Case Background
The case started with a written report given by the father of a girl to Sabour Police Station, Bhagalpur. He stated that his minor daughter, said to be about 14 years old, had gone for tuition 15 days earlier but did not return. He searched for her and tried to get information from relatives but failed.
Only after 15 days did he submit a written application to the police on 28.12.2018. On this basis, Sabour P.S. Case No. 361 of 2018 was registered against unknown persons under sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to kidnapping.
During investigation, the police claimed to have found material against one person (later the appellant). A supplementary chargesheet was filed against him under sections 366A, 376, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427/34 IPC and sections 6/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Special POCSO Court, Bhagalpur, took cognizance of these offences.
On 10.08.2021, the trial court framed charges against the appellant under sections 341, 323, 376, 366A, 427 IPC and sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined five witnesses: the victim’s sister (PW1), the informant father (PW2), the victim (PW3), the doctor who examined the victim (PW4), and the Investigating Officer (PW5). Some documents were also exhibited, including the victim’s school registration card and her statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The defence did not produce any witness or document. The appellant was examined under section 313 CrPC on 03.02.2023 and denied all allegations, claiming innocence.
By judgment dated 18.03.2023, the Additional District and Sessions Judge‑VI‑cum‑Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhagalpur (POCSO Case No. 35 of 2020) convicted the appellant under sections 323, 341, 363, 376, 504 IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him on 22.03.2023 to rigorous imprisonment up to 20 years with heavy fines. He was acquitted of charges under sections 427, 506, 366A IPC and section 8 POCSO.
The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 632 of 2023 before the Patna High Court, challenging both conviction and sentence.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava (authoring the judgment), heard the appeal. The Court carefully went through the evidence, arguments from both sides, and legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was against the weight of evidence and based on presumption, not proof. He highlighted the 15‑day delay in lodging the FIR after the girl went missing, suggesting that the case was a result of afterthought and deliberation by the father.
He further pointed out that the prosecution case rested mainly on the statement of the victim. According to him, her versions of how she was taken away and what happened thereafter kept changing at different stages: during police investigation (section 161 CrPC), before the Magistrate (section 164 CrPC), and in court during trial. Because of these contradictions, her testimony could not safely be the sole basis of conviction.
On the question of age, counsel argued that the legal process under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, was not followed. The only document relied on was a registration card issued by Bihar School Examination Board (Exhibit P4), produced by the victim herself. No investigation was done to verify its authenticity. The maker of the document, such as school authorities or the Board, was not examined. Therefore, the finding that she was a minor was unsustainable.
He added that no independent witness was examined to show kidnapping or recovery. PW1 and PW2, being sister and father, had only hearsay knowledge. As for medical evidence, the doctor assessed her age between 16 and 18 years and found no signs of recent sexual assault. Hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the State and informant
The State and counsel for the informant supported the trial court judgment. They argued that the prosecution witnesses, especially the victim, supported the case and her testimony was credible. According to them, the victim was a minor aged about 15–16 years; this was supported by Exhibit P4, the Registration Card of Bihar School Examination Board. Therefore, the legal presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act should operate against the accused, shifting the burden to him.
They also emphasised that the medical examination showed that the victim was pregnant, which, in their view, clearly indicated sexual assault. Hence, there was no illegality in the conviction and sentence.
Assessment of witness evidence
The High Court first analysed each witness. PW4 (doctor) and PW5 (Investigating Officer) were official witnesses, while PWs 1 to 3 were private witnesses.
PW1, the sister, admitted that her knowledge of the incident came only from what her father told her. She did not know who committed the offence and even stated in cross‑examination that no occurrence took place in her presence. The Court therefore found her evidence to be of no real value.
PW2, the father and informant, admitted that his statement was never recorded by the police and that he simply gave a written application, drafted by a ward member of another village. He could not recall what was written in it. The Court noted that his statement was recorded for the first time only in court, which reduced its evidentiary value.
Thus, the entire case effectively depended on the victim’s evidence (PW3). The Court, referring to settled law, noted that witnesses can be classified as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or partly reliable. If a witness falls in the third category, courts must look for corroboration as a matter of prudence.
Victim’s changing versions
The Court compared the victim’s statements at different stages. According to the Investigating Officer, in her police statement the victim had said that she and her sister were alone at home when a girl came, knocked on the door, and called her out saying her father was calling. When she stepped outside, the appellant, waiting on a motorcycle, forcibly took her away. This version was also reflected in her section 164 CrPC statement (Exhibit P5), along with added claims that the appellant’s family forced her to marry him and she was confined and ill‑treated.
However, during trial the victim gave a different story. She said that while going to tuition with a neighbourhood friend, the friend took her to another place on the pretext that the teacher was calling. There, the appellant allegedly took her away on his motorcycle. In cross‑examination she named this friend as Muskan. She also admitted there were many shops open nearby, yet claimed she did not raise alarm because she was scared.
The Court found these versions inconsistent and conflicting. Importantly, the girl Muskan, a crucial witness, was never examined by the prosecution, without any explanation. No shopkeeper or person from the tuition centre was brought as a witness. The sister, who allegedly opened the door when the stranger girl called, did not support that part of the story at all.
Given these contradictions and missing witnesses, the Court held that the victim could not be treated as a “sterling witness” whose sole testimony can be accepted without hesitation. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, which explains the standard of a sterling witness, later followed by a three‑judge Bench in Nirmal Prem Kumar & Anr. v. State (2024 INSC 193).
Delay in FIR and medical evidence
The Court attached importance to the 15‑day delay in lodging the FIR. In its view, it was highly unnatural for a father, whose daughter is missing or kidnapped, to wait so long before approaching the police. This created a strong doubt that “there is something more in this case than meets the eye”.
On medical evidence, the doctor (PW4) found no physical or chemical injury on the victim’s body or private parts. Pathological examination of vaginal swab did not detect spermatozoa. The only positive finding was that the urine pregnancy test showed pregnancy of 9–11 weeks. The doctor assessed her age as 16–18 years and did not note any evidence of recent sexual assault.
The Court held that a pregnancy test alone cannot prove that the story of forced sexual assault by the appellant is true. There could be other reasons, including consensual sexual relations. In absence of injuries or spermatozoa and given the contradictions in testimony, the medical report (Exhibit P1) did not support the prosecution case.
Doubt about minority and POCSO charges
The Court then examined whether the victim was actually a minor so that POCSO provisions would apply. The only documentary proof was the Bihar School Examination Board registration card (Exhibit P4), showing date of birth as 25.01.2004. This was produced and proved only by the victim herself, long after cross‑examination, when she was recalled after 10 months.
No school admission register was produced, nor was any headmaster or Board official examined. The document was not part of the charge‑sheet or police papers supplied to the accused. The Court found it suspicious that all family witnesses and even the Investigating Officer remained silent about the victim’s age in their depositions. Considering the circumstances, the Court held that although Exhibit P4 might be admissible, its evidentiary value was very weak without supporting proof.
Since the age determination process under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was not followed and there was no reliable document, the Court turned to the medical opinion: age between 16 and 18 years. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh (2009) 6 SCC 681, Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 5 SCC 201, and Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P. (2018) 9 SCC 248, the Court noted that radiological age has a margin of error of plus or minus two years.
The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Court on its Own Motion v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Delhi 4484, which held that in POCSO cases the upper age in the medical range should be taken, and a two‑year margin of error still applied. Applying this, the Court reasoned that if the medical age is 16–18, the upper extreme with margin could reach about 20 years. Thus, the victim could safely be considered a major. Once she is treated as major, POCSO provisions and its presumptions under sections 29 and 30 do not apply.
Standard of proof and benefit of doubt
The Court reminded that even in POCSO cases, the presumption of innocence does not vanish completely. The presumption under POCSO arises only after foundational facts are established. Referring to Ramanand v. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 5273, the Court reiterated that while the accused only has to create a preponderance of probability, the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further cited Supreme Court decisions in Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1454) and Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443, which hold that though conviction for rape can rest on the sole testimony of the victim, this is only when her evidence is natural, trustworthy and consistent. If her version is inconsistent, unsupported by medical evidence, or improbable in the surrounding circumstances, courts should not convict solely on that basis. In Santosh Prasad, delay in FIR and lack of medical corroboration led to acquittal.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove foundational facts of age and sexual assault. There were major inconsistencies, no independent witnesses, unexplained delay in FIR, absence of injuries, no spermatozoa, and a doubtful age document. The possibility of consensual relations and other unknown facts could not be ruled out.
Therefore, it would be unsafe and unfair to uphold the conviction. The appellant deserved the benefit of doubt.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 and the sentence dated 22.03.2023 in POCSO Case No. 35 of 2020, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Since he was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for both accused persons and complainants in sexual offence cases, especially those involving POCSO allegations.
First, it shows that courts will not mechanically rely on a victim’s statement when there are serious contradictions and missing links. Victims’ testimonies remain crucial, but they must be consistent and supported by surrounding circumstances.
Second, the judgment stresses that proving age is central in POCSO cases. A simple school card produced without supporting witnesses or proper verification may not be enough. Age must be determined as per law and medical opinion has to be carefully applied with margins of error.
Third, the Court highlighted that delay in lodging an FIR in serious offences like alleged kidnapping and rape can cast a heavy doubt, unless a convincing explanation is given.
Finally, the ruling reminds that even where pregnancy is proved, it does not automatically prove forced rape by the accused named. The prosecution still carries the burden to rule out other possibilities and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
For families, lawyers and police in Bihar, this judgment underlines the need for prompt reporting, proper investigation, collection of independent evidence, and strict adherence to legal procedures for age determination and medical examination.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the conviction under IPC and POCSO be sustained mainly on the changing statements of the victim without reliable corroboration?
Answer: No. The Court held that the victim’s inconsistent versions and lack of corroboration meant she could not be treated as a “sterling witness”. Conviction based solely on such testimony was unsafe. - Issue: Was the prosecution able to legally prove that the victim was a minor so as to attract POCSO provisions and their presumptions?
Answer: No. The only document was a school registration card produced by the victim herself without supporting evidence. Considering medical opinion (16–18 years) and the permissible margin of error, the Court treated her as a major, excluding POCSO. - Issue: Did the overall evidence prove kidnapping and rape beyond reasonable doubt?
Answer: No. The unexplained 15‑day delay in FIR, absence of independent witnesses, lack of medical signs of recent assault, doubtful age proof, and possibility of consensual relations created serious doubt. The appellant was entitled to acquittal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21
- Nirmal Prem Kumar & Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2024 INSC 193), Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024
- Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 681
- Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2012) 5 SCC 201
- Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 9 SCC 248
- Court on its Own Motion v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Delhi 4484
- Ramanand v. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 5273
- Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1454
- Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 632 of 2023; arising out of Sabour P.S. Case No. 361 of 2018; POCSO Case No. 35 of 2020
Case Title: Md Quarban v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 236
Advocates: Md. Hussamuddin Azad, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate for respondent no. 2 (informant)
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special POCSO Court
Date of High Court Judgment: 06.04.2026
Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and directed to be released if not required in any other case
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Cr. App (DB) No. 632 of 2023
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.
