The Patna High Court acquitted in a high-profile POCSO and rape case, citing serious doubts in the victim’s testimony and unreliable evidence. The verdict highlights flaws in witness accounts, age determination, and investigative procedures.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court recently acquitted Ranjeet Sah, who had been convicted of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision highlights how crucial proper evidence evaluation, witness credibility, and procedural adherence are in criminal trials.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to September 8, 2018, when the mother of the alleged victim reported that Ranjeet Sah had lured her minor daughter to his house under the pretext of boiling milk. She claimed that Sah allegedly threatened her daughter with a sword and committed sexual assault. According to the FIR, a local boy named Raju heard the victim’s cries and intervened, allowing her to escape.
Based on this complaint, Barauli P.S. Case No. 204 of 2018 was registered. Sah was charged under Section 376(2) IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under IPC 376(3) and five years under the POCSO Act, relying on the victim’s testimony, which it described as “sterling,” and corroborative evidence.
Grounds of Appeal
Challenging the conviction, Sah’s defense raised several critical points before the High Court:
- Delay in Filing FIR – The FIR was filed over 24 hours after the alleged incident.
- Non-Examination of Key Witnesses – A friend named ‘Isha’, allegedly present during the incident, was never examined in court.
- Procedural Errors – The trial court had altered the charge from Section 376(2) IPC to 376(3) IPC late in the trial without allowing Sah to defend against the more severe charge.
- Discrepancies in Victim’s Testimony – The victim’s statements improved over time, raising doubts about their authenticity.
- Improper Assessment of Age – The defense challenged the school register used to prove the victim’s age, calling it forged, and pointed to medical evidence suggesting the victim was between 15–16 years old, potentially making her legally an adult.
The State, however, argued that the victim’s testimony was credible, corroborated by statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that the POCSO Act’s presumption of guilt applied.
High Court’s Analysis
Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court highlighted multiple flaws in the prosecution’s case:
- Age of the Victim – The court rejected the school admission register as unreliable and noted that medical evidence suggested the victim could be 18 years old, removing her from certain POCSO provisions.
- Witness Credibility – The testimonies of both the victim and the eyewitness, Raju, were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. Raju’s delayed reporting and sudden claim of witnessing the act were described as “highly unnatural.”
- Investigation Deficiencies – The investigating officer failed to follow standard procedures, including recording the victim’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspecting the crime scene, and examining independent witnesses.
- Medical Evidence – The doctor’s report indicated no signs of sexual violence, which contradicted the prosecution’s claims.
The Court emphasized that neither the victim’s age nor the ocular and documentary evidence was properly assessed by the trial court.
Verdict:
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, concluded:
“On overall analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that it is unsafe to sustain the conviction. We set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the appellant of the charges, giving him the benefit of doubt.”
Ranjeet Sah was ordered to be released immediately from custody.
Appearance :
For the Appellant: Amicus Curiae Amish Kumar, Advocate Prabhakar Kumar Thakur, Advocate Satish Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Raghav Prasad
For the State: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
Case Title:
Ranjeet Sah Versus The State of Bihar
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.233 of 2023
Read Judgment:
