Case Background
The case began with a written complaint given by the victim’s father at Maharajganj Police Station in Siwan district on 16.04.2019.
He alleged that on 15.04.2019 his minor daughter, referred to as X, was returning from school when a co-villager, the present appellant, met her near a Kali temple.
According to the written information, the appellant, aged about 35 years, offered the child a chocolate, took her into his lap and carried her to an arhar (rahar) field.
There, he allegedly removed her pant and inserted his finger into her private part, causing bleeding. When the child started crying, he left her. She went home and narrated the incident to her parents. The father then went to the appellant’s house, where the appellant allegedly told him to do whatever he wanted.
On the basis of the complaint, Maharajganj P.S. Case No.108 of 2019 was registered.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.104 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 against the appellant for offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Special Judge, POCSO Court, Siwan took cognizance on 22.06.2019. On 15.10.2019, charges were framed under Sections 376/511 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 POCSO, which the appellant denied, claiming trial.
During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the child victim, her parents, the doctor, the Investigating Officer and a formal witness.
The trial court found the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By judgment dated 13.03.2023 and order dated 16.03.2023, it sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 30,000, with two years’ simple imprisonment in default.
The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No.372 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, after hearing the appellant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor, examined the entire trial record. Although notice was served to the informant (father of the victim), he did not appear.
The Court closely analysed the prosecution evidence, especially the testimony of the child victim (PW-1), her medical examination (PW-2 and Exhibit-2), and the supporting statements of her parents (PW-3 and PW-4).
Evidence of the Child Victim
The victim girl was examined by the Magistrate during investigation under Section 164 CrPC. The Magistrate first tested whether she was capable of understanding questions and giving answers. Being satisfied, he recorded her statement.
In that statement, she narrated that a boy of her village, whose name she did not know but could identify by face, stopped her on the way, promised her a lollipop, took her to the rahar field, opened her pant and inserted his finger in her private part. She cried, and then her brother reached there.
This statement was produced in evidence as Exhibit-5, bearing her signature.
At trial, she deposed as PW-1. The trial court again tested her competence and, being satisfied, recorded her testimony. She repeated the same core story: the appellant took her to the field, opened her pant, inserted his finger in her private part, and she started bleeding. Her father and the police then took her to the hospital and later to the court for her statement.
In court, she identified the appellant present in the dock as the same person who had assaulted her.
Minor Inconsistencies and Defence Objections
In cross-examination, the victim said she did not know the appellant’s name but knew where his house was located, at some distance in the market area.
At one place she said she was coming alone from school on the day of the occurrence; at another place she mentioned that she usually went with her two brothers and that she was returning with them.
The defence argued that this difference about whether she was alone or with her brothers was a contradiction which made her statement unreliable. The defence also pointed out that the two brothers had not been examined as witnesses.
The High Court, however, treated her as a child witness and held that this small inconsistency about company on the way home was not a material discrepancy. It did not go to the root of the prosecution story, which consistently remained that the appellant took the minor to the field and inserted his finger into her private part.
Therefore, the Court held that her evidence could not be discarded on this basis and that she was not a wholly unreliable witness.
Medical Evidence
Dr. Mitali Kumari (PW-2) examined the victim on 17.04.2019 at Sadar Hospital, Siwan, as part of a Medical Board constituted with two other doctors. Her report is Exhibit-2.
She recorded that the hymen was torn with blood present. There was laceration on the left lateral fornix, and swelling of the labia majora and labia minora. She also noted that there was laceration and blood stain on the private part.
On radiological examination, the age of the victim was assessed as between 12–13 years. The report clearly concluded that there was evidence of sexual abuse.
In cross-examination, the doctor denied the suggestion that her report was tampered, vague, imaginary or collusive. The High Court accepted her evidence as reliable and found that it fully supported the victim’s version of sexual assault.
Age of the Victim
The defence tried to argue before the High Court that the trial court had not properly determined the age of the victim.
The High Court examined the record and found that the mother (PW-3) had stated that the child was eight and a half years old at the time of the incident. The FIR and written information also described her as a minor. PW-2’s medical report assessed the age at 12–13 years.
Importantly, the defence had never cross-examined any witness on the question of age and had not produced any document to contradict the prosecution evidence.
When the Bench specifically asked the appellant’s counsel to point out where the age had been challenged in cross-examination, there was no such instance.
The Court therefore held that the age of the victim was never questioned by the defence at trial and could not be raised as a fresh issue in appeal. It accepted that the victim was a child within the meaning of the POCSO Act.
Plea of False Implication and Alleged Enmity
The appellant’s lawyer argued that there was prior enmity between the informant’s family and the appellant’s family, and that this was the reason for false implication.
This argument was based on a statement attributed to the Investigating Officer (PW-5) in cross-examination, that the informant had, in his restatement, spoken of prior enmity.
The High Court noted that when the informant and his wife were cross-examined, defence suggestions were made about some dispute, which they denied.
Further, in his own statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant did not mention any past dispute or enmity. He only said that he was innocent and falsely implicated.
The appellant also did not produce any defence witness or document to support the claim of enmity or to show why such a serious allegation would be fabricated.
In these circumstances, the Court rejected the plea of false implication as unsubstantiated.
Other Shortcomings in Investigation
The High Court observed that the Investigating Officer had not noted the time of inspection of the place of occurrence and had not recorded the statement of the pujari of the Kali Mandir near the spot.
However, the Court held that these were lapses on the part of the investigating agency which, in this case, did not shake the core of the prosecution case built primarily on the consistent child testimony and strong medical support.
Application of POCSO Presumptions and Conviction
The trial court had relied on Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which allow the court to presume that the accused committed the offence and had the requisite mental state when certain foundational facts are proved.
Here, the victim’s clear statement, her identification of the appellant in court, the prompt complaint by her father, and medical proof of sexual injury together formed those foundational facts.
The High Court agreed that the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 were attracted, and the appellant had not rebutted them with any plausible defence evidence.
It therefore found no error in the trial court’s assessment and refused to interfere with the judgment of conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Reconsideration of Sentence
After upholding the conviction, the High Court turned to the question of sentence.
The appellant’s counsel argued that Section 4 of the POCSO Act had been amended by Act 25 of 2019 with effect from 16.08.2019, enhancing the minimum punishment to not less than 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment.
Since the offence in this case occurred on 15.04.2019, before the amendment came into force, the unamended Section 4 applied. That provision prescribed a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment, extendable to imprisonment for life.
The defence also pointed out that the appellant was a married person with children dependent on him, and that there was a possibility of reformation. On that basis, it requested reduction of the life sentence.
The Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute that the appellant had a family dependent on him.
Taking these aspects into account, the High Court modified the sentence. Instead of life imprisonment, it imposed a fixed sentence of ten years’ imprisonment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The fine of Rs. 30,000 imposed by the trial court was kept intact. However, in case of default of payment, the Court directed that the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for one year, instead of the earlier two years.
With these modifications, the appeal was disposed of on 26.02.2026.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for several reasons.
First, it shows that the Patna High Court gives substantial weight to the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, especially when her statement is consistent and supported by medical evidence and by her parents’ conduct.
Second, it clarifies that small inconsistencies in a child’s narrative, such as whether she was alone or with siblings on the way home, will not by themselves destroy a prosecution case if the core allegation of assault is stable and believable.
Third, it highlights that claims of “false implication” based on alleged enmity must be backed by some proof. Mere suggestions in cross-examination, without any supporting evidence or even mention in the accused’s own 313 CrPC statement, will not persuade the court.
Fourth, the judgment explains how the timing of an offence in relation to an amendment of the law affects the punishment. Because the incident happened before the 2019 amendment to Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the Court applied the earlier version and adjusted the sentence accordingly.
Finally, the judgment balances strictness and possibility of reform. While the conviction for sexual assault on a minor was firmly upheld, the sentence was calibrated to ten years’ imprisonment, considering the appellant’s family circumstances and the statutory framework at the time of the offence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, based mainly on the testimony of the child victim and medical evidence, was sustainable.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the victim’s statement was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses, and supported by statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO. The defence failed to rebut these presumptions or show material contradictions. - Issue: Whether alleged prior enmity and investigation lapses were sufficient to treat the case as one of false implication and to set aside the conviction.
Answer: No. The Court held that the appellant produced no evidence of enmity, did not mention it in his own 313 CrPC statement, and investigation lapses like not examining the temple pujari did not undermine the core prosecution case. - Issue: What sentence should be imposed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, considering the date of offence and the subsequent amendment enhancing punishment.
Answer: The Court held that the unamended Section 4 applied as the offence occurred before 16.08.2019. It modified the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years’ imprisonment, retaining the fine of Rs. 30,000 and adjusting default imprisonment to one year.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier judgments are cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.372 of 2023; arising out of Maharajganj P.S. Case No.108 of 2019; POCSO Trial Case No.143 of 2019
Case Title: Arun Prasad @ Arun Patel vs. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 616
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Praveen Kumar
Advocates: Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Siwan
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 26.02.2026
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
