Patna High Court (Division Bench) — Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1096 of 2024, decided 08-01-2025 (Ashutosh Kumar and Nawneet Kumar Pandey JJ.; oral judgment per Ashutosh Kumar, J.). The sole appellant, convicted by the ADJ-7-cum-Special Judge, POCSO(II), Muzaffarpur (judgment dated 27.06.2024; sentence by order dated 02.07.2024: RI 20 years, fine Rs. 10,000/-, default SI two months) under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code for the rape of a 16-year-old girl (Kudhani P.S. Case No. 306 of 2022, GR No. 80 of 2022), had his conviction set aside on appeal with the benefit of doubt, and the appeal was allowed. Grounds: (i) the 26-day delay in lodging the written report (occurrence 09.06.2022, report 28.06.2022, lodged only after the alleged video was made viral) was held fatal; (ii) the pen-drive of the video, produced by the victim's father about five months later without Section 65B Evidence Act certification, was rightly excluded; (iii) total non-compliance of Section 53A Cr.P.C. — the arrested appellant was never medically examined; (iv) medical/forensic findings 26 days after the event were of no avail (old hymenal rupture; no semen or blood stains on clothes); (v) the victim's sole testimony lacked the requisite sterling quality, there being no continuing threat and no evidence of proximity or enmity; and (vi) without concrete evidence and proof beyond all reasonable doubts, the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 would not get triggered. Reiterating (relying on C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567; Krishnegowda and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2017)13 SCC 98; Indra Mani Thapliyal v. State of Uttarakhand 2013 Criminal Law Journal 3027) that defective investigation by itself is no ground for acquittal, the Court examined the evidence de hors the Investigator's lapses — whom it castigated as the real culprit — and still found the prosecution version unbelievable. The question of the victim's minority/Special Court jurisdiction was not gone into for want of any specific objection to the age-evidence. The appellant in jail was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.