Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar @ Sunny And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.936 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2015 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Deepak Kumar @ Sunny
2. Rahul Kumar, Both are Son of Yogendra Singh, R/o Vill.- Balia, P.S.- Amba,
District- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 612 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2015 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Yogendra Singh and Anr S/o Late Sheonandan Singh,
2. Pradeep Singh S/o Late Sheopujan Singh, Both R/o Vill.- Balia, P.S.- Amba,
District- Aurangabad.
.. ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 936 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Sri. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocated
Sri. Prabhash Ranjan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 612 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Sri. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocated
Sri. Prabhash Ranjan Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date: 18-03-2026
Both the criminal appeals filed by the convicts
challenge the judgment of conviction dated 03rd May 2018 and
order of sentence dated 10th May 2018 passed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
2/23
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aurangabad in GR Case No. 864 of
2015/46 of 2015 arising out of Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015.
2. The appellants challenged their conviction under Section
366A of the IPC where they were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of
payment of fine further imprisonment for three months and under
Section 376D of the IPC sentencing the appellants to
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- as well as Section 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012
(hereinafter described as the 'POCSO Act") awarded thereunder.
The trial court directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall
run concurrently. The principle grounds urged assailing the
impugned judgment are misappreciation of evidence by the
learned trial court, undue reliance on interested family witnesses,
material contradictions between the victim's statement under
Section 164 of the CrPC and her deposition in Court, absence of
independent corroboration, lack of medical support for forcible
gang rape and the Investigating Officer's finding that the case was
unfounded against appellant Yogendra Singh.
Case of the Prosecution
3. Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 was registered on 16 th
May 2015 on the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the
victim, (hereinafter called as the 'informant'), alleging inter alia
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
3/23
that in the night of 15/16 May 2015 at about 12:00 at midnight her
minor girl (name of the victim girl is not disclosed and she is
described as victim), then aged about 15/16 years, was kidnapped
from her house situated at Village Balia within P.S. Amba in the
District of Aurangabad. It was alleged by the informant that the co-
villagers, namely, Yogendra Singh, Deepak Kumar Singh @
Sunny, Rahul Kumar, Pradeep Singh and Sonal Kumar kidnapped
her for the purpose of illicit intercourse or to marry her illegally.
The trial court's record shows that the victim was rescued on
18.05.2015
near the Haat (market) situated by the side of a Shiva
Temple in the same village in early morning. Her statement under
Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on 20.05.2015. The victim
was medically examined on 19.05.2015 by a Medical Board. The
accused persons were arrested. The I.O. examined available
witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the
CrPC and on conclusion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge
sheet against Deepak Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar Singh while
final report was submitted against the accused Yogendra Singh,
Pradeep Singh and Sonal Kumar. On the basis of the said charge
sheet, cognizance was taken against the charge-sheeted accused
persons on 5th January 2016.
4. Since the offence punishable under Section 366A/376D of
the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act are exclusively triable by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
4/23
the learned Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the
learned Special Court under the POCSO Act for trial and disposal.
Witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.
Sl. No. Prosecution Witness Role/Relation
1 Prosecution Witness no. 1 Victim
2 Prosecution Witness no. 2 Mother of the victim
3 Prosecution Witness no. 3 Grandmother of the victim
4 Prosecution Witness no. 4 Father of the victim/informant
5 Prosecution Witness no. 5 Uncle of the victim
6 Prosecution Witness no. 6 Investigating Officer
7 Prosecution Witness no. 7 Dr. Vikash Kumar Sinha – Member
of the Medical Board/Radiologist
8 Prosecution Witness no. 8 Dr. Bibhuti Prasana- Medical Board
Member/ Dentist
9 Prosecution Witness no. 9 Dr. Rina Kumari – Member of the
Medical Board/Gynecologist
5. After examination of the witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section
313 of the CrPC. Subsequently, in support of their defence, the
accused persons examined the following witnesses.
Sl. No. Defence Witness Remarks
1 Defence Witness no. 1 Ramashish Mahto
2 Defence Witness no. 2 Sanyog Kumar Singh
6. Consistent defence taken by the appellants is that they were
not involved in kidnapping the victim or to commit any act of
sexual atrocities upon her, they were falsely implicated in the
instant case.
Evidence in Trial Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
5/23
7. The victim girl was examined during trial as PW-1. She
deposed in her evidence that on 15.05.2015 at night she was
sleeping on the roof of their house with her mother and other
family members. She woke up hearing some sounds coming from
the ground floor. She thought that her grandfather was asking for
water. She came down and found that someone was knocking at
the entrance door of their house. She opened the door
immediately, appellant Deepak Kumar Singh, Rahul Kumar and
Sonal Kumar gagged and blind-folded her. She was forcibly
taken in a four-wheeler to some distance and confined her to a
dark room. PW-1 further deposed that the appellants repeatedly
raped her one by one for three days. On 17.05.2015, Yogendra
Singh and 2/4 other persons visited the said house where she was
confined and the appellants discussed about either releasing her
or committing her murder. The appellants also threatened her that
she and her family members would be killed if she discloses the
incident. One Pradeep Singh also threatened her. On the next day
in the early morning she was again blind-folded and dropped at a
place. The victim could understand that she was dropped in front
of a Haat situated by the side of a Shiva Temple of their village.
Then after 2/3 minutes of her release, police arrived at the spot
and rescued her and took her to the local police station.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
6/23
8. During investigation of the case, she made statement
under Section 164 of the CrPC. In her statement she identified all
the accused persons and narrated the incident which had alleged
been committed upon her by the appellants. In her cross-
examination she denied that she was having any romantic
relationship with any of the appellants or that she tried to
implicate the appellants falsely. It is important to note at this
stage that the deposition of PW-1 appears to be consistent with
the evidence of other witnesses in relation to the charge of
kidnapping, but lacks precision regarding the place where she
was allegedly confined. It is important to note that the deposition
of PW-1 is materially inconsistent with her previous statement
under Section 164 of the CrPC which described only a story of
kidnapping by three persons without any mention of rape by the
appellants or giving threats to her. This omission goes to the root
of the offence under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 4 of
the POCSO Act.
9. PW-2, is the mother of the victim. It is ascertained from
her deposition that on 15.05.2015, she woke up from her sleep at
about 02:00 am at night and found her daughter (victim herein)
who was sleeping by her side missing. She also discovered that
the main gate of the house was open. On her call, other family
members of the house woke up and they conducted search for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
7/23
victim in the village. It is also found from her deposition that she
was previously threatened by appellants, namely, Deepak Kumar
Singh, Rahul and Sonal not to make a fuss or the girl would be
killed. On the following morning also, the family members of the
victim vigorously searched to find out the girl. During such time,
Yogendra Singh and Pradeep Singh threatened the husband of
PW-2. thereafter, he lodged FIR in the local police station. The
victim was recovered on 18.05.2015 in the morning. She narrated
the entire incident to her parents and other family members. PW-
2 came to know from her that she was taken to a dark room by a
car and the appellants committed rape upon her. However, the
medical officer did not find any external or internal injury on the
person of the victim.
10. PW-3, Baban Singh is the grandfather of the victim. In
his deposition he stated on oath that he woke up from sleep at
about 2:30 am on 15.05.2015 to learn that the victim was missing
with the main gate of their house open. He also took part in
conducting search in their village for the victim girl and received
threats from Yogendra and Pradeep not to make a fuss or the
victim would be killed. The evidence of all the witnesses on the
prosecution is consistent about her recovery on 18.05.2015. The
witness also stated that the victim was sexually assaulted by the
appellants but the medical officer did not find any injury. PW-4 is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
8/23
the father of the victim on the basis of whose fard beyan, Amba
P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 was registered on 16.05.2015. It
appears from the statement made in the FIR that in the dead
hours of night of 15.05.2015, he woke up hearing the call of his
wife and came to know that the victim was missing and entrance
door of his house was open. He and other family members
conducted search of the victim in the village and heard a rumour
that the victim might be kidnapped by Rahul, Deepak @ Sunny
and Sonal. He further deposed that he asked about the matter to
Yogendra Singh, father of Depak but Yogendra Singh and one
Pradeep threatened him seeing that his daughter would be killed.
On the 18.05.2015 victim was recovered, then only he came to
know that the appellants confined her in a room and committed
rape on her for three days. It is pertinent to note that the
informant did not state anything about receiving threats from
Yogendra Singh and Pradeep in her FIR. No such statement was
also made by him before the police.
11. The evidence of PW-5, Amit Kumar is the same as that
of the evidence of other witnesses.
12. From the evidence of PW-6, S.I. Surrendra Prasad,
conducted investigation of the case. It appears that after
registration of Amba P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 on 16.05.2015, he
conducted raid to recover the victim girl and on 18.05.2015, she
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
9/23
was recovered from a place in her village near the Haat in front
of a Shiva Temple. The victim had no injury mark in person. Her
medical examination was conducted on 19th May 2015 and
statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC was
recorded on 20.05.2015.
13. It is already recorded that in her statement under
Section 164 of the CrPC the victim did not state anything about
the commission of rape by the appellants and that Yogendra
Singh and Pradeep Singh visited the room where she was
confined and talked to the appellants either about her release or
committing her murder. In her statement under Section 164 of the
CrPC, the victim stated her age as 17 years.
14. PW-7, Dr. Vikas Kumar Singh, PW-8, Dr. Bibhuti
Prasana and PW-9, Dr. Rina Kumari where posted at Sadar
Hospital Aurangabad. They constituted a Medical Board to
examine the victim medically. From the evidence of PW-9, Dr.
Rina Kumari, it appears that she examined the victim on
19.05.2015 at about 01:10 pm. She did not find any marks of
violence on the body, back, breast, thigh or in and around the
private part of the victim. She also found ruptured hymen and
vagina admitting one finger easily. There was no abnormal
discharge, bleeding, injury on her vulva, vagina, perineum, etc.
The patient did not make any complaint of tenderness or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
10/23
bruising. The Medical Board opined that she had undergone
sexual act. From the Radiological as well as Dental Report, PW-7
and PW-8 opined that the approximate age of the victim is
between 15 and 16 years.
15. The FIR and relevant medical records were duly
exhibited during trial. Defence case as disclosed from the cross-
examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and
examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the
CrPC appears to be complete denial of the allegation made out
against them. The defence also examined two witnesses, One
Ramashish Mahto was explained as DW-1. He is the resident of
the same village. He deposed that as per his knowledge goes, no
incident took place with the daughter of the informant on the
night of 15.05.2015 and the appellants were falsely implicated in
this case.
16. PW-2, Sanyog Kumar Singh is the son-in-law of
Pradeep Singh. It is ascertained from his evidence that he was
present in Balia from 07.05.2015 to 18.05.2015. He denied that
the victim was kidnapped by the appellants. According to him,
the victim remained at home throughout and the entire
prosecution’s case is false.
Decision by the Trial Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
11/23
17. This Court at the very beginning of the judgment has
recorded that the trial court on appreciation of the evidence on
record convicted the accused persons/appellants and sentenced
them of various descriptions for the offence punishable under
Section 366A of the IPC and Section 376 D of the IPC read with
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Our finding
18. It is found from the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 that their
evidence is absolutely hearsay in nature. Except the victim, none
of the above-mentioned witnesses are the eye-witness of the
occurrence. They did not see the appellants knocking at door of
the informant at dead hours of night on 15.05.2015. They did not
see the victim girl opening the door or that three miscreants,
namely, Rahul Kumar, Deepak Kumar Singh @ Sunny and Sonal
gagged and blind-folded her and forcibly took her by a car and
confined her in a dark room. They heard the incident from the
victim girl after she was recovered on 18.05.2015 by the police.
19. It is needless to say that in plethora of cases the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that in a case of sexual assault, the evidence
of the victim is of utmost importance. The victim’s evidence
cannot be equated with the evidence of accomplice. She is a
victim of crime. A victim does not generally make a false
statement regarding commission of an offence at the cost of her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
12/23
virginity and womanhood. In Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1990(1) SCC 550, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the position of law
regarding appreciation of evidence of a prosecutrix in the
following words:-
“16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be
put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim
of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her
evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars. She is
undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118
and her evidence must receive the same weight as is
attached to an injured in cases of physical violence.
The same degree of care and caution must attach in
the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an
injured complainant or witness and no more. What is
necessary is that the court must be alive to and
conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the
evidence of a person who is interested in the
outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court
keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act
on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of
law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act
similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which
requires it to look for corroboration. If for some
reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance
on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony
short of corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend
assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
13/23understanding the court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown
to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the case
disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong
motive to falsely involve the person charged, the
court should ordinarily have no hesitation in
accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt
in our minds that ordinarily the evidence of a
prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be
accepted. The degree of proof required must not be
higher than is expected of an injured witness. For the
above reasons we think that exception has rightly
been taken to the approach of the High Court as is
reflected in the following passage:
“It is only in the rarest of rare cases if the
court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so
trustworthy, truthful and reliable that other
corroboration may not be necessary.”
With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If
we may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily the
evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same weight
as is attached to an injured person who is a victim of
violence, unless there are special circumstances
which call for greater caution, in which case it
would be safe to act on her testimony if there is
independent evidence lending assurance to her
accusation.”
20. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by the father of
the victim when she was missing. Therefore, he did not know
whether the victim had been ravished or not. According to the
prosecution’s case and the statements of the witnesses, the family
members of the victim came to know about the commission of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
14/23
sexual assault by the appellants only after she was recovered. It is
already recorded that she was recovered on 18.05.2015. Her
medical examination was done on 19.05.2015 and the victim
made her first statement recorded judicially under Section 164 of
the CrPC on 20.05.2015. Surprisingly enough, she did not make
any allegation of the commission of rape by the appellants before
the learned Magistrate. Except for the allegation of kidnapping,
she did not utter a single word. This is where serious
abnormalities lie between the prosecution’s case, the initial
statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, and her
subsequent evidence on oath.
21. The victim herself stated that she was about 17 years
old at the relevant point of time. The Medical Board, by way of
an ossification test and dental examination, found her
approximate age to be between 15 and 16 years. From the report
of PW-9, Dr. Rina Kumari, we find that the victim was well-
oriented, therefore, when a girl aged about 15-17 years was
kidnapped and she was raped repeatedly by three appellants for
three days, it is natural and probable that she would at least resist
the perpetrators of offence from committing such heinous act. In
her evidence, she stated the appellants committed rape upon her
against her will forcibly, if there is a forcible physical
relationship upon a girl by three persons for three days, there
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
15/23
must be some injury marks on different parts of her body. But the
medical officer (PW-9) did not find any mark of violence on her
body. On the other hand, she found old rupture of hymen and the
vagina easily admitting one finger meaning thereby the victim
had previous experience of sexual intercourse.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State
of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, laid down “three
categories” for appreciating the testimony of a single witness.
When the evidence of witness in Court is inconsistent with her
earlier statement under Section 164, witness false into the third
category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such
cases, the Court must exercise caution and cannot convict an
accused on that testimony alone. It must look for corroboration in
material particulars from independent sources. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision categorized the
witnesses into three categories. They are as (i) wholly reliable
witness, (ii) wholly unreliable witness and, (iii) neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable. The Court can base its conviction
on the basis of evidence of a single wholly reliable witness. No
conviction is based on wholly unreliable witness. In case of
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness, Court must
exercise caution and cannot convict on that testimony alone.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
16/23
23. The law on the point of appreciation of evidence of a
particular witness has developed in course of time. In Rai
Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the term “sterling witness”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further describes the nature and quality
of sterling witness in the case of Rai Sandeep (supra) in
paragraph no. 22 and held as under:-
“22. In our considered opinion, the
“sterling witness” should be of a very high
quality and calibre whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court
considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face
value without any hesitation. To test the
quality of such a witness, the status of the
witness would be immaterial and what would
be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the
consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time
when the witness makes the initial statement
and ultimately before the court. It should be
natural and consistent with the case of the
prosecution qua the accused. There should
not be any prevarication in the version of
such a witness. The witness should be in a
position to withstand the cross-examination
of any length and howsoever strenuous it may
be and under no circumstance should give
room for any doubt as to the factum of the
occurrence, the persons involved, as well as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
17/23the sequence of it. Such a version should
have co-relation with each and every one of
other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific
evidence and the expert opinion. The said
version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. It can even be
stated that it should be akin to the test
applied in the case of circumstantial evidence
where there should not be any missing link in
the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged against
him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other
such similar tests to be applied, can it be held
that such a witness can be called as a
“sterling witness” whose version can be
accepted by the court without any
corroboration and based on which the guilty
can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying
the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding
the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
24. In Ganesan v. State reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the
issue which came up for consideration before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is as to whether in the case involving sexual
harassment, molestation, etc., can there be conviction on sole
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
18/23
evidence of the prosecutrix. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred
to the following paragraphs of Vijay v. State of M.P., reported in
(2010) 8 SCC 191 :-
“5. Shri Anip Sachthey, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the prosecutrix was a major
and it was a case of consent. He has further
submitted that conviction cannot be based on
the sole deposition of the prosecutrix. There
is no other evidence to corroborate her
version. The prosecutrix’s statement suffers
from material discrepancies. On the date of
examination of the prosecutrix no physical
injury was found on her person or on her
private parts. The prosecutrix had given the
most improbable and unacceptable version of
events that the appellant continued to rape
her for about two hours. Then one another
accused raped her for about an hour. Also, in
spite of the fact that the appellant and others
had been arrested on the next date of the
incident, the investigating officer did not
conduct the test identification parade. The
prosecutrix was examined on the next day i.e.
on 7-12-1988 by Dr. Rupa Lalwani, Medical
Officer (PW 3), and the said medical officer
referred her for a radiological test to
determine her age, but the report of the said
test has never been brought on record. Thus,
an adverse inference is to be drawn against
the prosecution. The appeal deserves to be
allowed. The appellant had falsely been
enroped in the crime.
6. On the other hand, Shri Siddhartha
Dave along with Ms Vibha Datta Makhija,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
19/23learned counsel appearing for the State of
M.P., vehemently opposed the appeal
contending that the prosecutrix was a minor
on the date of the incident. The non-
production of the report of the radiological
test and not holding the test identification
parade would not discredit the investigation
or the prosecution case. The non-existence of
any injury on the person of the prosecutrix
cannot be a ground to disbelieve her version.
The prosecutrix had such a social
background that she did not have any sense
of time, duration, etc. and, thus, she was not
able to give a precise account of each activity
of the incident. She had lost her father; and
was an uneducated, rustic villager, who came
from a very poor family. The discrepancies in
the statements of the witnesses or the
prosecutrix are such that the same are not
sufficient to demolish the prosecution’s case.
In a rape case, an accused can be convicted
on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. The
appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
8. Before we proceed to examine the
impugned judgments of the courts below and
the facts of the case, it may be desirable to
refer to the settled legal principles which
have to be applied in the instant case.
9. In State of
Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990
SCC (Cri) 210 : AIR 1990 SC 658] this Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
20/23held that a woman, who is the victim of
sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the
crime but is a victim of another person’s lust
and, therefore, her evidence need not be
tested with the same amount of suspicion as
that of an accomplice. The Court observed as
under : (SCC p. 559, para 16)“16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence
cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She
is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence
Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be
accepted unless it is corroborated in material
particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent
witness under Section 118 and her evidence
must receive the same weight as is attached
to an injured in cases of physical violence.
The same degree of care and caution must
attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in
the case of an injured complainant or witness
and no more. What is necessary is that the
court must be alive to and conscious of the
fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a
person who is interested in the outcome of the
charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this
in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on
the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no
rule of law or practice incorporated in the
Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to
Section 114 which requires it to look for
corroboration. If for some reason the court is
hesitant to place implicit reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony short of corroboration required in
the case of an accomplice. The nature of
evidence required to lend assurance to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
21/23testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily
depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and
of full understanding the court is entitled to
base a conviction on her evidence unless the
same is shown to be infirm and not
trustworthy. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the
case disclose that the prosecutrix does not
have a strong motive to falsely involve the
person charged, the court should ordinarily
have no hesitation in accepting her
evidence.”
25. Thus, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court not only in
Ganeshan (supra) but also in Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 that to hold an accused
guilty for commission of offence of rape, the solitary evidence of
the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires
confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and of sterling quality. The said principle has
subsequently being followed in Santosh Prasad vs State of
Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, Naresh Kumar v. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 and Nirmal
Premkumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police reported in
2024 INSC 193.
Conclusion
26. On careful appreciation of evidence, we can categorize
the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution into three categories:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
22/23
(i) victim being the eye-witness of the incident,
(ii) PW-2 to PW-5 as family members of the victim hearsay
witnesses and,
(iii) PW-7 to PW-9 expert witnesses.
27. Evidence of the hearsay witnesses is of little or no
significance, as they did not even see the appellants forcibly
taking away the victim on the night of 15.05.2015. The victim’s
evidence is not wholly reliable; rather, it is mostly unreliable,
because there is no explanation as to why the victim remained
silent regarding the alleged commission of rape by the appellants
in the course of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the
CrPC. Thus, the Court is at liberty to hold that the story of rape
was subsequently manufactured by the victim. It is needles to say
that when there are two views which the Court can arrive at upon
assessment of evidence, the view that supports the innocence of
the accused shall be accepted.
28. Thirdly, the expert opinion does not suggest any recent
commission of rape within three days prior to the medical
examination of the victim. On the contrary, the medical report
indicates that the victim had prior sexual experience.
29. In view of above finding, we are of the firm opinion
that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the order of
conviction and sentence of the appellants. Accordingly, the instant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.936 of 2018 dt.18-03-2026
23/23
appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them and are set at liberty. They are
discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. If they are in
custody, they shall be released forthwith, unless required to be
detained in connection with any other case.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
I agree.
Dr. Anshuman, J:
Suraj Dubey/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 25.02.2026 Uploading Date 18.03.2026 Transmission Date 18.03.2026