The Patna High Court has acquitted an accused in a rape case, finding the victim’s testimony unreliable. The court held that the victim’s statement in court differed significantly from her original written statement to the police and there were serious inconsistencies in both her statement and her conduct, making her untrustworthy.

When examining the material evidence on file, including the bank Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar noticed, “We are aware of the law that on the sole testimony of the prosecutor, the accused can be convicted without corroborating his testimony because he is not an accomplice and stands on the feet of an injured witness. But for such a conviction, the prosecutor must be reliable, inspiring confidence in the court. He must be an excellent witness.”

“But in the case at hand, it is found that the prosecutor does not seem to be truthful and trustworthy. Not only has she drastically improved her statement before the Court, it differs from the written statement given to the police, there are serious inherent contradictions in her statement and demeanor which make her unreliable and untrustworthy. added the division bench.

The judgment came in an appeal challenging the decision of the sessions court, in which the sole appellant was convicted for the offenses punishable under sections 376, 342 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The Court first addressed the question of whether the victim was a child at the time of the alleged incident. The court clarified that the age of the victim should be determined primarily from the school birth certificate or matriculation certificate, if available. And in their absence, birth certificate issued by Municipal authorities or Panchayats should be considered.

“In the absence of the aforementioned certificates, the age of the victim is required to be determined by ossification test or any other last-minute medical test. Any other evidence, such as oral evidence, is implicitly excluded from consideration in determining the victim’s age.” the Court pointed out.

The court noted that while the victim was a student, neither a school certificate nor a birth certificate from the Panchayat or municipal authorities was produced by the prosecution despite the legal requirement. Furthermore, no ossification tests or medical examination were performed on her to determine her age.

Accordingly, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim as per the procedure set out in section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court concluded that the victim was not a child at the time of the incident and therefore the provisions of the POCSO Act did not apply applied and thus acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court next examined whether the prosecution had proved the charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court pointed out that the victim was the only eyewitness to the alleged event, while other witnesses only provided evidence regarding the pre- and post-incident circumstances.

The Court found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether force or coercion had been applied to the victim. Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case.

Thus, the Court held that “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges framed under the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is very unsafe to uphold the judgment of conviction against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted with benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the impugned order of conviction against the appellant are not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of the charges brought against him.

Case Title: Mannu Vs. State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 109

Click here to read the order