[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Vishal Kumar @ Raja vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3490 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2021 Thana- CHAORI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Vishal Kumar @ Raja S/O Satyendra Rai @ Satyendra Kumar Rai R/O
Village- Purhara, P.S.- Chouri, District- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Patna
2. MS. X D/O Y R/O Vill.- Purhara, P.S.- Chouri, Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 20 -01.2026
The present appeal has been directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2025
passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive POCSO Court-cum-
ADJ-VI, Bhojpur at Ara in POCSO Case No. 50 of 2021, arising
out of Chouri P.S. Case No. Case No. 63 of 2023, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections- 354-A and 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section-354-A of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine,
to undergo R.I. for further one month and fine of Rs. 500/- for
the offence punishable under Section-341 of I.P.C. and, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for further fifteen
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
2/16
days. However, the appellant has been acquitted of the charges
under Sections- 354-B and 504 of I.P.C. and 08 and 12 of
POCSO Act.
2. The name of victim has not been disclosed in the
present judgment to protect her prestige and dignity.
3. As per the prosecution case, informant victim,
narrated the story of prosecution that on 08.06.2021, at about
11:30 p.m., the victim informant, aged about 15 years proceeded
to watch the dance programme at the house of villager Udhi Rai.
On the way, near the house of Sanjay Master, appellant caught
hold of the informant/victim at the time of loneliness prevailing
at said place and started talking in indecent manner and
informant/victim has stated that at the same time and place she
released her hand and started making hue and cry. Lastly, she
was left and she began to abuse in rage and victim has stated
that she told the appellant that she would inform the guardian
and the villagers regarding the said occurrence, then the
appellant slapped her and she has told all the occurrence to her
parents so that legal proceeding will take its own course against
appellant.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written application of
informant/victim, Chouri P.S. Case No. 63 of 2021 was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
3/16
registered for the offences punishable under Sections- 341, 323,
354-B, 504 of I.P.C. Routine investigation followed. Statement
of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant
under the aforesaid Sections and cognizance was taken under
Sections- 323, 341, 354-A, 354-B, 504 of I.P.C. and Sections-
08 and 12 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions after following due procedure. The
learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under
Sections- 354-A, 354-B, 341, 504 of I.P.C. and Sections- 08 and
12 of POCSO Act. Charges were read over and explained to the
appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home guilt of the accused
person, prosecution has examined all together five witnesses.
P.W. 1/Father of victim, P.W.2/The victim, P.W. 3/Brother of
victim, P.W. 4/Uncle of victim and P.W. 5/Pradip Kumar Pandey
(Investigating Officer).
6. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext-P-1/PW 2, Written report by
victim-cum-informant, for identification-
Admit Card of victim (xerox);
Ext-P-2/PW 5, Endorsement and
signature on written application;
Ext-P-3/W 5, Writing and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
4/16
signature of SHO on charge-sheet;
7. Defence has not produced any oral or
documentary evidence. However, defence of appellant as
gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution
witnesses as well as from the statement under Section-313
Cr.P.C. is that of total denial of the charges.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the
opening paragraph of the judgment.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant at sufficient length of time. Following submissions
have been made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
is fit to be set aside on the ground that the concerned Court has
not appreciated and evaluated the material available on record
and reached to the wrong conclusion. On the same set of facts,
the concerned Court has given the finding that the prosecution
has failed to prove the charges under Sections- 354B and 504 of
I.P.C. and Sections-8 and 12 of POCSO Act against the
appellant and the appellant stands acquitted from the charges
under Sections-354B and 504 of I.P.C. and Sections-8 and 12 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
5/16
POCSO Act and while acquitting the appellant under the
aforesaid Sections, the trial court has recorded that allegation
under Section-354B of I.P.C. is not supported by any cogent
evidence and, hence, the appellant stands acquitted under said
Section and while acquitting the appellant from the charge under
Section- 504 of I.P.C., the concerned Court has recorded the
reasoning that there is no whisper in the evidence of victim
about the appellant using abusive language. So, he stands
acquitted under Section- 504 of I.P.C. Similarly, accused also
stands acquitted under Sections- 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. The
question arises then how the appellant will be held guilty under
Sections- 354A and 341 of I.P.C. and there is no specific
allegation against appellant of restraining the victim to proceed
rather allegation was that he caught hold and started making
indecent behaviour. Even the statement of victim suffers from
infirmities. There is no description of tearing of clothe,
thrashing on the ground and availability of torch in the initial
version of prosecution-story, but at the time of adducing
evidence before Court, P.W. 2/informant, who sets the
prosecution story into motion, has improved her statement and
stated regarding tearing of clothe, thrashing on the ground and
availability of torch. When it is compared to initial version of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
6/16
prosecution-story, it can easily be asserted that certain
statements were first time adduced while adducing evidence
before Court and P.W. 2, who is the victim-cum-informant and
sole eye-witness of the occurrence improved the earlier
statement as stated in initial version of prosecution-story, which
completely reflects that how informant/victim has twisted the
story of prosecution to make the offence graver. In para-8, she
has stated that she proceeded to see the venue of dance after
getting permission from her mother, but at the same time, she
stated that no permission was given by her mother and she went
away silently. In the same way, she has stated that she went to
the venue of dance after refusal of permission by her mother. In
this way, her statement is quite contradictory. Her two versions
for proceeding towards the venue of dance is quite
contradictory. At one occasion, she seeks permission and she
proceeds with the permission of her mother and at other time
she stated that she proceeded without taking permission. The
very act of rushing towards the venue of dance is questionable.
In a village, there is hardly any probability of a minor girl
leaving the house alone in night, in normal course, without
urgency. Normally, people go to watch dance programme in
groups. As such, it is beyond imagination that a minor girl is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
7/16
allowed to go to watch a dance programme alone and in the
present case grant of permission is also in question. Her
statement regarding grant of permission from her mother is far
from truthfulness. Likewise, on the point of showing torch to the
police, sometimes she has stated that she showed the torch to the
police and another time she has stated in same para-13 that she
did not show the torch to the police. On the said point of
showing the torch to police, her statement is totally
contradictory and in para-21, though the suggestion that no such
incident, as stated by her, had taken place was denied by the
victim, but it denotes that the cow, buffalo of informant side
proceeded to the land of appellant for grazing and on the said
reason dispute arose and the present case has been falsely filed
against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the reason behind false implication of appellant
has already been suggested, though suggestion has been denied
and statement of P.W. 2 is full of contradictions, infirmities and
no reliance can be placed in light of evaluation of the
contradictory statements given by informant/victim.
11. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that
victim is the eye-witness of the occurrence and she has
supported and corroborated the allegation made in the F.I.R. and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
8/16
other witnesses have also supported and corroborated the story
of prosecution and there is no reason to differ with the finding
of the concerned Court and the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the concerned Court is justified and
legal and no interference is needed.
12. The question which arises for consideration is:
"Whether offence under Sections-354-A and
341 of I.P.C. is made out in the light of given facts
and circumstances of the case or not?"
13. I have perused the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court and the trial court record and I have
given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties as noted above.
14. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and screen
out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial court.
15. P.W. 1 is the father of victim. He was not
present at the place of occurrence. When P.W. 1 came to house,
the occurrence was narrated by the victim to him and he has also
improved his statement which has not mentioned in the F.I.R.
that appellant's father came and he also abused and in para-22
he says that he knew regarding the occurrence from Nand
Kumar Singh. In this way, the statement of P.W. 1 is also
contradictory on the point that at one point of time he stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
9/16
the knowledge regarding occurrence was given by his daughter,
P.W. 2, and in para-22 he has stated that he got the knowledge
about the said occurrence from his wife. He has stated that when
he came to know about the occurrence, Kundan Kumar, Nand
Kumar Singh and his wife were all at the same place at the same
time. The suggestion was also given to P.W. 1 that his buffalo
went to graze the field of appellant, as a result of which the land
was grazed. The said suggestion was denied. In this way, his
statement is also full of infirmities and discrepancies.
16. P.W. 2 is the victim herself. She has stated in
her examination-in-chief that the incident took place on
18.06.2021
at about 11:30 p.m. She was going to watch the
dance programme at the house of Uddhav Rai. She was having a
torch in her hand. In the meantime, Vishal Kumar @ Raja came
from behind and tied her mouth. She identified the accused in
the light of the torch. Vishal Kumar thrashed her on the ground,
tore her clothe and also assaulted her. The place of occurrence
was a lonely place. Though she was crying, but no one came to
her rescue. Somehow, she managed to flee away and when she
reached her home, she narrated the incident to her parents.
Thereafter, she went to the police station with her parents and
submitted an application in her pen and signature. She has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
identified the application which was marked as Ext.-P/1. In her
cross-examination, at para-8, she has stated that she had gone to
watch the dance programme after intimating her mother. She
further states that though her mother had denied to grant
permission, but she proceeded stealthily. She has further stated
that it was dark at the place of occurrence and she had not
showed to the police. She further states that the torch had got
broken and she had not showed even the broken torch to the
police. In para-15 she has stated that the accused had kept her
mouth closed for two minutes and when she was thrashed on the
ground, her mouth got opened. She had received injury only in
her right leg and she had not received injury on any other part of
her body. She further states that she had not showed her injury
to the police. In para-16 she has stated that on her raising alarm,
no one had come to the place of occurrence and she had first of
all, informed her mother about the incident as her father was not
present in the house and had gone to see the marriage ceremony.
Her father came after half an hour after getting the information
regarding the occurrence. In para-18 she has stated that she, her
father, her father's elder brother and her younger brother had
gone to the police station. She has also stated that on account of
her falling, the torch had broken, and it slipped from her hand
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
and she left it at the place of occurrence and fled away from the
place of occurrence. In para-19 she has stated that she had
showed the place of occurrence to the police, but torch or glass
was not there nor she had told the police about the torch. She
has stated that she had written the application which was given
to the police. In the said application she had not written about
the torch. She had not even written that she identified Vishal
Kumar in the light of the torch. She had written in the
application that Vishal Kumar thrashed her and tore her clothe.
She has also written in the application that it was a lonely place
and on her raising alarm no one came. She has further stated
that after submitting the application, police had not made any
query from her nor the police had recorded her statement. She
has denied the suggestion that no such incident, as stated by her,
had taken place. She further denied that grazing of field of the
accused by the cow and buffalo of the prosecution side is the
bone of contention due to which she has lodged this false case.
17. P.W. 3, who is the brother of victim, has stated
that his sister was returning from the venue of dance then
appellant began to make indecent behaviour which finds no
place in the F.I.R. As per the very initial version of prosecution-
story, she proceeded towards the venue of dance and in the way
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
she was caught and she suffered indecent behaviour. In this way,
he has stated that the story of prosecution in his own way and he
has stated in para-19 that he has three buffaloes and he was not
present at the place of occurrence. He has stated that occurrence
was not informed to Mukhiya, Sarpanch.
18. P.W. 4 has stated that he is the uncle of victim
and he has stated in para-9 that his niece (victim) went to see the
venue of dance alone and she reached to the venue after getting
permission from the guardian and in para-18 he has stated that
he gave statement before police that when she was returning
after watching the dance, appellant made scuffle and she began
to cry. His statement is also inconsistent with the initial version
of prosecution.
19. P.W. 5 is the I.O. He has stated that on
18.06.2021, he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Chauri
Police Station and he was entrusted with the investigation of the
present case. In his cross-examination at para-13 he has stated
that he had not recorded the statement of the witnesses of
boundary and in para-14 he has stated that he had also not
recorded the statement of Sanjay Master or any of his family
members. In para-15 he has stated that he had recorded the
statement of Bhagwan and Bhikhari Singh and they had stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
that the mental condition of appellant was not good and his
treatment was going on in Piro. In para-16 he has stated that he
had not got the victim medically examined. In para-17 he has
stated that though he had conducted investigation regarding the
age of the victim, but it is not mentioned in the case diary. In
para-18 he has further stated that he had also not got Vishal
Kumar medically examined. From the perusal of evidence of
I.O., it is evident that the investigation is full of infirmities as
the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the
witnesses of boundary of P.O. and despite the fact that the
appellant was not found medically fit, no medical examination
was conducted by the I.O. regarding the health of appellant and
he has also admitted that no torn clothe was given to him. Thus,
his statements are full of infirmities, discrepancies.
20. From the perusal of evidence adduced on behalf
of prosecution, it is crystal clear that the evidence of all the
prosecution-witnesses suffers from infirmities, discrepancies
and inconsistencies and the very conduct of I.O. is not fair as
despite the fact that appellant's condition was not medically fit,
no medical examination of the appellant was conducted and the
truth of the case is not revealed and the very purpose of
investigation is to know the truth of the act regarding the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
The statement of victim is very contradictory regarding the
permission of her mother before act of rushing to see the dance
and the spot on which occurrence had taken place was alleged to
be shown as a lonely place and the owner of the house situated
near the place where occurrence took place, was not examined.
I.O. has not given any reason as to why the said person has not
been examined and the very version of victim is that at the time
when she was caught hold, she was being abused and harassed
and despite raising alarm, no one reached there. The manner in
which the occurrence has taken place, it is shown that no one is
eye-witness of occurrence, but victim herself is the eye-witness,
but her statement on the point of going out of the house is
contradictory and her statement is questionable. At one place
she has stated that she proceeded after getting permission from
her mother, but again she said that though permission was not
given, but she proceeded. Likewise, there is no description of
tearing of clothe, thrashing on the ground and availability of
torch in the initial version of prosecution-story, but at the time
of adducing evidence before Court, P.W. 2/informant, who sets
the prosecution story into motion, has improved her statement
and stated regarding tearing of clothe, thrashing on the ground
and availability of torch. When it is compared to initial version
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
of prosecution-story, it can easily be asserted that certain
statements were first time adduced while adducing evidence
before Court and P.W. 2, who is the victim-cum-informant and
sole eye-witness of the occurrence, improved her version at the
time of adducing evidence which finds no place in the earlier
version of prosecution-story, which completely reflects that how
informant/victim has twisted the story of prosecution to make
the offence graver. In this way, her statement does not inspire
confidence.
21. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant is quite convincing, tenable and sustainable that when,
on the same set of facts, the appellant stands acquitted under
Sections- 354-B and 504 of I.P.C. and 08 and 12 of POCSO Act,
there is no reason to convict the appellant under Sections- 354-A
and 341 of I.P.C. where the credibility of victim is questionable
and does not carry authenticity.
22. In the result, in my view, prosecution-case
suffers from several infirmities, as noted above, and it was not a
fit case where conviction could have been recorded. The learned
trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of facts of
the case in view of the settled criminal jurisprudence. Hence,
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3490 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed. The appellant is
on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail-bonds.
23. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to
the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and for
record.
25. The records of this case be also returned to the
concerned trial court forthwith.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 11.12.2025
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date 20.01.2026
