Case Background
This case arises from an incident dated 14.04.2012 in a rural area under Parsa Bazar Police Station, Patna. The victim, an 11‑year‑old girl, went to a coaching centre run by one Gunjan Master at village Palanga Bagicha. After finishing her tuition, she started walking back alone towards her village.
According to the prosecution, the appellant came from behind on a bicycle. When the girl left the main road and took a shortcut across fields towards her village, he left his bicycle in a field and followed her on foot. Near a wheat field, he allegedly chased her, caught her, closed her mouth with his hand, pushed her to the ground and fell upon her body, trying to open her pant with the intention to rape.
The girl managed to free her mouth and cried out. People working in nearby fields rushed to the spot. On seeing them, the appellant tried to flee, but the villagers caught hold of him and assaulted him. The police were informed by mobile phone. The Station House Officer and other police officials soon came to the spot.
At about 06:45 P.M. the victim gave her fardbeyan to Assistant Sub‑Inspector Din Bandhu Ram of Parsa Bazar Police Station at the place of occurrence itself. Her maternal grandparents (later examined as PW‑2 and PW‑3) and one Santosh Kumar (PW‑1) were present and signed the fardbeyan.
On this basis, Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 39 of 2012 was registered at 9:00 P.M. for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed charge‑sheet for the same offence. The Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Session on 06.06.2012, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 638/2012.
The Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge‑I, Patna framed charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim (PW‑5) and the investigating officer (PW‑6). After trial, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/‑, with one year’s simple imprisonment in default.
The appellant challenged this judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.04.2014 before the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 297 of 2014.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The appeal was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh. Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant. Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State. No one appeared for the informant.
The main grounds urged by the amicus curiae were that the investigation was faulty and the conviction rested mainly on uncorroborated testimony of related witnesses.
First, it was argued that the investigating officer did not verify the existence or location of the coaching centre, did not examine any fellow students or the person running the coaching. According to the defence, the victim going alone to coaching from a village was unusual and needed proper verification.
Second, it was pointed out that no independent villagers, who allegedly rushed to the spot on hearing the victim’s cry and apprehended the appellant, were examined. Thus the prosecution depended on close relatives of the victim, all of whom admitted they had not actually seen the occurrence.
Third, the defence highlighted that the investigating officer did not recover the appellant’s bicycle or the victim’s books, pen or other study materials from the place of occurrence, although the prosecution story itself mentioned that these had been left at the spot during the incident. This, according to the defence, went against the prosecution version.
Fourth, it was suggested that relations between the appellant and the victim’s maternal family were strained because the family allegedly did not pay him for his barber work. On this basis the defence claimed false implication.
The amicus curiae further submitted that although the victim and her relatives claimed the appellant had bad character and had often misbehaved with women and been punished in panchayat meetings, there was no independent evidence or earlier complaint on record to support this allegation. The investigating officer also admitted that there was no prior case against the appellant in the police station before this FIR.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor focused on the consistency and promptness of the victim’s version. He pointed out that the FIR itself showed that the victim was alone when the attempt was made. The date, time and place of occurrence as stated by the victim were supported by PW‑2, PW‑3, PW‑4 and PW‑6. The victim’s maternal grandfather had also confirmed the boundaries of the field described by her.
The State contended that the delay of three hours in lodging the FIR was natural, because the sequence of events involved the assault, apprehension of the appellant by villagers, calling the police, arrival of the police at the field, recording of fardbeyan at 06:45 P.M., and then registration of the formal FIR at 9:00 P.M. The promptness pointed towards truthfulness and absence of afterthought.
The APP argued that no medical examination was needed because the victim herself stated that she had not suffered any bodily injury and the offence was at the stage of attempt, with no penetration. Regarding the appellant’s defence of non‑payment of barber charges, it was submitted that this suggestion was denied by all prosecution witnesses.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Patna High Court first considered the reliability of the FIR. The Court noted that the alleged incident occurred around 6:00 P.M. on 14.04.2012 in a wheat field when the victim was returning from coaching. Her fardbeyan was recorded at 06:45 P.M. at the spot by ASI Din Bandhu Ram, and the formal FIR at 9:00 P.M. the same day.
The Court held that the three‑hour gap was explained by the time taken in the villagers apprehending the appellant, informing the police, the police reaching the field, recording the fardbeyan and then registration of the FIR. Therefore the FIR appeared natural and reliable.
Next, the Court turned to the evidence of the victim, treating her as the sole eye‑witness because she was alone at the time of the occurrence. The Court carefully extracted five key facts from her fardbeyan and testimony: the place (wheat field near the village road), time (about 6:00 P.M.), date (14.04.2012), her return from coaching on foot while the appellant followed on a bicycle and then on foot, and the apprehension of the appellant by villagers who came on hearing her cries and later handed him to the police.
In her examination‑in‑chief, the victim narrated how she left the village road after crossing a ridge, took the shortcut, saw the appellant following, and then he ran after her, caught her, pushed her to the ground, climbed on her body, pressed her mouth and tried to open her pant. She described that she somehow freed her mouth and cried, causing nearby people to come running; the appellant tried to flee but was caught in the same field. She stated that the villagers assaulted him, and the police then came, interrogated her and recorded her statement at the spot, and later took both her and the appellant to the police station where her statement was again recorded.
She identified the appellant in court and also her own signature on the fardbeyan (marked Ext‑1/2), stating she had read it before signing.
In cross‑examination, she stated that she knew the appellant from earlier due to his profession. She confirmed that she was alone when he followed her and that no medical examination was done. She accepted that the police did not seize anything from the place of occurrence and clarified that though the appellant tried to open her pant, he did not succeed in doing anything wrong with her and she did not suffer any scratch or injury.
The High Court found that her cross‑examination supported, rather than weakened, the core of the prosecution case. Her statement was consistent with her fardbeyan and appeared natural.
The Court acknowledged that the investigating officer had not seized the bicycle or study materials and had been somewhat careless in searching for them, especially as he reached the field at about 8:00 P.M. when several people had already gathered. However, the Court held that this lapse did not undermine the entire prosecution story.
The evidence of the victim’s maternal grandfather (PW‑2), grandmother (PW‑3) and uncle (PW‑4) was considered relevant to corroborate the circumstances immediately after the occurrence. They stated that when they reached the spot, they found the appellant held by villagers; the police came, recorded statements, and the appellant was handed over to the police. Their evidence supported the timing, place, and the fact that the appellant was apprehended at the spot.
On the appellant’s main defence about non‑payment for barber services and resulting bad relations, the Court noted that this suggestion was denied by all key witnesses including the victim and her relatives. The Court found it implausible that elderly grandparents would fabricate a false case of sexual assault against their minor granddaughter merely over non‑payment of service charges.
The Court also recorded that during investigation, villagers informed the investigating officer that the appellant used to misbehave with women and had been punished in panchayat meetings. Though no panches were examined, PW‑2, PW‑3 and PW‑4 supported this allegation. The Court treated this as lending some support to the prosecution.
Finally, the Court examined whether the appellant’s acts amounted to attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. It held that by following the victim, chasing her into the field, pushing her to the ground, climbing onto her body and trying to open her pant, the appellant had clearly moved beyond preparation and had entered the stage of attempt. His conduct showed execution of his intention to rape. The fact that no penetration occurred was due to the victim’s alarm and the arrival of villagers.
Accordingly, the High Court found the trial court’s decision to frame the charge and convict the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC to be correct. It found no illegality in the judgment of conviction or order of sentence and held that the appeal had no merit. The criminal appeal was dismissed.
Since the appellant was on bail at the time of judgment, the Court cancelled his bail bonds and directed him to surrender before the trial court within fifteen days of receipt of the High Court’s judgment, to serve the remaining part of his sentence. The trial court was directed to take necessary legal steps to secure his custody if he failed to surrender. The Court also directed that the amicus curiae be paid remuneration as per State notification dated 18.05.2017 by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is important for cases of sexual offences, especially in rural settings where incidents often occur in open fields with few direct witnesses.
Firstly, the Court clearly accepted the testimony of a minor victim as sufficient to uphold conviction when her version is natural, consistent and promptly recorded, even if there is no medical injury or independent eye‑witness. This is relevant for many victims who may fear that lack of injuries or physical evidence will defeat their case.
Secondly, the Court refused to throw out the case merely because of investigative lapses like non‑recovery of the bicycle or study materials, or failure to examine all possible witnesses. It stressed that such faults of the investigating officer should not make the victim suffer where the core evidence remains reliable.
Thirdly, the decision explains what courts see as an “attempt to rape”. The Court treated pushing the girl down, climbing on her and trying to open her pant as a clear attempt, even though rape itself did not occur. This clarifies that reaching this stage of assault will attract serious punishment.
Finally, the Court rejected weak defences based on alleged minor disputes, such as non‑payment for professional services, when they are unsupported and improbable. This sends a message that courts will not easily accept claims of false implication in serious offences against children without strong proof.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Was the FIR and the victim’s version of events reliable despite a three‑hour delay and lack of recovery of material objects from the spot?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the FIR was promptly recorded at the spot, the three‑hour gap was satisfactorily explained, and the victim’s consistent, natural testimony was reliable despite investigative lapses. - Issue: Did the appellant’s acts amount only to preparation, or did they constitute an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC?
Answer: The Court held that by chasing the victim, pushing her to the ground, climbing onto her body and trying to open her pant, the appellant crossed the stage of preparation and committed an attempt to rape. - Issue: Could the appellant’s defence of false implication due to alleged non‑payment for barber work create reasonable doubt?
Answer: No. The Court found this defence unsupported by evidence, denied by all relevant witnesses, and inherently improbable to justify fabricating a serious case involving the modesty of a minor girl.
Cases Cited by the Court
The judgment does not mention or rely upon any previous decided cases by name. The Court decided the matter on the basis of the evidence on record and the provisions of Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 297 of 2014; arising out of Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 39 of 2012, G.R. No. 1708 of 2012; Sessions Trial No. 638 of 2012.
Case Title: Atendra Thakur v. State of Bihar.
Citation: 2024(2) PLJR 355.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh.
Date of High Court Judgment: 03.02.2026 (CAV judgment; CAV date 28.01.2026).
Trial Court Judgment and Sentence: Judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.04.2014 by Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge‑I, Patna.
Offences Involved: Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit rape).
Result in Appeal: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; bail bonds cancelled and appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.
Advocates: Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Amicus Curiae for the appellant; Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; none appeared for the informant.
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal (single judge) against conviction and sentence arising from a Sessions Trial relating to attempt to rape.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Cr. App. (SJ) No. 297 of 2014
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.
