Case Background
The case began with a written report lodged by a 16-year-old girl at Mahila Police Station, Dehri, Rohtas, on 03.06.2020. In that report, she alleged that the appellant had been blackmailing her for the last two years and had established physical relations with her during that period on the assurance of marriage.
She further alleged that on 26.05.2020, at about 1:30 in the day, when she went to attend the call of nature, the appellant came there and raped her. According to the written report, after the incident she returned home and narrated the occurrence to her parents and other family members. A Panchayati was then held in the village. The father of the appellant allegedly refused to accept her into his family and misbehaved with her parents.
On the basis of this written report, Dehri Mahila P.S. Case No. 25 of 2020 dated 03.06.2020 was registered under Sections 376, 341, 323 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
After investigation, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Rohtas, Sasaram, as POCSO Case No. 36 of 2020. The trial court examined six prosecution witnesses and two defence witnesses.
By judgment dated 08.02.2022, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 341, 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. By order dated 10.02.2022, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (and three months’ simple imprisonment in default) for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO, and one month’s simple imprisonment each under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC. All sentences were to run concurrently.
The appellant, in jail since 14.06.2020, challenged this conviction and sentence before the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, heard the appeal. The main question was whether the evidence on record, especially the testimony of the minor victim, was trustworthy enough to sustain a conviction for rape and POCSO offences carrying life imprisonment.
The Court first noted the contents of the victim’s written report. In that written report she clearly stated that the appellant had been blackmailing her for two years and had established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. The written report thus suggested a prior relationship and repeated sexual intercourse over a long period.
However, when the victim deposed before the trial court, her story changed. She told the court that she had lodged the case on 04.05.2020, whereas the FIR on record was dated 03.06.2020. She described only the alleged incident of 26.05.2020 when she had gone to ease herself and the appellant allegedly came there, raped her and fled.
In her deposition she did not say anything about the alleged earlier relationship of two years or about the appellant blackmailing her and having continuous physical intimacy with her on a promise of marriage. The High Court observed that the tenor of her statement in court gave the impression that the appellant had come from nowhere and raped her, which was very different from what she had written in her initial report.
In cross-examination also, she maintained silence about any prior connection with the appellant. She further stated that immediately after the occurrence she had taken a bath and that the police had not seized the clothes worn by her at the time of the occurrence.
As to her age, the victim claimed in court that her date of birth was 01.01.2005. However, the prosecution documents collected from her school showed her date of birth as 08.11.2004. This discrepancy, though objected to by the prosecution, was accepted. The Court ultimately held that she was definitely below 18 years, but this mismatch added to doubts about the accuracy of her evidence.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that these inconsistencies – incorrect date of lodging the case, different dates of birth, and concealment of the alleged two-year relationship – showed that the victim could not be treated as a “sterling witness” whose sole testimony could safely be the basis for conviction.
The High Court then examined other evidence. The victim’s mother (P.W. 5) stated that on 26.05.2020 the father of the appellant himself brought the victim back to her home. He allegedly abused the family members and threatened to throw acid on the victim. According to her, she learnt about the alleged rape only from her daughter.
The Court remarked that if the father of the appellant himself brought the victim home, the situation appeared quite different from a simple case of a stranger rape at a secluded spot. The Court questioned why the appellant’s father would have to bring the victim home at all if she had simply been assaulted and left at the place of occurrence. This circumstance, the Court said, indicated non-acceptance by the appellant’s father of a pre-existing relationship between the appellant and the victim.
The existence of two to three rounds of Panchayati in the village after the incident was also noted. P.W. 2, the uncle of the victim, admitted that Panchayati had been convened three to four times. The Court read these facts together with the mother’s version and the written report referring to two years of intimacy. It formed the impression that there may have been a relationship between the two which was opposed, especially from the side of the appellant’s family.
The Court observed that this could have been a case of a failed promise or a sexual relationship which was considered unacceptable because the girl was a minor. However, the Bench was careful not to treat this as an established fact; rather, it used this possibility to highlight that the prosecution’s version of a sudden rape at a ditch where the victim had gone to ease herself was doubtful.
On the medical side, the victim was examined on 03.06.2020 by Dr. Kanchan Singh (P.W. 3). The doctor found no abnormal stain, foreign particle or injury on any part of the victim’s body, including her private parts. The hymen tear was old, and the vaginal orifice was patulous. Vaginal swab was sent for microscopic examination and the test was negative for pregnancy. Based on clinical examination, P.W. 3 opined that the victim had sexual intercourse in the past. However, the doctor did not assess her age.
The Investigating Officer (P.W. 4) mainly collected the school document relating to age and got the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She arrested the appellant on 14.06.2020. On inspecting the alleged place of occurrence, she found it to be a dry ditch with no water. She also found that the house of the appellant was only about 25 yards away from the house of the victim. Importantly, none of the persons who had participated in the Panchayati came forward to give any statement to the Investigating Officer.
On the defence side, D.W. 1 did not give any useful evidence. D.W. 2, the father of the appellant, deposed about his dispute with the victim’s uncle, Majahar Sah, who was examined as P.W. 2. This suggested some background hostility between the families, although the Court did not use it as a main ground but noted it as part of the overall picture.
After reviewing all these materials, the High Court summed up certain “stark facts.” It accepted that the victim was below 18 years of age. But it held that she did not appear to be a trustworthy witness. She could not correctly state the date of lodging the case. Her written report initially mentioned that she knew the appellant from before and that he had been extracting carnal pleasure on the assurance of marriage. This important aspect was completely suppressed when she gave evidence in court.
The mother’s testimony that the appellant’s father brought the victim home, and the fact that there were multiple Panchayati meetings, reinforced the view that the real story was different from the version presented at trial. The Court concluded that there must have been opposition to the relationship between the appellant and the victim, more so from the appellant’s side, which likely led to the criminal case.
The Bench also attached importance to the delay in lodging the FIR and the “absolutely contradictory statements” made by witnesses at the trial. Together, these factors made the prosecution case “absolutely unworthy of reliance.” In such a situation, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt under criminal law.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2022 and the order of sentence dated 10.02.2022. It acquitted the appellant of all charges. Since he had been in jail since 14.06.2020, the Court directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal was allowed and disposed of. The Court also ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent and that the records be returned to the trial court.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for criminal trials involving allegations of rape and POCSO offences, especially where the prosecution mainly relies on the testimony of the victim.
The Patna High Court has underlined that even in sensitive offences, a conviction cannot be sustained if the main witness changes the core of the story between the written complaint and the court testimony. Here, the omission of the alleged two-year relationship and blackmail, the wrong date of FIR, and the contradictory statements of family members weakened the prosecution beyond repair.
For families and victims, the judgment shows the importance of giving consistent, accurate statements from the very beginning. For accused persons, it reaffirms that where serious doubts arise from the evidence, courts must give the benefit of that doubt and not uphold life sentences merely on suspicion.
For police and prosecutors, the case highlights the need to properly investigate all angles, record statements of Panchayati members, verify ages carefully, and confront witnesses with their earlier versions. Failure to do so can result in acquittal even after a trial court conviction.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the minor victim’s testimony, was reliable enough to uphold the conviction under Sections 376 IPC and 4(2) POCSO Act, along with allied IPC offences.
Answer: No. Due to serious contradictions between the written report and court testimony, inconsistent statements by witnesses, and doubtful circumstances around the alleged incident, the Patna High Court held the prosecution case unworthy of reliance and extended benefit of doubt to the appellant. - Issue: What is the effect of delay in lodging the FIR and non-examination of key village Panchayati participants in a sexual offence case.
Answer: The Court treated the unexplained delay and failure to examine Panchayati witnesses, combined with contradictions, as factors creating strong doubt about the prosecution version and contributing to the acquittal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments have been cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2022; arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 25 of 2020, District Rohtas; POCSO Case No. 36 of 2020.
Case Title: Jameruddin Ansari @ Jamruddin Ansari vs. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 82
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Date of Judgment: 13.11.2024
Advocates: Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP for the State.
Relevant Offences/Provisions: Sections 376, 341, 323, 504 IPC; Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012; Section 164 Cr.P.C. (recording of statement).
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in a POCSO and rape case.
Outcome: Conviction and life sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released if not wanted in any other case.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
