Patna High Court
Jaykant Kumar @ Jaykant Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.234 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Saharsa
======================================================
JAYKANT KUMAR @ JAYKANT KUMAR SINGH S/o Nand Kishore
Singh @ Bhutto Singh R/o Bahuarba, P.S.- Salkhua, District- Saharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 01-08-2024
1. Heard Mr. Indradeo Prasad, the learned
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh,
the learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the
offences under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated
21.01.2019
passed by te learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Saharsa in Case No. POCSO 24/2016 arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No. 47/2016. Curiously, by order
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
dated 31.01.2019, the appellant has been sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 12 years along with a fine of Rs.
10,000/-for each of the offence and in default of
payment of fine, he has been directed to suffer R.I. for
six months for each on each of the counts.
3. The minimum mandatory sentence under Section
6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is twenty years.
4. The appellant is said to have impregnated a 14
years old girl. The victim had delivered a child who at
the time of trial was two years old.
5. The victim herself lodged a written report
addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Mahila Police
Station on 14.06.2016 alleging that the appellant, her
neighbour, had been subjecting her to sexual
intercourse for the last six months on the pretext of
marrying her.
6. At the time of lodging of the written report, she
was "quick with the child". On 13.06.2016, it has been
alleged by her that when she went to the appellant to
press for the marriage, she was assaulted, abused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
and thrown out of the house. It was then that she
informed her mother, who brought her to the Mahila
Police Station.
7. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, a
case vide Mahila (Bakhtiyarpur) P.S. Case No. 47/16
dated 14.06.2016 was registered for investigation for
the offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act,
2012.
8. The police after investigation submitted charge-
sheet whereupon the appellant was tried for the
offences.
9. The Trial Court, after having examined six
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and one on
behalf of the defense, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as aforesaid.
10. The victim has turned volte-face at the Trial. As
PW1, she has deposed before the Trial Court that the
appellant used to call her at his home and rape her.
On 13.06.2016, she had informed the appellant that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
she was carrying a pregnancy of four months and
there the appellant must marry her. This infuriated
him and he abused and assaulted her. This was
narrated by the victim to her mother who got a written
report drafted by one Samir Kumar (PW6) and went to
the police station. Thereafter, she was subjected to
medical examination at Saharsa and Bhagalpur. She
also gave her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
She has disclosed before the Trial Court that the name
of the child that she had given birth to is Akash
Kumar, who is around two years of age. However in
her cross-examination, she had an absolutely different
story to narrate. Though, she admitted before the Trial
Court that the appellant is a neighbour but she did not
know anything about him. Some of her co-villagers
were making efforts for her marriage and in order to
pressurize the appellant to marry her, the name of the
appellant was provided by the villagers and therefore
she had lodged this case against him. She was very
specific in her statement before the Trial Court that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
the name of the appellant was taken on the prompting
of others and that the appellant had not committed
rape on her.
11. Similarly, the mother of the victim (PW2) also in
her cross-examination has denied that the appellant
had impregnated her daughter. She also supported the
victim in stating before the Trial Court that the
appellant was named on the asking of the co-villagers.
The village in which she and the victim reside is
faction-ridden and that she did not even know about
the appellant.
12. The Investigator of this case, namely, Arti Singh
(PW3) had nothing substantial to offer to the Court
except for the process which she undertook in the
investigation of the case. In her cross-examination,
she has stated that the victim, at the time of lodging
the case, had informed her that she was carrying a
pregnancy of four weeks. The medical examination
also proved that the victim was pregnant. However,
she was candid enough to admit that no document or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
evidence was furnished by the victim or her family
members regarding the accusation against the
appellant. She was not informed that during the course
of time, the victim had delivered a baby. Nothing was
investigated further by PW3.
13. The victim was examined by Dr. Ravindra
Mohan (PW4) who had found her to be pregnant.
However, there was no sign of recent sexual
intercourse as no spermatozoa either dead or alive was
seen in the vaginal swab. The conclusive opinion of
PW4, therefore, was that the victim was pregnant and
her age was below 18 years. This statement was on
the basis of the report of the department of Radiology,
J.L.N.M.C.H, Bhagalpur.
14. PW4 was recalled for further cross-examination,
when she stated that at the time of examination, the
victim was pregnant for over eight months. It,
therefore, appears that the victim was in the very
advanced stage of pregnancy when she had chosen to
file the case against the appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
15. Awdhesh Kumar Singh (PW5) another witness
has not supported the prosecution case and has been
declared hostile.
16. Samir Kumar (PW6), a labourer by profession,
was literate enough to draft the written report on
behalf of the victim. In 2016 Panchayat Elections, he
was a contender for the post of Mukhiya but had lost
to one Anil Mahant. He had no idea about the
occurrence alleged in the written report. His only
source of information was the victim herself who had
asked him to draft the written report. Apart from this,
he had never heard of any such occurrence in his
village.
17. One Navneet Singh, who has been examined as
DW1 spoke about the good moral character of the
appellant. He also knew the fact that the victim is an
unwed mother of a child. DW1 is one of the panches
of the Panchayat in which the village of the victim is
situated.
18. It is really queer to find that even though the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
victim has delivered a baby but at the Trial, she has
made a somersault and has stated that the appellant
was not the father of her child. All the allegations
against the appellant were denied by the victim and
her mother as well.
19. In this context, we have also examined the
statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The
tenor of the statement made before the learned
Magistrate again makes the accusation very doubtful.
She had disclosed her age before the Magistrate also
as 14 years. She was caught by the appellant at the
crossing and was brought to his home where he
promised to marry her. The victim did not respond.
She was then allowed to go by the appellant. After the
demise of her father, she told the appellant to marry
her but he denied. She was also assaulted at the
house of the appellant. In the afore-noted 164
statement she has but alleged that the appellant had
been subjecting her to sexual intercourse for last six
months. The sexual encounters had taken place in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
school and in the house of the appellant. She had also
informed the Magistrate that she was pregnant for the
last four months.
20. The story-line suggested by the prosecution
initially, does not fit in the claim of the victim that the
appellant had impregnated her and then refused to
marry her. There could be a possibility of the victim
and her mother, with the support of the villagers,
putting pressure on the appellant to marry her as she
had already became pregnant by that time.
21. While going through the evidence on record, we
have also found that no effort was made by the
prosecution to prove that the victim was less than 18
years of age. Though no objection has been raised
regarding the assessment of the age of the victim and
consequent assuming of jurisdiction of the Special
Court to try this case, but on an overall analysis, we
find that even the age of the victim has not been
proved. She, at the time of her medical examination
was already carrying a pregnancy of eight months and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
was found less than 18 years of age.
22. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that
perhaps, if the appellant was a complete stranger to
the victim and her mother, then there is a possibility of
the victim and appellant seeing each other, being
neighbours and co-villagers.
23. Was she minor at that time is the question which
ought to have been determined by the Trial Court
specially or else the case would fall in some other
category of offence, namely, reneging on the promise
of marriage.
24. The victim and her mother do not appear to be
the sterling witnesses sepcially in view of their turning
around and giving clean chit to the appellant, even
though the victim as at the time of Trial had already
delivered a child.
25. The accusation against the appellant, therefore,
has become very doubtful.
26. Giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, we set
aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.234 of 2019 dt.01-08-2024
and set the appellant at liberty.
27. The appeal stands allowed.
28. The appellant is directed to be released from jail
forthwith if not required or detained in connection with
any other case.
29. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed of.
30. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to
the Superintendent of concerned jail for record and
compliance.
31. Let the records of this appeal be also returned to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Jitendra Kumar, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.08.2024
Transmission Date 01.08.2024
