appellant denied all  the allegations and took a plea that he was innocent.

The trial court after examining all the evidences available on the record found that in a case of sexual assault, it was not easy for a girl to disclose immediately to anybody. Therefore not reporting the matter to the police immediately alone cannot discredit the testimony of the girl which is otherwise cogent and trustworthy. The victim also supported the incident in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. trial court appreciated the fact that not finding spermatozoa on the body of the victim was just because the life of spermatozoa was generally for 72 hours which had already elapsed in this case at the time of her medical examination. According to the mark-sheet of the victim she was minor on the date of occurrence just one month short to the age of eighteen years. The trial court found that the defence could not shift the burden and the prosecution had successfully proved the fundamental facts of this case establishing the link between the offence committed and the accused committing the offence. The trial court on the FSL report, with respect of the leggings of the victim in which no blood or semen was detected, held that the cloth of the victim was seized after gap of number of days from the date of occurrence therefore it was quite  natural that the blood or semen could not be detected on the seized cloth. It ultimately concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the facts of this case of committing the offence of penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim. When the victim resisted for making video of the incident she was threatened by the accused for not disclosing the incident to anybody otherwise her father will be killed and that was why she did not reveal about the incident to her family members until the video was made viral. The prosecution also proved the facts constituting the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC. The charge under Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act could not be proved by the prosecution for the reason of non-compliance of mandatory certificate under Sections 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 did not come in the aid of prosecution in this regard as well. 

Bela Singh, counsel for Bina Devi's daughter, the informant opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant primarily on the fact that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was able to prove the factum of the incident with the help of both oral and documentary evidence. She submitted that all the prosecution witnesses including the victim supported the case of the prosecution and there were minor contradictions which cannot be taken into account as the same is bound to occur because of the nature of offence committed against the minor victim. She also submitted that the family members of the victim through their deposition had corroborated the prosecution story without any infirmity in the same and therefore the conviction cannot be challenged on such ground. She submitted that as far as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant with regard to delay in lodging of the FIR was concerned, the same was immaterial as it was specifically stated by the prosecutrix that the two accused persons were threatening of dire consequences and also had threatened to make the video viral. It was because of such threatening that the victim could not gather strength to report the incident to her immediate family  members within time and therefore the delay in lodging of the FIR. She submitted that from the evidence on record the age of the victim girl was found to be within 18 years and therefore there was no quarrel with regard to her being a minor and therefore the conviction under the provisions of POCSO Act was justified. At last, she submitted that the present case involved two sequence of offences committed by the appellant i.e. firstly they committed rape upon the victim and recorded the same on mobile phone and thereafter made the said video viral. She submitted that in view of such incriminating circumstances the appellant does not deserve to be acquitted and there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence and the appeal was fit to be dismissed. 

But the High Court was not persuaded by her arguments. After hearing the counsels of both the parties, the judgment was reserved on September 17, 2025. The criminal appeal was filed in the High Court on February 15, 2023 and registered on February 24, 2023.  

Earlier, on September 8, 2025, High Court's Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Pandey has passed an order. It reads: "These two appeals were called out earlier on 4th September, 2025. On that day, none appeared for the parties. 2. Today, when these appeals have been called out, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State are present but no one appears on behalf of the appellants. 3. In these circumstances, we appoint a Panel lawyer from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, learned Advocate is present in the Court. We request him to represent the appellants."  

Prior to that High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and A. Abhishek Reddy had passed a 5-page long order dated February 15, 2024, wherein, it had observed: ''6. Considering the nature of accusation against the appellants/applicants and the materials collected against them, we have not been persuaded to suspend their sentences during the pendency of the appeals. 7. The prayer for suspension of sentence of both the appellants/applicants is, accordingly, rejected. 8. However, considering the period of custody of the appellants/applicants and the mandate of Section 374(4) Cr.P.C., we deem it appropriate to give these appeals an early hearing." The order was authored by Justice Kumar. 

It seems to be a fit case for appeal in the Supreme Court.    

Supreme Court to hear challenge against order of suspension of sentence, bail by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad headed bench in September 2025

In ABC vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan has notified September 12, 2025 as the date for hearing the challenge against the 7-page long order dated November 20, 2024 by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey in Ricky Kumar @ Rikki Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024). The respondent no. 2 before the High Court was the unnamed victim from Panchsil Nagar, Ward No.4, Barh, Patna. On May 13, 2025, the respondent No.2 had sought time to file counter affidavit in the Supreme Court. By way of last opportunity, one week’s time was granted to file counter affidavit. The respondent no, 2 is Ricky Kumar @ Rikki Kumar. Supreme Court order reads:"Not to be deleted from the notified date i.e. 12.09.2025."

Notably, the High Court's order records that by order dated September 19, 2024, notice was issued upon the respondent no.2 in the High Court and State was given an opportunity to file show-cause but neither any show-cause was filed on behalf of the State nor any prayer for adjournment was made and no one appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, the victim. The counsel of Ricky Kumar @ Rikki Kumar, the appellant had prayed for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal because he had been in incarceration for more than three years and his case was not likely to be heard in near future. The appellant was convicted by judgment dated April 27, 2024 and sentence order dated April 30, 2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Patna in Special (POCSO) case of 2021 for the offence under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Justice Prasad concluded:"....we are of the view that in this case, the learned trial court has determined the age of the victim on the basis of school living certificate of the second school of the victim girl which is not in terms of the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, moreover, the victim girl has herself stated about the circumstances under which she was being beaten by her mother and brother and she has also stated that she had left her house on her own and had gone to Bakhtiyarpur from where she had gone to Hyderabad, the allegation of commission of rape is being made after more than a month of leaving of her house, she had never made this complaint to anyone, to any authority either at Hyderabad or at any other place and the Medical report of the Doctor (PW-5) is not corroborating the allegation of sexual intercourse, in these circumstances, this Court directs suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal". 

Right to Privacy of Adolescents

In RE: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan) observed:"After having read the reports and having interacted with the Committee as well as the victim, we are of the view that if we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself. As compared to the situation in 2018, she is better placed today. Now she is comfortable with her small family. She along with the accused, is concentrating on their daughter and the want to ensure that she gets quality education. At the same time, as recorded in the final report, the victim is attending school and is desperate to complete her school education. Though the State has offered to enroll her in some vocational course, she is keen on completing her education, at least up to graduation."

The Criminal Appeal was preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment and order dated October 18, 2023, passed ny a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. In Suo Motu Writ Petition, Supreme Court’s attention was drawn to certain objectionable observations made in the High Court's judgement. The  former court took note of the systemic failure of the State to protect the victim, resulting in her fate and wellbeing being ultimately tied up with that of the accused. Accordingly, in this judgement, we are dealing with the issue of sentencing the accused arising out of the criminal appeal and the

In the Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Court dealt with are the issue of rehabilitation of the victim and her child. The Suo Motu writ petition was initiated based on the directions issued by the  Chief Justice of India for challenging the impugned judgment. The State Government had preferred the criminal appeal to challenge the order of acquittal.

The Court considered three issues. The first issue is of sentencing the accused. The second issue is about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child. The third issue is a wider issue about adopting measures for adolescent wellbeing and child protection which goes to the root cause of the problem in our changing society. 

The Court relied on the reports of the Court appointed  3-member Committee of Experts. In its preliminary report, it recorded "the victim’s struggles while tackling the legal system for securing the release of the accused." The final report provided details of all the interviews conducted by the Committee, including those off the victim, the accused, their respective families, teachers and management personnel at the school of the victim, investigating police officers, personnel at the welfare home—Sanlaap Sneha Home, and other relevant stakeholders. It highlighted the inadequate, inefficient implementation of the POCSO Act. It emphasized the “collective failure of the systems that are there to protect a girl child”. It stated that the loopholes were glaring, and that the elopement, the living in/marriage of the victim, the birth of a child—all were preventable. 

The final report had specifically highlighted the failure of the Child Protection Committees at the village level; the inadequate implementation of the State of West Bengal’s “Kanyashree Prakalpa Scheme”;the inaction of the designated Child Welfare Officer at the local police station;lack of provision of free legal aid; lack of sufficient and effective counsellors from both genders in schools and even welfare homes;high frequency of elopements by children in class 8 and above;stigmatisation of girls in similar situations as the adolescent victim in the present case; irregularities and delays in the investigation of such crimes;inadequate accessibility to judicial fora and corruption and financial exploitation by touts, members of the Bar etc.; and lack of awareness and sensitisation among family, and public officials in respect of the POCSO Act and the sexual, emotional, and mental well-being of children.

The final report concluded that "in this particular case, it was not the legal crime which caused trauma on the victim, rather it was the legal battle which ensued consequent to the crime that is taking a toll on the victim."

The final report also concluded that though the incident was seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The Committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather, it was the consequences that followed, which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment. At the same time, she took care of her daughter to the best of her abilities, notwithstanding the huge financial burden she carried." 

The final conclusion in the report is an eye opener. It reads:

“In conclusion, a heinous crime causes trauma in the psyche of the victim. In this case, the law saw it as a crime, the victim did not. Hence, the legal crime did not cause any trauma on this particular victim. It was the consequences thereafter – the police personnel, the legal system, the battle to save her husband and do the best for her daughter while having a financial burden, which is taking its toll on her. A young woman, who refuses to be called a “Victim”, fighting for her husband needs all the support that can be made available. It would be in the best interest of the child if the family structure can be restored.”

The judgment noted: "Though the victim did not treat the incident as a heinous crime, she suffered because of it. This was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings of our society, our legal system and her family. In fact, she did not get any opportunity to make informed choice. The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her. Now, she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband. Now, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive of her small family."

The Special Judge appointed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) had convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, thea accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and five years respectively and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Though the Special Judge under the POCSO Act came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under clause (n) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 376 of the IPC, in view of the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, no separate punishment was imposed. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) 14 of 2023 before the Calcutta High Court against the conviction. The High Court by the Impugned Judgement dated October 18, 2023 purported to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences. 

By a detailed judgement dated August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court had set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the verdict of the Special Court to the extent of the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under clause (n) of sub-section 2 and sub-section (3) of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. This Court confirmed the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. However, the sentencing was postponed for the reasons recorded in the judgment. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, the basic facts of the case have been mentioned and in paragraph 3, the findings recorded by the High Court have been mentioned. 

The paragraphs 2 to 5 of the High Court's judgment reads: “2. The victim girl was fourteen years old at the time of the incident. The victim’s mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 29th May 2018. The victim’s mother stated in her complaint that the victim, who was her minor daughter, escaped from her home at 5:30 p.m. on 20th May 2018 without informing anyone. On inquiry, it was found that the accused enticed her to leave her house. The accused did so with the help of his two sisters. The victim’s mother repeatedly visited the house of the accused and requested him to facilitate the return of her daughter. However, the victim did not come back. A female child was born to the victim. Admittedly, the accused is the biological father of the child. There was a gross delay in the investigation, and the accused was arrested on 19th December 2021. The chargesheet was filed on 27th January 2022 against the accused for the offences for which he was convicted. In addition, the accused was charged with the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. We may note here that as the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act found that there was no evidence of marriage between the victim and the accused, the charge under Section 9 of the 2006 Act was held as not substantiated."

Significantly, the High Court noted that the mother of the victim had disowned her and therefore, the victim was continuously residing with the accused along with their minor child.

The Supreme Court observed: "In law, we have no option but to sentence the accused and send him to jail for undergoing the minimum punishment prescribed by the Statute. However, in this case, the society, the family of the victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim. The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects."

It opined:"Ultimately, this Court is bestowed with extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 for the sole a position to do substantial justice in its truest sense. In the context of this situation, sadly, true justice lies in not sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment. This case is not going to be a precedent and should not be a precedent. This case is an illustration of the complete failure of our society and our legal system. All that the system can do for the victim now, is to help her fulfil her desire of completing her education, settling down in life, providing a better education to her daughter and ensuring overall better living conditions for her family. This year we have completed 75 years of the Constitution on 26th January. The Constitution contemplates the State to be a welfare state. The Constitution guaranteed social and economic justice to all the citizens. In this case, there is a failure to provide both social and economic justice to the victim. The facts of the case indicate failure of the concept of welfare state. To remedy the situation in this case, it is the obligation of the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child and ensure that they settle down in life and lead a happy, healthy and constructive life ahead."

The 44-page long judgement reads: "we pass the following order: a) We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier; b)We direct the State to take following measures: i) To act as a true guardian of the victim and her child; ii) To provide a better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of few months from today; iii) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim till Xth standard examination and if she desires to take up education for a degree course, till the completion of degree course. After she passes her Xth standard examination, the we pass the following order: a) We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hold that though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier;

b) We direct the State to take following measures:

i) To act as a true guardian of the victim and her child;

ii) To provide a better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of few months from today;

iii) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim till Xth standard examination and if she desires to take up education for a degree course, till the completion of degree course. After she passes her Xth standard examination, the State can offer her vocational training, obviously, at the cost of the State;

iv) To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the child up to Xth standard and ensuring that she is educated in a very good school in the vicinity of the place of residence of the victim; and

v) To endeavour to take the assistance of NGOs or public-spirited citizens for the purpose of securing the debts incurred by the victim as a one-time measure." 

Victim, mother turn hostile, POCSO accused gets benefit of doubt from Justice Ashutosh Kumar

In Jayant Kumar @ Jayakant Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), by its order dated August 1, 2024, Patna High Court's Division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar observed that "The minimum mandatory sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is twenty years" but 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Saharsa in a POCSO case sentenced Jayant Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 12 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-for each of the offence and in default of payment of fine. He was directed to suffer R.I. for six months for each on each of the counts by order dated January 31, 2019.  The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated January 21, 2019. The Court pointed out the error in the sentencing order but ut did not ask the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Saharsa to rectify it. 

The appellant was convicted for the having impregnated a 14 years old girl. The victim herself lodged a written report addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila Police Station on June 14, 2016 alleging that the appellant, her neighbour, had been subjecting her to sexual intercourse for the last six months on the pretext of marrying her. At the time of lodging of the written report, she was “quick with the child”. She alleged that on June 13, 2016 when she went to the appellant to press for the marriage, she was assaulted, abused and thrown out of the house. It was then that she informed her mother, who brought her to the Mahila Police Station. The victim had delivered a child who at the time of Trial was two years old. After examining six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and one on behalf of the defense, the Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the appellant.

The High Court has recorded that the victim turned volte-face at the Trial. As prosecution witness (PW) 1, she deposed before the Trial Court that the appellant used to call her at his home and rape her. But in her cross-examination, she narrated an absolutely different story. On the prompting of villagers, in order to pressurize the appellant to marry her, the name of the appellant was provided by the villagers and therefore she had lodged this case against him. The appellant had not committed rape on her. Arti Singh, PW3, the Investigator of this case admitted that no document or evidence was furnished by the victim or her family members regarding the accusation against the appellant. The victim was examined by Dr. Ravindra Mohan (PW4) submitted that the victim was pregnant for over eight months. It is apparent that the victim chose to file the case against the appellant at a very advanced stage of pregnancy. Navneet Singh, defense witness (DW) 1 spoke about the good moral character of the appellant. DW1 is one of the panches of the Panchayat in which the village of the victim is located.

The High Court found it "really queer" that even though the victim has delivered a baby but at the Trial, she made a somersault and stated that the appellant was not the father of her child. All the allegations against the appellant were denied by the victim and her mother as well. The Court has recorded that "no effort was made by the prosecution to prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age. Though no objection has been raised regarding the assessment of the age of the victim and consequent assuming of jurisdiction of the Special Court to try this case, but on an overall analysis, we find that even the age of the victim has not been proved. She, at the time of her medical examination was already carrying a pregnancy of eight months and was found less than 18 years of age."

The Court observed that the accusation against the appellant have become "very doubtful". It concluded: "Giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, we set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and set the appellant at liberty....The appellant is directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required or detained in connection with any other case....Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Superintendent of concerned jail for record and compliance." The judgement was authored by Justice Ashutosh Kumar.

The Court noted that the Trial Court ought to have determined whether the the victim was a minor at that time or else the case would fall in some other category of offence, namely, reneging on the promise of marriage.