Patna High Court
Rangeela Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 9 September, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.306 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2022 Thana- SANHAULA District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rangeela Kumar S/o Awadhesh Mahto R/o Village- Lakshmipur, P.S-
Sanhoula, Distt.- Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. X W/o Pramod Mahto R/o Village- Lakshimpur, P.S-Sanhoula, Distt.-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Urmila Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Gunsagar Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 09-09-2025
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice upon respondent
no. 2, she has chosen not to enter her appearance in this appeal.
3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of
conviction dated 15.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated
17.02.2023
(in short referred to as the 'impugned order') passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, VII-cum-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
Spl. Court, POCSO Act, Bhagalpur (hereinafter called the
'learned trial court') in connection with POCSO Case No. 79 of
2022, arising out of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022.
4. By the impugned judgment the sole appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Sections 5 (¥)(ii)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short
'POCSO Act') and has been sentenced to undergo 20 years of
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5 (¥)(ii)/6
of the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo additional simple
imprisonment of six months. No additional punishment under
Section 376 of the IPC has been awarded and earlier custody
will be adjusted in total punishment.
Prosecution Case
5. The informant (P.W. 1) in her written application
has stated that on 28.01.2022, her daughter/ victim (PW-2) told
her that this appellant was regularly committing rape on her for
the last two years on the pretext of marriage. It is because of the
said sexual act, her daughter had become pregnant and she had a
pregnancy of five months. She further alleged that her daughter
asked the appellant to solemnize marriage with her because she
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
had become pregnant then the appellant did not agree on one
pretext or the other and continued to commit rape with her. She
alleged that now, he was denying to marry her daughter.
6. On the basis of this written application, Sanhaula
P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022 corresponding to POCSO Case No. 79
of 2022 dated 28.04.2022 was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of
the POCSO Act.
7. After completion of investigation of the case, the
S.I. Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) submitted charge sheet against the
sole named accused vide Chargesheet No. 91 of 2022 dated
25.05.2022 under Sections 376 of the IPC and 4/6 of the
POCSO Act upon which the learned Trial Court took
cognizance vide order dated 31.05.2022.
8. Charges were read over and explained to the
appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.08.2022, charges were
framed under Section 376 of the IPC and under Sections 5 (¥)
(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act.
9. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether five witnesses and exhibited some documentary
evidences. The description of prosecution witnesses as well as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
the exhibits are given hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
PW- 1 Mother of the Victim
PW- 2 Victim
PW- 3 Brother of the Victim
PW- 4 Vijay Kumar
PW- 5 Dr. Anushtha
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ext. P1 Signature of victim on written application
Ext. P2 Signature of victim on her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Ext. P3 Signature of victim on her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Ext. P4 Complete Formal FIR
Ext. P2/1 Statement of the victim
Ext. P5 Charge-sheet
Ext. P6 Medical report of the doctor and signature
10. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. He took a plea that he
had already solemnised marriage with her and she was major.
11. The defence has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court:
12. Learned trial court after examining all the
evidences available on the record found that the appellant has
established physical relationship with the victim when she was
below 18 years. The trial court has relied upon it because an
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
unmarried girl cannot falsely implicate anyone on this ground.
The victim has stated the same under Sections 161 as well as
164 of the Cr.P.C. about rape and carrying of pregnancy.
Learned trial court found that according to the medical report
(Ext. 6) prepared by Dr. Anushtha, P.W. 5, the victim was found
carrying pregnancy of 24 weeks which is also corroborating the
statement made by the victim.
13. Accordingly, learned trial court held appellant
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and
Sections 5 (¥)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in taking a
view that the victim (PW-2) was a minor at the time of
occurrence.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the victim (PW-2) has stated in her examination-in-chief that at
the time of occurrence, she was aged about 18 years. She has
admitted that she was in love with the appellant and had secretly
married with him about a year ago.
16. Learned counsel submits that in the statement
of the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC, he has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
that the victim (PW-2) was major and he had married her one
year ago from the date of occurrence. The appellant has also
stated that he is innocent and has falsely implicated even though
he had married the victim when she was major.
Submission of the State
17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has contested the appeal. It is submitted that in this case,
the evidences available on the record have been duly considered
by the learned trial court.
18. Learned Addl.PP for the State has submitted
that in the written application of the informant (PW-1), she has
stated that the appellant was committing rape on her minor
daughter (PW-2) on the pretext of marriage for the last two
years and when she got pregnant, he refused to marry her.
Consideration
19. This Court has perused the trial court records, it is
evident on perusal of the written information dated 28.04.2022
(Exhibit 'P1') that the mother of the victim has submitted the
written information with the Officer-in-Charge of Sanhaula
Police Station.
20. On the basis of the said written information,
Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022 was registered on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
28.04.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and Section 4/6 of the
POCSO Act. In her written information, the informant (P.W. 1)
alleged that this appellant was regularly committing rape on her
16 years old daughter namely 'X' for the last two years. It is
because of the said sexual act, her daughter had become
pregnant and she had a pregnancy of five months. She further
alleged that her daughter asked the appellant to solemnize
marriage with her because she had become pregnant then the
appellant did not agree on one pretext or the other and continued
to commit rape with her. She alleged that now he was denying
to marry her daughter.
21. In course of trial, however, the informant (P.W.-1)
has stated that her daughter was aged about 18 years at the time
of occurrence, she had been in love with the appellant and had a
pregnancy of five months from the appellant. She has stated in
Paragraph '3'of her deposition that now the accused says that
the child in the womb of the victim was not his child and he had
refused to marry her. In her cross examination, P.W.-1 has stated
that she has lodged this case only because the appellant did not
marry the victim as the family members of the appellant were
not ready for this marriage. In Paragraph-8 she has further stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
that if the appellant becomes ready to marry her daughter then
she would marry her daughter with the appellant. She has
admitted that her daughter had been in love with the appellant.
In Paragraph- 11 she has stated that she had not written the
application which was submitted in the police station. She has
also stated that the application was not read over to her and she
had only given a thumb impression on the written application.
From the deposition of P.W.-1, itself, it is clear that she had put
her thumb impression on the written application without being
aware of the contents of the same.
22. The victim has been examined as P.W. 2. She has
stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence,
she was aged about 18 years. She has admitted that she was in
love with the appellant and had secretly married with him about
a year ago but when this fact was brought to the notice of her
parents, then her parents refused to recognize the marriage and
they said that the marriage in the village would not be good, in
the meantime, she had become pregnant whereafter her mother
sent her to the house of the appellant to live with him but when
she reached the house of the appellant then the parents of the
appellant did not allow her to live. P.W. 2 claimed that she had
become pregnant about seven months ago thereafter she had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
lodged the case but she has stated in her examination-in-chief
that she had not gone to the police station, her mother had gone
to the police station to lodge the case. She has stated in
Paragraph- 2 that on the request of her mother, people in the
police station had written the application, she had identified her
signature thereon which has been marked as P-1/ P.W.2. In her
cross-examination P.W. 2 has stated in paragraph that it is true
that the appellant had not committed any forcible rape upon her
rather the relationship was made on sweet-will and volition with
consent of each other. In Paragraph-9 she has stated that she had
married the appellant on her own will and she wanted to live
with him for her whole life as his wife and she did not want to
file the case. (emphasis supplied)
23. Rohit Kumar (P.W.3) is the brother of the victim,
who has not supported the prosecution case and has been
declared hostile.
24. The I.O. Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) has deposed that in
course of investigation, he had recorded statement of Pramod
Mahto and Rohit Kumar and has inspected the place of
occurrence and he had also arrested the accused. He has stated
that the victim had herself reached the police station where her
statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Nita, who
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
was the S.H.O. of the police station. He has identified the
writing and signature of Nita (P-2/1, P.W.-4). P.W.4 has further
proved the charge-sheet bearing 91 of 2022 dated 25.05.2022
which has been marked as Exhibit P-5/P-4. In his cross-
examination, P.W.4 has stated that he was the investigating
officer of the case right from beginning. The informant is
illiterate and he cannot say in whose writing the information
was submitted in the police station. He has stated that the victim
had told him that she was pregnant for five months from the
appellant and she had stated in course of investigation that for
last two years she was establishing physical relationship with
him and was meeting him outside.
25. The doctor (P.W.5) who examined the victim on
29.04.2022 has proved the medical report (Exhibit P-6/ P.W.5).
The doctor had found in the U.S.G. report that there was a
single live foetus of 24 weeks period of gestation (pregnancy)
and the expected date of delivery was 20.08.2022. In cross-
examination she has stated that she had assessed the age of
victim as 17 years which may be more or less by one year. We
have also noticed that the victim (P.W. 2) had recorded her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which also she had stated
that the appellant had established physical relationship with her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
in the affair and during the period of about two years, but now
he was not willing to marry her.
26. This Court has gone through the statement of the
appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement
this appellant has stated that the victim (P.W. 2) was major and
he had married her one year ago from the date of occurrence.
The appellant has also stated responding to the circumstances
put to him that the victim (P.W. 2) was his wife. He denied the
prosecution evidences that he had said that the child in the
womb of P.W. 2 was not his child and he asked her to marry
someone else. The appellant lastly claimed that he was innocent
and was falsely implicated even though he had married when
the victim was major.
27. We have found that the learned trial court has
convicted the appellant by recording a finding that the appellant
had established physical relationship with the victim (P.W. 2),
when she was minor. The trial court has not taken into
consideration the judicial pronouncement on the subject which
say that while assessing the age of the victim under the POCSO
Act, if the age is being assessed on the basis of medical report,
an addition/subtraction of +/-2 years would be required to be
given and after that addition the upper extremity of the age is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
required to be considered.
28. In this regard, we would like to rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rajak
Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018)
9 SCC 248 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
Delhi High Court in the case of Court on its own Motion Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. Ref.2/2024 judgment dated
02.07.2024) reported in 2024 SC OnLine Delhi 4484, a margin
of plus/minus two years in the age is required to be considered.
In the case of Rajak Mohammad (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in paragraph '8', '9' and '10' as
under:-
"8. On the other hand, we have on record
the evidence of Dr Neelam Gupta (PW 8),
a Radiologist working in the Civil
Hospital, Nalagarh who had given an
opinion that the age of the prosecutrix
was between 17 to 18 years.
9. While it is correct that the age
determined on the basis of a radiological
examination may not be an accurate
determination and sufficient margin
either way has to be allowed, yet the
totality of the facts stated above read with
the report of the radiological examination
leaves room for ample doubt with regard
to the correct age of the prosecutrix. The
benefit of the aforesaid doubt, naturally,
must go in favour of the accused.
10. We will, therefore, have to hold that in
the present case the prosecution has not
succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix
was a minor on the date of the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
occurrence. If that is so, based on the
evidence on record, already referred to,
we will further have to hold that the
possibility of the prosecutrix being a
consenting party cannot be altogether
ruled out."
29. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajak Mohammad (supra), a
Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Court on its
own Motion (supra) while considering a reference held in
paragraph '46' of its judgment as under:-
"46. As an upshot of our foregoing discussion,
the Reference is answered as under:-
(i) Whether in POCSO cases, the
Court is required to consider the lower
side of the age estimation report, or
the upper side of the age estimation
report of a victim in cases where the
age of the victim is proved through
bone age ossification test?
Ans: In such cases of sexual assault,
wherever, the court is called upon to
determine the age of victim based on
'bone age ossification report', the
upper age given in 'reference range' be
considered as age of the victim.
(ii) Whether the principle of 'margin of
error' is to be applicable or not in
cases under the POCSO Act where the
age of a victim is to be proved through
bone age ossification test.
Ans: Yes. The margin of error of two
years is further required to be
applied."
30. We have noticed that the medical report (Ext. P6)
says that the victim was about 17 years of age. If +/- 2 is added
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
to the age assessed in the medical report, the upper extremity of
the age would come to 19 years at the time of occurrence. Even
the victim (P.W. 2) has stated that at the time of occurrence she
was aged about 18 years.
31. In such circumstance, when the victim is found to
be major on the date of occurrence, her categorical statement in
course of trial that the appellant had not committed any forcible
rape upon her and she had entered into physical relationship
with her own will and volition and that it was a consented
relationship, would leave no doubt in taking a view that it was
not a case of forcible rape. In fact, the basic fact for bringing the
prosecution case within the scope and ambit of the POCSO Act
would vanish and the presumptions as contained under Section
29 of the POCSO Act would also not be available to the
prosecution.
32. In result, we find that the learned trial court has
committed grave error in taking a view that the victim (P.W. 2)
was minor at the time of occurrence.
33. In view of the discussions made, hereinabove, we
set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence and
acquit the appellant giving benefit of doubt.
34. The appellant is in jail he shall be released
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.306 of 2023 dt.09-09-2025
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
35. The appeal stands allowed.
36. Let a copy of this judgment with the Trial Court
records be sent down to the learned Trial Court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.09.2025
Transmission Date 12.09.2025
