Case Background
The case arises from Mahkar P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021, District Gaya. The written report was lodged on 23.10.2021 by a young woman who described herself as 14 years old.
She stated that on 16.10.2021 she had gone out in the village to see Durga Puja. Around 11:00 p.m., one of the accused allegedly called her on her mobile phone and told her that her mother was calling her home. When she started towards home, all three accused allegedly intercepted her, forcibly lifted her and took her to the roof of a +2 college.
There, according to the written report, the three accused allegedly raped her one by one. After this, one accused allegedly suggested that she be killed and thrown away, but the others feared implication in a murder case. One of them allegedly clicked her photographs. When some passers-by appeared nearby, the three allegedly fled, and she got a chance to escape.
The informant further stated that because of this incident she left home intending to commit suicide but was saved by an old man and an old lady. On this basis, Mahkar P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021 was registered for offences under Sections 376(3), 376-D and 376-DA of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all three accused. The POCSO Court (Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya) framed charges under the same sections of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced trial in POCSO Case No. 17 of 2022.
The trial court convicted all three under Section 376-D IPC (gang rape) and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives, with a fine of Rs. 70,000 each and further simple imprisonment of one year and two months in default of payment. It held that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of occurrence and therefore acquitted the accused of the POCSO charge and of Sections 376(3) and 376-DA IPC.
All three convicts filed separate criminal appeals (DB) before the Patna High Court against this judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2023. As both appeals arose from the same case, they were heard together and decided by a Division Bench.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar focused on one core question: whether the prosecution had proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants committed gang rape punishable under Section 376-D IPC.
At the outset, the High Court noted that the trial court’s finding about the age of the prosecutrix had not been challenged by any side. The victim was held to be a major on the date of occurrence, and the acquittal under POCSO and Sections 376(3) and 376-DA IPC had attained finality. Therefore, the Court treated her as an adult and confined itself to the charge of gang rape.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim (P.W.-2), her father (P.W.-1), her mother (P.W.-4), the school principal (P.W.-5), the doctor who conducted medical examination (P.W.-6), the Investigating Officer (P.W.-7) and the FSL expert (P.W.-8). Several documents, including the written complaint, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., school records, medical report and FSL report, were exhibited.
The accused, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations. Two of them claimed their blood group was B(+), while one claimed it was B(-). One appellant asserted that he was not in the village on the date of occurrence and had gone to his in-laws’ place. Allegations of false implication due to village politics were also made.
The defence argued before the High Court that the prosecution case was full of doubts. It was submitted that an earlier Sanha at Mahkar Police Station and an FIR at Banaras, allegedly relating to the same incident, had been suppressed by the prosecution. It was pointed out that the testimony of the victim and her parents showed major contradictions and improvements, and the medical as well as forensic evidence did not support the charge of gang rape.
On the other hand, the State and counsel for the informant supported the trial court’s decision, contending that the conviction under Section 376-D IPC was proper and required no interference.
Assessment of the victim’s testimony
The Bench first closely examined the evidence of the victim (P.W.-2). It compared her written report with her deposition before the trial court.
In court, she repeated the allegations of forcible lifting, being taken to the roof of the +2 college, and being raped one by one. However, she also added a long description of what happened immediately after the incident and over the next few days. She said that after the rape she fled, hid in the garden of the middle school, and the accused followed her till her house. From the school garden she claimed to have gone back to the Durga Puja venue and, at about 2–3 a.m., returned home with the crowd and sat beside her mother without disclosing anything.
According to her deposition, the next morning at 6 a.m. she left home on the pretext of studies with an intention to commit suicide. At Bela Station she met an old man and an old lady, who stopped her from suicide and took her in their four-wheeler to their house, where she stayed for a night. The next day they allegedly left her at Chandauli bus stand, from where she went to Banaras by bus. She said she remained for 2–3 hours at the bus stand till morning, whereafter she came into police custody by stating that she was missing. The police then took her to a children’s home, informed her parents, and later handed her over to them.
She further stated that after returning home, her parents and some co-villagers asked about the incident and she disclosed the alleged rape. She then went to Mahkar Police Station, but the police there allegedly refused to register the case and directed her to approach the Mahila Police Station. At the Mahila Police Station, she claimed that she was again asked to come later as the officer had not arrived. Finally, she approached the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), and only thereafter the case was registered. She also said that her clothes — jeans, T‑shirt and blazer — were seized about one month after the occurrence.
In cross-examination, the victim made statements that cut against her earlier version. She said that after the incident she had gone to a temple less than one kilometre from her house and stayed there for about one and a half hours, which was inconsistent with her earlier claim of going back to the Durga Puja venue. She also stated that after lodging of the case, she went to Delhi as the accused were threatening her, and that her parents lodged another case at Mundika Police Station, Delhi, from where she was later recovered.
She further gave a different account of her journey: in cross-examination she said that from Gaya she went to Chandauli by train and was then taken to Banaras by the police. This did not match her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she had said that at Bela Station she met an old man and an old lady who took her to Mugalsarai, from where she went to Banaras by bus, and a man there called the police who took her to the children’s home. When confronted with that previous statement, she denied having made it.
The High Court noted these material inconsistencies and improvements. It observed that the prosecutrix was not consistent and reliable and that her testimony made the prosecution case highly doubtful.
Evidence of the parents
The Court then examined the evidence of the victim’s father (P.W.-1). He was not an eye-witness. In his chief examination he stated that, on the night of occurrence, when the daughter did not return home, he began searching for her. Some people allegedly told him she had been taken towards the school. He said that he, along with others, went there, the accused fled on hearing their arrival, and they found the daughter in torn clothes. He claimed that she then told him that the three accused had raped her.
The Bench compared this with the victim’s own version and found it inconsistent. The victim had stated that after the occurrence she went back to the Durga Puja place and then home and did not disclose anything to her mother; she had not said that her father and others found her near the school that night.
In cross-examination, the father said that he went to search his daughter around 1–2 a.m., accompanied only by his wife, not by co-villagers. He also said that the daughter left home the next day for coaching on a bicycle and remained away for six days. He admitted that till date his daughter had not disclosed the names of the old man and old lady. He further stated that when he received his daughter from the child line at Banaras, he got a copy of an FIR and that he had himself lodged an FIR at Banaras, though no copy of that FIR was produced in court.
He deposed that on 25.05.2022 he lodged another case at Mundika Police Station, Delhi, regarding kidnapping of the same daughter by one Mohit Kumar, and that she was recovered from Begusarai. He acknowledged that in all, three cases had been lodged and that on the day of the occurrence he initially suspected one Dippu and his mother Sharda, not the present appellants.
The High Court held that his testimony, being contradictory to that of the victim and unsupported by documentary records like the Banaras FIR, did not inspire confidence.
The mother (P.W.-4) too was not an eye-witness. In chief, she did not support her husband’s claim that she accompanied him at night to search for their daughter. In cross-examination, she admitted that on 17.10.2021 she gave a missing information (Sanha No. 387/2021) at Mahkar Police Station, naming one Raushan Kumar as a suspect. She confirmed that there was village talk that Raushan Kumar had enticed her daughter away.
The Court found it significant that, according to the father, the daughter had already named the appellants as rapists during the night search, yet no FIR was lodged against them immediately. Instead, only a missing report was filed the next day, without mention of the alleged gang rape or the appellants’ names. This earlier Sanha and the Banaras FIR were not produced by the prosecution.
Medical and forensic evidence
The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution. P.W.-6, Dr. Shakuntala Nag, examined the prosecutrix on 23.10.2021. She found no marks of violence or struggle on the body and no signs or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse, nor any abnormal finding. In cross-examination she candidly stated that in a gang rape case bruising or laceration of the external genital is a must, but there was no such injury. She found no spermatozoa, dead or alive, and did not find the labia minora red.
The Investigating Officer, P.W.-7, deposed that he seized the victim’s clothes — blue underwear (Janghiya), blue jeans, grey full T‑shirt and black blazer — and sent them to FSL, Patna. He also stated that the Sanha No. 387 dated 20.10.2021 lodged by the mother contained nothing about the present occurrence.
P.W.-8, the FSL Assistant Director, reported that human blood of group B was detected on the underwear of the victim. No human blood was found on other clothes, and semen was not detected on any of the seized garments.
The High Court noted that the appellants had themselves claimed different blood groups in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, but there was no further evidence linking the blood on the underwear specifically to any accused. More importantly, the absence of semen on any clothing and the doctor’s findings were inconsistent with the allegation of gang rape as described.
Final conclusion
After considering the cumulative effect of all evidence — inconsistent and improved statements of the victim, contradictions with the parents’ testimonies, missing earlier police records, and lack of medical and forensic support — the Division Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 376-D IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence passed by the POCSO Court. Both criminal appeals were allowed. One appellant, who was already on bail, was discharged from his bail bond, and the other two, who were in custody, were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment highlights how seriously the Patna High Court views the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in serious offences like gang rape.
Even in a sensitive case, the Court insisted that the prosecution must present a coherent story supported by reliable witnesses and medical or forensic material wherever available.
For victims and families, the decision shows the importance of making early, consistent statements and preserving and producing all related police records. Missing or changing versions can weaken a genuine case.
For accused persons, the ruling confirms that convictions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on a shaky narrative; courts will examine contradictions, delays, earlier complaints and scientific evidence carefully before upholding a life sentence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed gang rape punishable under Section 376-D IPC.
Answer: No. Due to major contradictions in the testimony of the victim and her parents, non-production of earlier police records, and absence of medical and forensic support for the allegation of gang rape, the Patna High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. The conviction and life sentence were therefore set aside.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judgments are expressly cited or relied upon in the extracted text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2024 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 163 of 2024; arising out of Mahkar P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021; POCSO Case No. 17 of 2022
Case Title: Karu Singh @ Anish Kumar @ Aneesh Kumar and another v. The State of Bihar; Shashi Singh @ Shashi Ranjan v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 33
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Advocates: For the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2024 – Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate; Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate; Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate. For the State – Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP. For the informant – Mr. Sambhav Gupta, Advocate.
Advocates: For the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 163 of 2024 – Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State – Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP. For the informant – Mr. Sambhav Gupta, Advocate.
Nature of the case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Gaya, in a case alleging gang rape.
Link to judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
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.
