Mahtab Ali vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 547 Patna

Patna High Court

Mahtab Ali vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026

Author: Shailendra Singh

Bench: Shailendra Singh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.175 of 2014
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2008 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Mahtab Ali Son of Md. Akbal, Resident of Village- Soharadangi, Police
Station- Manjhari, District- Katihar
                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                     Versus
The State of Bihar
                                                   ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :        Ms. Nazia Shabah, Amicus Curiae
For the State           :        Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                  ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 19-02-2026


            No one appears on behalf of the appellant.

            2. On the last occasion, i.e., 18.02.2026, when this

appeal was taken up for final hearing, no one appeared on behalf

of the appellant.

            3. Considering this aspect, Ms. Nazia Shabah (AUIN

No. 103824), learned Advocate present in the courtroom, is

appointed to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae in this appeal.

            4. After some time, the matter is taken up again. Ms.

Nazia Shabah, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. Anita Kumari

Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, are

heard at length.

             5. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the

appellant, Mahtab Ali, against the judgment of conviction dated
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
                                            2/15




       22.02.2014

and the order of sentence dated 26.02.2014 passed in

Sessions Trial (S.T.) No. 470 of 2010 by the Court of the learned

Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge- 1st, Katihar, whereby and

whereunder the appellant has been convicted of the offence under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along

with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has

been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for an additional

period of two months.

Prosecution Story:-

6. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix was a minor girl

aged about 16-17 years at the time of occurrence. The house of the

prosecutrix and the house of the accused are adjacent to each other,

separated only by a small boundary(tati). About six and half

months prior to the filing of the case, when the prosecutrix had

gone to the bamboo grove (Bansbari) of accused persons situated

behind her house to attend the call of nature, the accused No. 1

(the appellant) forcibly committed rape with her without her

consent. When she attempted to raise her alarm, the accused

no.1(appellant) threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the incident.

Despite her resistance and attempt to save her modesty, she could

not prevent that act of the appellant. After the occurrence, the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

prosecutrix wept and expressed her concern that she was an

unmarried girl and questioned the appellant who would marry her

then the accused no.1 (appellant) assured her that he would marry

her and asked her not to worry. On the assurance of marriage, the

accused no. 1 (appellant) continued to establish sexual relations

with her on several occasions. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix,

being a minor and believing the promise of marriage to be true,

submitted herself to such intercourse under that belief. As a result

of the repeated sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix became

pregnant and at present (at the time of filing of complaint) her

pregnancy was about six months. Upon knowing about her

pregnancy, she informed the accused no. 1 (appellant), who again

assured her that he would marry her soon. However, when the

pregnancy reached about three months, the accused persons started

pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy, promising that marriage

would be solemnized after the abortion. The prosecutrix and her

guardians refused to terminate the pregnancy, whereupon the

accused persons declined to perform the marriage. Subsequently,

the father of the prosecutrix convened a village Panchayati

wherein several villagers were present. In the said Panchayati, the

accused no. 1 (appellant) admitted his guilt and agreed to marry

the prosecutrix. A date for marriage was fixed on 2-06- 2008. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

However, on the said date, the marriage was not solemnized.

When the father of the prosecutrix and others approached the

accused persons regarding the same, the accused persons flatly

refused to solemnize the marriage, stating that their earlier

assurance was merely a tactic to gain time. Thereafter, the

prosecutrix along with her father approached the police station to

lodge an FIR, but as the Officer-in-Charge was absent and they

were advised to file a complaint before the court. Hence, this

complaint case was filed.

7. On the basis of the complaint petition filed by the

victim herself, Complaint Case No. 1924/2008 came to be

registered. Subsequently, the said complaint was forwarded for

institution of a formal FIR, pursuant whereto Manihari P.S. Case

No. 152 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 493, 420 and 120(B) of IPC. Consequently, the

criminal law was set in motion and investigation was taken up in

accordance with law.

8. After completion of the investigation, the police

submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence

under Section 376 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judicial

Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 of

IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

9. The appellant stood charged for the offence under

Section 376 of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to

him in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

10. During the trial in ocular evidence the prosecution

examined altogether ten witnesses who are as under:-

        Sl. No.      Name                                Relevancy
        PW-1         Md. Saidur Rahman                   Villager
        PW-2         xxxxx                               The father of the victim
        PW-3         Sajjad Ali                          Villager
        PW-4         Mubarak Hussain                     Neighbour of the victim
        PW-5         Xxxxx                               The victim
        PW-6         Pawan Kumar Singh                   I.O.
        PW-7         Dr. Ram Rekha Suman                 Doctor who examined the
                                                         dead child of the victim
        PW-8         Irfan Ali                           Villager
        PW-9         Inamul Haque                        Villager
        PW-10        Junab Ali                           Villager

11. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved

and exhibited the following documents:-

        Sl. No.                     Relevancy
        Ext.-1, 1/1, 1/2            Report of taking blood samples
        Ext.-2                      Chargesheet
        Ext.-3                      Formal FIR
        Ext.-4                      Postmortem report of victm's child
        Ext.-5 and 5/1              List of exhibits sent for examination of
                                   blood samples

12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellant was recorded by the trial court under Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence

and claimed himself to be innocent. However, the defence of the

accused was that the prosecutrix falsely implicated him in the

present case and he produced the defence evidence that he had

solemnized marriage with prosecutrix on 25.07.2008.

13. In support of his defence the appellant adduced

evidence comprising one oral witness namely, D.W.-1 Jay Prakash

Pandey. He also produced documentary evidence which was

marked as Exhibit-A (certified copy of charge-sheet in Manihari

Case No. 83/2008 and Exhibit-B (marriage affidavit).

14. While convicting the appellant, the trial court

observed that the prosecutrix (PW-5) fully supported the

prosecution case and her testimony remained unshaken in cross-

examination. Nothing substantial was brought on record to

discredit her version regarding the commission of rape, the

convening of Panchayati, and the admission made by the accused

therein and further the accused (appellant) himself admitted

matrimonial relationship with the victim as having commenced on

25-07-2008. The trial court also placed reliance on the testimonies

of PWs- 1, 2 3, 4, 9, and 10, who affirmed that a Panchayati

meeting was held and the Investigating Officer (PW-6) also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

supported the prosecution case and confirmed that during

investigation it was found that a Panchayati had been held. The

defence plea of false implication and pregnancy by some other

person was found to be untenable, particularly in view of the

subsequent marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix and

absence of any cogent evidence supporting the defence version.

On an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned trial court held that the prosecution

had proved the charge under Section 376 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted the accused.

Submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae:-

15. Ms. Nazia Shabah, learned Amicus Curiae, submits

that there was an inordinate delay of several months in taking legal

action by the victim or her family members with regard to the

alleged offence of rape, which was committed by the appellant

with the victim, six and a half months prior to the filing of the

complaint. Though in the complaint, written and typed in English,

some events that happened subsequent to the commission of the

alleged rape are mentioned, the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, particularly that of the victim and her father, is not fully

corroborative of those subsequent events. For determination of the

paternity of informant's child, who died just some days after birth, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

blood and bone marrow samples were taken from the body of the

deceased child and the blood samples of the appellant, and the

informant, were also taken and sent for DNA examination;

however, before the trial court, the prosecution failed to produce

the conclusion of the DNA examination with regard to those

samples. Hence, scientifically, the paternity of the complainant's

child, who was alleged to be the result of the alleged sexual

relationship, could not be established. Learned Amicus Curiae

further submits that regarding the Panchayat meeting between the

informant's family and the appellant's family, there are some

serious contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses; however, one thing is quite clear from the defence

evidence (Exhibit-B), that the appellant accepted his matrimonial

relationship with the informant as having commenced on

25.07.2008 or before that. On the other hand, it is also an admitted

position that there was a criminal case bearing Manihari P.S. Case

No. 83 of 2008 lodged against one Aftab Ali by Sahana Khatoon,

and the appellant took the defence that, due to that case, a false

story was fabricated by the prosecution party to create pressure for

withdrawal of that case.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

Submissions made by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State:-

16. On the other hand, Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned

APP appearing for the State, submits that though the prosecution

failed to produce the DNA test report of the informant's child, but

from the defence evidence, Exhibit-B, the appellant himself

accepted his matrimonial relationship with the informant, which

can be deemed to be supportive material to the victim's allegation

as to a physical relationship having been established by the

appellant with her, as otherwise there was no need for the

appellant to enter into a matrimonial relationship with the

informant. Learned APP further submits that all the prosecution

witnesses remained consistent in proving the factum of holding a

Panchayat meeting between the appellant's family and the

informant's family and also remained consistent in proving that, in

that meeting, the appellant accepted his wrongdoing committed by

him with the informant and also accepted the informant's son as

his own son, and these materials are sufficient to bring home the

charge under Section 376 of the IPC, for which the appellant has

been convicted.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

Consideration and Analysis:-

17. I have heard both sides, perused the evidence

adduced by both sides available on the record of the trial court,

and taken into consideration the appellant's statement recorded

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the findings recorded

by the trial court in the impugned judgment.

17.1. The complaint petition filed by the victim herself

is in English and typed, and the same bears no date and simply

contains the signature of the complainant and the narration of the

incident alleging commission of the offence of rape, indicating that

a legal mind was applied in typing the said complaint, which was

sent to the police by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The informant,

examined as PW-5, admitted in cross-examination that she studied

up to the 7th standard and did not know English, and in her

examination-in-chief she stated that the advocate wrote the

application, read the same before her, and then she made her

signature on every page of the said application. However, the

informant's application is in typed form and, further, she did not

state in her examination-in-chief that she had understood the

contents of the FIR before signing it. This aspect of the FIR raises

a question regarding its credibility.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

17.2. Now, I come to the allegations levelled by the

victim as well as other relevant facts emerging from her

complaint/FIR. The informant revealed her age as 16-17 years in

the complaint, which was filed in the month of July, 2008;

however, before the trial court, the complainant/informant revealed

her age as 25 years while recording her evidence on 13.02.2013. If

this declared age is taken into consideration, then the victim's age

must have been about 20 years at the time of commission of the

alleged occurrence. Hence, a wrong statement with regard to the

age of the informant was given in the complaint. As far as the

commission of the first occurrence of establishing a sexual

relationship with the victim by the appellant is concerned, the

same is stated to have taken place six and a half months prior to

the filing of the complaint; however, paragraph no. 3 of the

complaint, in which that incident was described, does not contain

the time of that incident. In this regard, the allegation as to

committing rape upon the complainant by the appellant appears to

be vague to some extent. In view of the facts stated in the

complaint and in the light of the evidence of the victim's relatives,

it is evident that the alleged occurrence of rape had come to the

knowledge of the victim's family members immediately after its

happening, but legal action for lodging the FIR was taken several Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

months thereafter. Though, in the complaint, the victim tried to

explain the said long delay, she revealed that the appellant assured

her that he would marry her and, on that assurance, he established

a sexual relationship with her several times. When she became

pregnant, she asked the appellant to marry her immediately, but he

did not pay any heed and again assured her that he would marry

her soon, using delaying tactics. Thereafter, he and his family

members started pressurizing her to abort her unborn child, and

when she refused to do so, the accused flatly denied marrying her.

In respect of these events, some panchayat meetings were also

held between the appellant's family and the victim's family, as per

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, in this regard,

some material prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, stated

contradictory facts. Among them, PW-2 is very important, as he is

the father of the victim. PW-1 stated in his examination-in-chief

that Makbool, the father of the victim, called the panchayat

meeting, in which he and others went to Sohradangi village, and

that the meeting was held on account of the birth of a male child to

the victim. In that meeting, the appellant allegedly accepted his

wrongdoing and admitted that the child was his. In this way,

according to this witness, the said panchayat meeting was called

by the victim's father. However, PW-2, the father of the victim, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

deposed in cross-examination that he was not present at the

panchayat meeting and had only heard about it. He further deposed

in cross-examination that at the time of holding the panchayat

meeting, his daughter was carrying a ten-month-old pregnancy,

whereas, as per the evidence of the victim, she was carrying a

seven-month-old pregnancy at that time. In view of these

contradictions, the factum of holding the panchayat meeting and

the alleged acceptance by the appellant regarding the victim's

child being his, as well as his acceptance of the alleged

wrongdoing, do not appear to be believable. Though samples of

blood and bone marrow, etc., were taken from the body of the

deceased child and blood samples were taken from the victim and

the appellant for DNA examination to ascertain the paternity of the

child, who died just a few days after his birth but very surprisingly,

the prosecution remained careless in bringing the conclusion of the

DNA examination before the trial court. The trial court itself also

remained careless in not calling for the said report from the

concerned Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the conclusion

of DNA examination was very important to substantiate the

victim's allegation. Though the appellant, by adducing his own

defence evidence (Exhibit-B), accepted that he and the

informant/complainant entered into a matrimonial relationship on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

25.07.2008 or before that but merely by this fact the allegations

levelled by the informant in her complaint/FIR cannot be deemed to

have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:-

18. In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from

the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, as discussed

above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution

did not remain able to prove the charged offence punishable under

Section 376 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt, as there are

certain circumstances creating serious doubt in the credibility of

victim's allegations such as the long delay in taking legal action by

the victim and her family members with regard to the commission

of the alleged rape, despite the same having come to their

knowledge after its happening; serious contradictions appearing

in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses mainly with regard to

the prosecution's plea as to holding the panchayat meeting and the

appellant's admission his wrongdoing in the said panchayat

meeting; and the prosecution's failure to establish the paternity of

the victim's child as that of the appellant. Accordingly, this Court is

not persuaded to affirm the conviction of the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC; hence, the

judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2014 and the order of sentence

dated 26.02.2014, passed by the Court of the learned Adhoc Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.175 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026

Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Katihar, in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No.

470 of 2010 arising out of Manihari P.S. Case No. 152 of 2008,

convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of the IPC, are hereby set aside.

19. The appeal is allowed.

20. The appellant is on bail. Accordingly, his bail bonds

stand cancelled forthwith, and he, along with his sureties, is hereby

discharged from their respective liabilities.

21. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy of

this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the concerned court for

compliance and for taking necessary action.

22. Ms. Nazia Shabah, learned Amicus Curiae, shall be

entitled to remuneration in terms of the Notification dated

18.05.2017 issued by the State Government. The said remuneration

shall be paid by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee

for the assistance rendered by her to this Court as Amicus Curiae.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/Rajiv-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.02.2026
Transmission Date       24.02.2026