Case Background
The case started with a complaint filed by the father of a girl in Raxaul, East Champaran. On 22.09.2016, he lodged Complaint Case No. 240 of 2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul.
In this complaint, he alleged that his minor daughter, said to be about 14 years old and a Class VIII student, went out at about 7 PM on 18.09.2016 to attend the call of nature. According to him, the present appellant and six others, described as the appellant’s father and siblings, forcibly kidnapped her with the intention of sexually assaulting her.
When he questioned the accused persons about his daughter’s whereabouts, they allegedly abused and assaulted him. He claimed that when he went to the police station, the police did not register his case. He therefore approached the Court with a complaint.
The Magistrate transmitted the complaint for registration of a police case on 25.10.2016. On this basis, Raxaul P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016 was registered on 03.11.2016 under Sections 366A, 376, 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act.
The complaint further stated that the girl was recovered on 21.09.2016 near a railway crossing in an unconscious condition. After regaining consciousness, she allegedly said that the accused had taken her to Nepal.
After investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet only against the present appellant. Investigation against the other named persons was kept pending. The case was tried as POCSO Trial No. 47 of 2017 before the Special Judge, POCSO, East Champaran.
By judgment dated 14.11.2019, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 366 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was acquitted of the more serious charges under Sections 376(D) and 504 IPC.
On 19.11.2019, the trial court sentenced him to one month’s simple imprisonment for Section 341 IPC, six months’ imprisonment for Section 323 IPC, six years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for Section 366 IPC, and four years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 569 of 2020 before the Patna High Court. The appeal was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar and judgment was delivered on 07.12.2021.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court closely examined whether the prosecution evidence actually proved kidnapping and sexual assault, or any other offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution during trial. However, neither the investigating officer nor the doctor who allegedly examined the victim was produced. There was no medical evidence on record.
PW-1, the father of the girl and the informant, repeated in court that his daughter went to ease at about 7 PM on the date of occurrence and was kidnapped. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the kidnapping himself. He denied any love affair between his daughter and the appellant, but also stated that he did not want to continue the criminal case because his daughter had already been married to another man.
PW-2, a neighbour, was only a hearsay witness. He said he had merely heard about the kidnapping and did not know who had taken the girl. Importantly, he was not declared hostile by the prosecution. His testimony therefore stood as it was and did not support the allegation that the appellant had kidnapped the girl.
PW-3 also claimed to know nothing about the incident. Though he was declared hostile, even his earlier statement to the police was only hearsay. Thus, he could not provide direct support to the prosecution story.
PW-4 did not support the prosecution either. He was also a hearsay witness and was declared hostile, but even his cross-examination did not help the prosecution.
PW-5, Urmila Devi, was a key witness. She stated that there was a relationship between the informant’s daughter and the appellant from before, which had led to quarrels between the two families. She clearly said she saw the informant’s daughter going along with the appellant near an orchard.
According to her, the girl was about 19–20 years old, had voluntarily left her house and went with the appellant. Nobody had forcibly taken her. She further said that the girl voluntarily returned the next day and that the informant had lodged a false case. The prosecution did not declare PW-5 hostile, so her testimony remained part of the prosecution evidence itself.
PW-7, the mother of the girl, also gave evidence that weakened the prosecution’s case. She stated that her daughter had gone out to attend the call of nature and later went missing. After two days, she was found near the railway crossing. She clearly said that the girl was about 20 years old at the time of the incident, was in the habit of going here and there and then returning, and that she did not disclose anything to either parent about what had happened.
PW-7 further said that her daughter, annoyed with something at home, had gone to her maternal uncle’s house. She too was not declared hostile, so her statement that there was no kidnapping and that the daughter was an adult formed part of the prosecution evidence.
PW-6, the girl herself, gave a different version. She deposed that at about 6 PM on the date of occurrence, she went to ease when the appellant came, pressed her mouth and took her first to Raxaul and then to Nepal. She said that she was brought back to Raxaul, from where her father took her home. She claimed she made a statement before the police and was medically examined.
She admitted that the appellant was their neighbour and there had been a prior dispute between the two families, which had been settled in a panchayati, but relations remained strained. She also said that her father had got her married three months earlier and that she had no documentary proof of her date of birth.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecutrix was not a “sterling witness” because her testimony was inconsistent and unsupported by other reliable evidence. He relied especially on the evidence of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-7, who were not hostile and had either not supported or had contradicted the allegation of kidnapping.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that conviction can legally be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is trustworthy, and that in this case the victim had consistently said she was taken out of India by the appellant and that she was a minor at the time.
The High Court then referred to two Supreme Court decisions. In Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272, the Supreme Court held that when a prosecution witness is not declared hostile, the defence can rely on that witness’s evidence and it binds the prosecution. This principle was reiterated in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 5 SCC 258. Paragraphs 29 to 31 of Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari, quoted in the judgment, make it clear that if a prosecution witness, not declared hostile, gives evidence supporting the defence, the accused is entitled to rely on it.
Applying this law, the Patna High Court focused on PW-5 and PW-7. PW-5 had stated that the victim was in a love relationship with the appellant, was 19–20 years old, went with him voluntarily and returned voluntarily the next day, and that the case was false. PW-7, the mother, said the victim was about 20 years old, often left the house on her own and returned, had gone to her maternal uncle’s house after getting irritated at home, and never told the parents that she was kidnapped.
The Court found no reason to doubt the reliability of these two witnesses. Since they were not hostile, their testimony had to be treated as prosecution evidence. Together, their statements created serious doubt about the prosecution story that the girl had been forcefully kidnapped by the appellant or that she was a minor at the time.
The Court observed that the trial judge had failed to properly consider these contradictions while convicting the appellant. With no medical evidence, no investigating officer’s testimony, and strong evidence from PW-5 and PW-7 undermining the victim’s version, the High Court held that the evidence of the victim was “shaky” and not sufficient by itself to sustain the conviction.
In criminal law, when the evidence raises serious doubts, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court therefore set aside both the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. It allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released at once.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows that the Patna High Court will not uphold a conviction for serious charges like kidnapping and POCSO unless the evidence is clear and trustworthy. Even where the allegation involves sexual offences, the Court insisted that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision underlines that when prosecution witnesses, not declared hostile, give evidence that supports the defence, such evidence cannot be brushed aside. Families and complainants must understand that if they lodge false or exaggerated cases, or if their own witnesses contradict them, the case may fail and the accused may be acquitted.
The judgment also shows the importance of bringing complete evidence to court. Here, neither the doctor nor the investigating officer was examined. This weakened the case further. For victims and their families, it highlights the need to cooperate with proper investigation and truthful testimony. For accused persons, it reaffirms their right to rely on prosecution witnesses whose evidence favours them.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant kidnapped a minor girl and committed offences under Sections 341, 323, 366 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act?
Answer: No. Due to contradictions between the victim’s evidence and the consistent testimony of other non-hostile witnesses, and absence of supporting medical and investigative evidence, the Court held that the prosecution case was doubtful and granted the appellant benefit of doubt.
Issue: Can the defence rely on the testimony of prosecution witnesses who are not declared hostile but whose statements support the defence version?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Raja Ram and Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari, the Court held that such evidence is binding on the prosecution and can be used by the defence.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272.
- Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 5 SCC 258.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 569 of 2020, arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016; POCSO Trial No. 47 of 2017 corresponding to CIS No. 47 of 2017.
Case Title: Srilal Yadav v. The State of Bihar.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 166.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar.
Advocates: Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Nature of the case: Criminal appeal (against conviction under IPC and POCSO).
Link to judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
