Supreme Court restores conviction of 2 men in Bihar POCSO case, calling the system a failure if rapists walk free. Upholds life sentence for raping a 12-year-old girl.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on September 1, 2025, delivered a landmark judgment, restoring the conviction of two men for repeatedly raping a 12-year-old girl in Bihar’s Bhojpur district.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma overturned the Patna High Court’s acquittal, holding that minor procedural defects cannot override consistent victim testimony and corroborative medical evidence.
Background of the Case
A 12-year-old girl from Bhojpur, Bihar, was found three months pregnant. She disclosed that she had been raped multiple times by Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, who threatened her with death if she spoke out.
The Trial Court convicted both men under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment.
Patna High Court acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies in age proof, errors in charge framing, and illegal joint trial under Section 223 CrPC.
The victim’s father appealed the acquittal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Arguments by the Appellant (Victim’s Father):
The appellant argued that the Patna High Court erred in acquitting the accused on technical grounds. It was stressed that the alleged prejudice from a joint trial under Section 223 CrPC was never raised by the defence and did not actually deny them a fair opportunity. The appellant maintained that the victim’s age was clearly proved to be between 12 and 15 years through her school transfer certificate, medical reports, and testimony—none of which were disputed in cross-examination.
Further, the appellant emphasised that the victim’s testimony remained consistent across all stages of the case and was fully supported by medical and abortion records. Since there was no motive for false implication, the conviction was justified. Even if procedural lapses existed, the High Court ought to have ordered a retrial rather than granting an acquittal, which ignored the rights of the child victim.
Arguments by the Respondents (Accused):
The respondents defended the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the investigation was casual and defective, with no proper determination of the victim’s age, pregnancy, or timing of the offences. They contended that the charges were framed incorrectly and that the joint trial violated Section 223 CrPC, causing grave prejudice.
It was also submitted that during their Section 313 CrPC examination, incriminating evidence was not properly put to them. The respondents claimed that the victim’s testimony contained contradictions, making it unreliable, and that their own defence witnesses were wrongly ignored. On this basis, they argued the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
ALSO READ: Vijay’s TVK moves Supreme Court, demands special law to stop caste-based honour killings
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court began its ruling by condemning the practice of acquitting offenders of heinous sexual crimes merely on technical grounds. The Bench observed that
“it is always a matter of utter failure for the system when a culprit of heinous sexual offence walks free by misapplication of procedural rules.”
Such acquittals, it stressed, undermine both justice and the protective intent of laws designed to safeguard children.
Turning to the evidence, the Court found that the victim’s statements before the police, the magistrate, and the trial court were consistent and credible. Minor variations, the judges noted, were natural and could not be exaggerated into reasonable doubt.
On the question of age, the Court recognised that records placed her between 12 and 15 years, but emphasised that such discrepancies were not unusual in rural areas where official documentation is often inconsistent. Since the girl’s minority was never disputed during cross-examination, the Court held that the protections of the POCSO Act squarely applied.
The Court also placed reliance on the medical evidence and abortion records, which corroborated the victim’s disclosure of repeated assaults. The Patna High Court’s dismissal of this evidence was termed a serious error. While acknowledging that the trial court had mistakenly recorded the offence date as July 2, 2016, the day the FIR was lodged, the Bench clarified that under Section 464 CrPC, such defects do not vitiate a trial unless actual prejudice is shown.
Likewise, although the joint trial of the two accused under Section 223 CrPC was technically irregular, the Court found that it had not resulted in any injustice, especially since separate trials would only have forced the young victim to relive her trauma twice.
The judgment also carried a strong warning against the expectation of flawless testimony in cases of sexual offences.
“There is nothing like perfect evidence in Court,”
the Bench remarked, cautioning that perfection often indicates tutoring or fabrication.
ALSO READ: Trouble for BJP in Chhattisgarh: High Court to Decide on Vishnu Deo Sai Cabinet Expansion
Instead, courts must appreciate evidence in light of the ground realities faced by victims, particularly those from rural and marginalised backgrounds.
Finally, the Court stressed that women and child victims of sexual crimes are doubly victimised, first by the offence itself and then by the insensitivity of legal procedures. Judges, therefore, must approach such cases with both sensitivity and an understanding of the broader social context.
The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction and life sentences of both accused. Directed the men to surrender within two weeks, failing which the trial court must take them into custody.
Appearance:
The appellant: Advocates Daksha Kumar, Tanishq Mehta, Deepak Kumar, Ankita Baluni, Sonakshi Monga and Aftab Ali Khan.
The respondents: Advocates Talib Mustafa, Raksha Agrawal, Divyansh Mishra, Kumar Saurav, Lzafeer Ahmad BF, and Manish Kumar.
Case Title:
X vs Y
SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on POCSO Case
