Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 3573, 3597 and 3667 of 2023 (common judgment, Patna High Court, Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., dated 18-07-2024): three convicts — Vivek Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Sumit Kumar — appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2023 by the Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in POCSO Case No.96 of 2018 (Matihani P.S. Case No.176 of 2018), whereby they were convicted under Sections 366-A, 354-B and 342 read with 34 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act on the sole testimony of the victim (PW-1, girl aged about 10 years). Holding: (i) the Section 366-A conviction fails because PW-1's deposition nowhere indicates she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person — the Court followed Sat Prakash, (2015) 16 SCC 475, whose paras 5-6 it reproduced; (ii) the victim did not qualify as a sterling witness — PW-5 (Jyoti Kumari), present at the kidnapping, named no assailant and failed dock identification, and PW-3's assertion of the victim's prior acquaintance with Santosh Kumar contradicted PW-1 — so conviction on her sole testimony is unacceptable; (iii) no 'sexual intent' emerges (no alarm, resistance or threat perception), making the Section 8 POCSO and Section 354-B IPC convictions unconvincing, especially since the trial court had disbelieved penetrative assault; (iv) the Section 342 wrongful-confinement conviction collapses on the victim's contradictory accounts of the place of occurrence and absence of corroborating witnesses. Prosecution thus failed beyond reasonable doubt; appeals allowed, conviction judgment and sentence quashed and set aside, appellants acquitted, bail bonds discharged (Vivek Kumar), custodial appellants ordered released, deposited fines to be returned. Jarnail Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 263 (age determination via Section 94 JJ Act) was merely referred, the point not being pursued by this Court.
