Case Background
The case started with a tragic allegation that a 12-year-old girl was gang-raped and killed near a temple fair organised on the occasion of Nagpanchami in Forbesganj, District Araria.
The occurrence was said to have taken place on 05.08.2019. The victim had gone with her grandmother (P.W. 1) to see the fair. According to P.W. 1, the girl disappeared from the fair while she was laying a mattress on the temple floor.
A search was made but the girl could not be found. On the next day, i.e. 06.08.2019, the grandson of P.W. 1’s brother informed her that the girl’s dead body was lying buck naked on the road near the temple. P.W. 1 and her husband (P.W. 2) went there and identified the dead body as that of their grand-daughter.
P.W. 1 gave her fardbeyan to the police, stating that unknown persons must have molested and killed the child. She mentioned seeing drops of blood below the waist of the deceased. Based on this fardbeyan, Forbeisganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 758 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 was registered under Sections 302, 201, 354A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against unknown persons.
The dead body was seized and sent for post-mortem examination the same day. During investigation, the police later filed charge-sheet against one person, Amar Kumar, for offences under Sections 302, 376D, 201/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The case was tried as Spl. POCSO Act Case No. 46 of 2019 before the Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Araria. On 08.10.2021, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death by hanging. It also directed destruction of seized articles in due course and recommended compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the victim’s family through the D.L.S.A.
As per law, the death sentence was sent to the Patna High Court in Death Reference No. 9 of 2021 for confirmation. The accused also filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 728 of 2021 challenging his conviction and sentence. Both matters were heard together by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, and decided by a common oral judgment dated 18.12.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court began by recording its strong dissatisfaction with how the Special POCSO Court handled the case. It noted that the Trial Court had awarded the death penalty “without caring for the basic principles of the law”.
The Bench first examined how the accused came to be arrested. After the dead body was recovered, the police brought a tracker sniffer dog to the spot. The dog smelt the dead body and then went into a villager’s house. As nothing incriminating was found there, the dog was next taken and it entered the house of the accused. He was then arrested from his house.
The Trial Court had treated as a circumstance against the accused that he had locked himself inside a room from inside, and that the door had to be broken open to arrest him. The High Court found that there was no evidence of any door being broken.
Effectively, the only real basis on which suspicion was cast on the accused was the “tracking trajectory” of the sniffer dog. The Court noted that there was nothing on record about the dog’s training, skills, or the competence of its handler. Despite this, the Trial Court had gone on to pronounce the death sentence.
The investigating agency had also seized four pairs of slippers, a purse and a chain from near the dead body. Without proper proof, it “jumped to the conclusion” that one pair of slippers belonged to the accused. From the accused’s house, a pair of cream-coloured soiled jeans was allegedly recovered, said to be the clothes he wore during the incident. Surprisingly, these jeans were never sent for forensic examination.
The Court noted there was no record that the accused had been medically examined under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the allegation was of gang rape. It observed that perhaps for these reasons, the accused had been granted bail during investigation by the High Court earlier.
The Trial Court had listed several “circumstances” which, in its view, formed a complete chain against the accused: his presence at the fair (confirmed by P.W. 1), his slippers near the dead body, blood spotted on the lower part of the body, recovery of his soiled jeans from his house, and his being allegedly locked inside his room when the dog led police there.
The High Court carefully tested each of these points.
First, it held that merely because the victim went to the fair with her grandmother where the accused was also present, that by itself is not an incriminating circumstance against him.
Second, though four pairs of slippers were found near the dead body, there was nothing on record to prove that any particular pair belonged to the accused or that he had worn them on the relevant day.
Third, the medical evidence did not support the assertion that there was blood on the body. While P.W. 1 mentioned blood drops in her fardbeyan, the inquest report made at the spot did not record any blood spots.
Fourth, the supposed recovery of soiled jeans from the accused’s house was also weak. No one had identified it as the same jeans he wore at the fair. It was never sent to a forensic lab. One of the seizure witnesses specifically said only the accused was arrested from his house and nothing else was recovered. Several seizure witnesses stated they signed on blank sheets of paper. This raised serious doubts about the seizure lists.
Given these gaps, the Court could not understand how the Trial Court treated such dubious material as a complete chain of circumstances to convict the accused.
The Bench then turned to the medical and forensic evidence. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was done at 10:17 p.m. on 06.08.2019 by Dr. Pravin Kumar (P.W. 11). He found the whole body swollen and some skin peeled off due to decomposition, but no internal abnormalities. All organs were intact and viscera was preserved as no cause of death could be detected. In the report he clearly stated that no definite opinion regarding the cause of death could be given.
He estimated the time since death as within 72 hours. There was no mention in the post-mortem report of any examination of the genitalia of the victim, even though the allegation was of gang rape of a 12-year-old child.
Not a single injury was found on any part of the body. According to the fardbeyan, less than 30 hours had passed between disappearance and post-mortem, yet the doctor reported decomposition but no blood and no injuries. The viscera report from the forensic lab showed no metallic, alkaloidal, glycosidal, pesticidal or volatile poison.
This led the High Court to ask a stark question: what then was the cause of death, and where was the proof of rape? It stressed that while medical evidence is not always mandatory to prove rape, here there was no eye-witness, no one had seen the accused with the victim, and there was “complete absence of any evidence of molestation or rape”. Under such circumstances, the Court even doubted whether the body subjected to post-mortem was in fact that of the victim of this particular case. It noted that P.W. 11 initially said the body came in a sealed cover with no identification, then corrected himself that it was brought in open, still without clarity on identification.
The Court also disbelieved the alleged confession of the accused. According to the investigation, he confessed before the B.D.O. of Forbesganj. But though the B.D.O.’s name appeared in the record, there was no official seal or emblem to show that an authorised confession had been recorded. The Bench found it unbelievable that such a confession could be relied on.
A critical part of the Court’s reasoning was the legal status of sniffer dog evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 283), the Bench explained that dog-tracking evidence has serious limitations: dogs cannot be cross-examined; their handler’s evidence is at best hearsay; and a person’s liberty cannot be made to depend on the nose of a dog. It held that such evidence may help police in their investigation, but cannot become the main basis for conviction unless supported by strong, independent evidence. In this case, even the handler was not examined and no record existed of the dog’s skill or performance history.
The Court further noted that the Trial Court had not properly complied with Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating circumstances relied upon in the judgment were not fairly put to the accused for his explanation. His answers to some questions were ignored, and none of the circumstances put to him had actually been proved in evidence.
It also discussed Section 53A Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court ruling in Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460. While a medical examination of the accused may not be mandatory in every case, if there are reasonable grounds to believe such an examination would give evidence about rape, it must be conducted and material taken for DNA profiling. In this case, no such examination of the accused was done.
The High Court criticised the Trial Court for ignoring the Supreme Court’s caution in Gade Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2001) 6 SCC 205 about the “inherent frailties” of sniffer or tracker dog evidence. It stressed that errors by the dog or its master, or wrong inference from the dog’s behaviour, are real possibilities, and scientific knowledge about dog tracking is limited.
Finally, the Bench applied the well-known “panchsheel” principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. It held that the circumstances against the accused were not fully established, were not conclusive, and did not form an unbroken chain pointing only to his guilt. On the contrary, they left wide room for doubt and for hypotheses consistent with the accused’s innocence.
On this detailed examination, the Court held that the conviction of the accused under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 376DB/34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was “highly unjustified in law”. It therefore set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dismissed the death reference, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the accused of all charges. As he was already in jail, the Court directed his immediate release if not wanted in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for both accused persons and victims’ families in Bihar and beyond.
First, it shows that even in very sensitive cases involving a child’s death and allegations of rape, courts cannot relax basic rules of proof. A person cannot be sentenced to death simply because a sniffer dog went to his house, or because of doubtful recoveries, or because of a shaky alleged confession.
Second, it underlines the importance of proper medical and forensic investigation. Where rape and murder are alleged, the body must be properly identified, the genital area examined, cause of death determined as far as possible, and clothing and other material must be sent for forensic and DNA tests. Failure to do this can fatally weaken the case.
Third, the decision reinforces that Trial Courts must faithfully follow the Supreme Court’s tests for circumstantial evidence and must fairly put all circumstances to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Death sentence is the highest penalty and can be imposed only on the strongest foundation of reliable evidence.
For ordinary citizens, the ruling is a reminder that while the justice system must be sensitive to victims of sexual violence, it must also guard against wrongful convictions caused by hurried or faulty investigations.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a person be convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder of a child mainly on the basis of sniffer dog tracking, doubtful recoveries and an unproved confession, when medical and forensic evidence do not support rape or even establish cause of death?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such evidence is too weak and unreliable to sustain conviction, particularly a death sentence, and acquitted the accused. -
Issue: What is the evidentiary value of sniffer dog tracking in criminal trials?
Answer: The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that sniffer dog tracking may be a starting point for police investigation but cannot, without reliable corroboration and assessment of the dog and handler’s competence, form the basis of conviction. -
Issue: How strictly must Trial Courts follow the principles of circumstantial evidence and Section 313 Cr.P.C. in serious offences under IPC and POCSO?
Answer: The Court stressed that all incriminating circumstances must be firmly proved, form a complete and conclusive chain, and be fairly put to the accused. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 283 (on limitations of dog tracking evidence).
- Gade Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 6 SCC 205 (on frailties of sniffer/tracker dog evidence).
- Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 (principles of circumstantial evidence).
- Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460 (on Section 53A Cr.P.C. and medical examination in rape cases).
Case Details
Case Number: Death Reference No. 9 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 728 of 2021; arising out of Forbeisganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 758 of 2019; Spl. POCSO Act Case No. 46 of 2019.
Case Title: The State of Bihar v. Amar Kumar (Death Reference); Amar Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal).
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey.
Citation: 2024(1) PLJR 625.
Advocates: Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate for the appellant/convict; Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP for the State.
Nature of the Case: Death reference for confirmation of death sentence and criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to access the official 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.
