In an appeal by the State against the acquittal of a respondent charged with sexual offences under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Upholding the trial court's view that evidentiary inconsistencies and lack of medical report supported the acquittal.
The appeal against the acquittal of the respondent was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Govt. Appeal (DB) No.15 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -64 Year- 2014 Thana – SC/ST Sadar District- BEGUSARAI =========================================================== The State of Bihar.
.... .... Appellant Versus Ranjeet Jha, Son of Babu Saheb Jha, resident of Mohalla - Chandni Chowk, Bishnupur, District - Begusarai. .... .... Respondent
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) Date: 24-06-2016
This appeal under Section 378 (1) read with Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar assailing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cumSpecial Judge, Begusarai in POSCO Case No. 01 of 2015, arising out of SC/ST Sadar, Begusarai P.S. Case No. 64 of 2014, whereby learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the sole respondent, who stood charged for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
2/8
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
3/8
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2015 and Section 3(2)(v) of and Section 3 (1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
4/8
witness, inter alia, deposed that according to her report, there was no evidence of any sexual assault.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
5/8
her deposition that the victim was sleeping with her and had narrated the story of rape, as alleged in the First Information Report. On the contrary, she said in her evidence that she and the victim had slept in separate rooms, in the night. P.W.5, the step-father of the victim said that the house of the mother of the victim had asbestos roof and is fitted with electricity. According to him, there is lavatory, bathroom and hand-pump in the house. He appears to have deposed that victim did not have any occasion to go to the cattle-shed of the respondent, at any point of time.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
6/8
material on record. It is not the case of the State of Bihar that the depositions of witnesses have been wrongly described in the judgment under appeal.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
7/8
occurrence, who had taken the victim from the place of occurrence to her home. We have further noticed that the victim in her deposition said that a Police Officer had taken thumb impression on two papers and thereafter, he had told the victim to go back home and that he would be preparing the case. She also deposed that she did not know about anything written on those papers. In such circumstance, if the trial Court has doubted the correctness of the fardbeyan itself, the same cannot be said to be unjustified.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.15 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016
8/8
on record, this Court in appellate jurisdiction would refrain from interfering with such judgment/order of acquittal. We do not find it to be a fit case requiring our interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 (1) read with Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The view taken by learned trial Court cannot be said to be not a reasonably possible view.
(I. A. Ansari, ACJ)
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Vats/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquittal by the trial court should be set aside despite inconsistent depositions by the complainant.
Whether inconsistencies in the First Information Report, Section 164 statement, and trial deposition go to the root of the case.
Whether the view of the trial court regarding insufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt was reasonably possible.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
State of Bihar
Ranjeet Jha
I. A. Ansari
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
