Supreme Court | “Every Acquittal of Actual Culprit a Blot on System” | Restores Conviction in POCSO Rape Case, Says Misapplication of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ Cannot Defeat Justice
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a Patna High Court acquittal and restored the conviction and sentences originally imposed by the Trial Court. The Court directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks, holding that procedural defects alleged in the conduct of the trial did not occasion a failure of justice. The Bench ordered that if surrender did not occur voluntarily, the Trial Court was empowered to secure custody to ensure service of the sentence.
The matter arose from incidents reported in the year 2016 in Piro, District Bhojpur, Bihar. The appellant’s daughter, a minor, fell unwell a few months after the festival of Holi. Her mother took her to Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. On 1 July 2016, at Zila Mahila Chikitsalaya, the victim was found to be three months pregnant. On inquiry, she disclosed that she had been subjected to repeated sexual assault by the respondents. On this disclosure, a complaint was lodged at Police Station Piro, District Bhojpur, on 2 July 2016, which culminated in FIR/Criminal Case No. 209/2016.
The investigation proceeded, and a chargesheet was filed before the competent court. The case was tried by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Bhojpur at Ara. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found the respondents guilty of offences under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
For the offence under Section 376 IPC, each respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and fined ₹50,000, with an additional one year of imprisonment in default of payment. Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, they were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹25,000 each, with an additional year of imprisonment for default. For the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, they were sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, carrying a default sentence of three months. The Trial Court ordered that all sentences were to run concurrently.
The respondents appealed before the Patna High Court, which examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court identified several infirmities: absence of proof regarding the exact date and time of incident, lack of determination of the victim’s precise age, non-production of abortion records, defective framing of charges, and illegality in conducting a joint trial of both respondents under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On this basis, the High Court acquitted the respondents, holding that they had suffered prejudice due to these infirmities.
The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the findings were erroneous. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had raised Section 223 Cr.P.C. issues suo motu, although such objections were not taken by the accused during trial. It was also submitted that the victim’s minority was proved by the school transfer certificate, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and medical reports. Further, the victim’s consistent testimony, coupled with medical documents regarding pregnancy and abortion, demonstrated the guilt of the accused. The appellant argued that if the High Court found procedural defects, it ought to have remanded the matter for retrial rather than acquit.
The respondents, however, contended that the investigation was casual and negligent, pointing to inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and medical evidence. They argued that the joint trial violated Section 223 Cr.P.C. and that charges were defective, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity to defend themselves. They also submitted that incriminating evidence was not properly put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and hence the High Court had rightly acquitted.
The Supreme Court framed two issues: (i) whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents on grounds of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case, and (ii) whether the High Court was correct in holding that the joint trial violated Section 223 Cr.P.C. and prejudiced the defence.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivering the judgment, examined the testimony of the victim (PW-2). The Court recorded: “She deposed that one afternoon, her mother and father were not at home and she was sleeping alone in the house. Respondent No. 2 entered the house and raped her, and before leaving, he threatened her saying that should she tell anyone about it, she would be killed. Two or three days after this incident … Respondent No. 1 came from behind and grabbed her. She deposed that he took her inside and raped her. He also threatened her … The story does not end here. She further deposed that after this incident, for two-three successive months, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 took turns and raped her multiple times.”
On the victim’s age, the Court noted oral testimonies of her parents and school records. It stated: “The Transfer Certificate issued by the government school attended by the victim records her date of birth as 03.10.2004, thereby meaning that during the concerned time-frame of the year 2016, the victim was around 12 years old. The medical report dated 01.07.2016 … records her age as 15 years.” The Court concluded: “The age of the victim appears to be within the range of 12-13 years at the relevant point of time.”
Regarding date and time of the incidents, the Court recorded: “The victim has deposed that the offence took place in the days following the festival of Holi and the same is corroborated by the medical report dated 01.07.2016, which indicates that she was 3-4 months pregnant as on 01.07.2016.”
On pregnancy and abortion, the Court observed: “The medical report dated 01.07.2016 categorically indicates that at the time of ultrasound, the victim was 15 weeks pregnant. … The factum of abortion has been proved on the basis of the medical documents/Discharge Ticket dated 30.07.2016 issued by Sadar Hospital, Ara. … Thus, it appears preposterous to hold that the prosecution could not prove the elements of pregnancy and abortion.”
Addressing delay in lodging FIR, the Court recorded: “The incident came to light only after the ultrasound conducted on 01.07.2016 and the FIR was lodged on the very next day. … The delay of 3-4 months was a consequence of the intimidation made by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.”
On framing of charges, the Court noted defects but held: “Mere discovery of an error, irregularity or omission in the framing of charge does not ipso facto render the decision of the Court as invalid … unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.”
On the joint trial objection under Section 223 Cr.P.C., the Court observed: “Mere non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 223 does not ipso facto render the trial as invalid, and the same cannot form the basis of returning a finding of prejudice and failure of justice.”
Summing up, the Court stated: “Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolt against the sense of security of the society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system. … In the present case, a fairly consistent and creditworthy case of the prosecution has been discarded on what could only be termed as misapplication of procedure. It takes us back to the first principle that procedure is not supposed to control justice.”
The Supreme Court concluded by unequivocally restoring the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court. The judgment recorded: “In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside being unsustainable. The view taken by the Trial Court was correct and we find no infirmity in the same. The judgment of the Trial Court stands restored, both on conviction and sentence.”
It further directed: “The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today. In case the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 do not surrender within the stipulated time, the trial court shall take appropriate recourse to take them into custody for serving the remaining part of sentence. Registry is directed to suitably communicate this judgment to ensure due compliance.”
The Court accordingly disposed of the appeal and all interim applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Daksha Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Tanishq Mehta, Adv.; Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR; Ms. Ankita Baluni, Adv.; Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Sonakshi Monga, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Talib Mustafa, Adv.; Ms. Raksha Agrawal, Adv.; Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR; Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR; Mr. Shashwat Pratyush, Adv.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1061
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024 (arising out of Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
