Patna High Court
Pappu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 June, 2026
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2433 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2018 Thana- SANHAULA District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Pappu Singh, S/O Late Anker Singh, R/O Village- Dogachhi, P.S- Sanhoula,
Distt.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX, S/O AAA, R/O Village + P.S- Sarsi, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for
the appellant and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2024 and the consequent
order of sentence dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned
Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-7th Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in POCSO Case No. 1720
of 2018 arising out of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 71 of 2018,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and section 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
2/17
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (in short,
'POCSO Act'). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) under section 363 of the IPC
and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further, he has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
under section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of
fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year. Considering the provision under section 42 of the
POCSO Act, no separate sentence was awarded upon the
appellant under section 376 of the IPC. All the sentences have
been directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution story :-
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant (P.W. 2) submitted a written application before the
S.H.O., Sanhaula Police Station, on 18.04.2018 alleging, inter
alia, that after the death of his wife, his minor daughter, aged
about 13 years, was residing along with her minor brother and a
minor sister at Dogachhi, her maternal home. He further alleged
that on 17.04.2018, while he was at his native village, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
3/17
received the information that accused Pappu Singh (the sole
appellant), aged about 45 years, a resident of Village Dogachhi,
had enticed away and kidnapped his minor daughter with an
intention of marrying her with the assistance of one
Purushottam Singh. As per informant, upon receiving the said
information, he came to his in-laws' house at Dogachhi and
made enquiries from his brothers-in-law, Nirdosh Kumar and
Ashutosh Kumar, who informed him that their co-villager,
Pappu Singh (appellant) had kidnapped his daughter (the victim)
with the intention of marrying her with the assistance of
Purushottam Singh. On the basis of the said written application,
the F.I.R. was instituted.
4. The informant filed his written application on
18.04.2018
at about 09:00 P.M. at Sanhaula Police Station and
detailed the above-mentioned incident. Upon that basis, a formal
FIR bearing Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 71 of 2018 was registered
for the offences punishable under section 366A read with
section 34 of the IPC, thereby setting the criminal law in
motion. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.08.2018, sections
363, 376 and 327 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act
were added to the FIR.
5. During the course of investigation, the victim
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
4/17
was recovered and her statement was recorded under sections
161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation,
the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
under sections 363, 366A, 376 and 327 read with section 34 of
the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act.
6. After cognizance of the alleged offences, the
learned CJM, Bhagalpur, committed the case of the appellant to
the court of Special Court (POCSO)-cum-Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, for trial. The appellant stood
charged for the offences under Sections 366A, 363/34, 376 &
327 of the IPC and sections 4 & 18 of the POCSO Act. The said
charges were read over and explained in Hindi to the appellant
by the trial court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether eight witnesses who are as under :-
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
PW-1 Swayama Prabha Police officer who recorded victim's
statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
PW-2 YYY Father of the victim
PW-3 XXX Victim
PW-4 ZZZ Maternal uncle of the victim
PW-5 Dr. Priyanka Kumari Medical officer who examined the victim
PW-6 Anil Kumar Jha 3rd Investigating Officer since 10.01.2019
PW-7 Brajesh Kumar 4th Investigating Officer since 23.04.2019
PW-8 Jay Hind Kumar Incharge Principal & School teacher at the
time of victim’s admission
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
5/17
8. In addition to the above mentioned ocular
evidence, the prosecution proved and exhibited the following
documents in documentary evidence :-
Sr. Exhibit No. Description Proved
No by/Attested
by
1. Ext.-P1/PW1 Writing and signature of SHO of Mahila P.S. PW-1
on the statement recorded under section 161
of the Cr.P.C.
2. Ext.-P2/PW1 Signature upon the written application PW-2
3. Ext.-P1/1/PW3 Signature of the victim upon the statement PW-3
recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Ext.- P3/PW3 Signature of the victim upon the statement PW-3
recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Ext.-P4/PW5 The report of the Doctor PW-5
6. Ext.- P5/PW7 The chargesheet PW-7
7. Ext.-P6/PW7 The formal FIR PW-7
8. Ext.-P7/PW8 The transfer certificate of the victim PW-8
9. After the completion of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,
‘Cr.P.C.’) by the trial court. The appellant denied the material
circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution
evidences and pleaded innocence.
10. The appellant did not give any oral or
documentary evidence in his defence.
11. While convicting the appellant for the charged
offences under section 363 of the IPC and section 4 of the
POCSO Act, the learned trial court mainly placed reliance upon
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
6/17
the testimony of the victim (PW-3).
Submissions on behalf of the appellant :-
12. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has mainly argued that the daughter
of the informant (the victim), who was examined as PW-3, is
not a sterling witness for proving the charged offences under
sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO
Act, for which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced.
In support of this submission, learned counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to the deposition of the victim.
12.1. Further argument is that, in view of the
evidence of the informant, who was examined as PW-2, the
statements made by him in the FIR do not appear to be his own.
In support of this submission, learned counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to the informant’s deposition.
12.2. The third contention raised by learned counsel
for the appellant is that PW-4 was wrongly shown as an
eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. In support of this
contention, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
to the evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW-3.
12.3. Lastly, it is contended that the neighbours of
the informant, who were the best persons to speak about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
7/17
truth of alleged occurrence, were not produced and examined
and withheld by prosecution without any reason.
Submissions on behalf of the State :-
13. In rebuttal of above arguments, learned APP has
submitted that the victim’s own evidence is sufficient to prove
the charged offences and she has fully supported the prosecution
case in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
as well as in her deposition before the trial court. Further, her
allegations find corroboration from her injury report.
Consideration and analysis :-
14. I have heard both the sides, perused the
judgment impugned, the evidences adduced by both the sides,
including the statement of the appellant recorded by him under
section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
15. In the light of the above submissions and
contentions, I have gone through the evidence of the material
witnesses of the prosecution. At the outset, I would like to
discuss the evidence of PW-2, who is the informant. As per the
FIR, he received information regarding the alleged occurrence
from his brothers-in-law, namely NNN and ZZZ (PW-4), and
the alleged occurrence took place at the village of the
informant’s in-laws. Admittedly, he was not present at the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
8/17
of occurrence at the relevant time, therefore, in relation to the
commission of the alleged offence, he appears to be a hearsay
witness.
15.1. In the cross-examination, the PW-2 deposed
that he was not able to read or write and only knew how to sign,
and that the written report was scribed by Bada Babu (police
official). He further stated that he did not know the person who
wrote the report and at the direction of the said Bada Babu, he
merely affixed his signature on the written report. This
statement indicates that the informant was not fully aware of the
contents of the written report and had simply signed it at the
direction of a police official. This creates a doubt regarding the
reliability of the written report/fardbeyan (Exhibit P-2/PW1).
15.2. Further, the witness (PW-2) stated in his
examination-in-chief that he received information about the
alleged rape of his daughter (the victim) from his own daughter
(PW-3) whereas in the FIR he stated that he received such
information from his two brothers-in-law. It is relevant to
mention here that out of the said two brothers-in-law, only one
was examined as PW-4, and the other was not examined.
Surprisingly, in his cross-examination, he stated that he received
all the information regarding the occurrence from his brother-in-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
9/17
law (PW-4). This statement is contradictory to the version given
in the FIR. He further stated in the paragraph 11 of his cross-
examination that he lodged the FIR on the basis of the
information received from PW-4. In this way, as per the
evidence of this witness, the informant’s brothers-in-laws were
important persons for substantiating the allegations made in the
FIR, as the informant claimed to have received information of
the occurrence from them. The evidence of PW-4, who happens
to be one of the brothers-in-law of the informant, will be
appreciated later in the light of the evidence given by the victim
herself.
16. Now, I come to the evidence of the victim, who
was examined as PW-3. She deposed in her examination-in-
chief that, on the alleged day and time of the occurrence, her
uncles, who are the brothers-in-law of the informant, were not
present at the house of her maternal grandmother. They had
gone to attend a feast, and at that time, she and her maternal
grandmother (Nani) were the only persons present there. She
further deposed in her examination-in-chief that on that day, the
appellant and his associates (Purushottam Singh, Ravi Singh
and Nilesh Singh), who have been acquitted of the charged
offences by the same impugned judgment, came to the house.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
10/17
The appellant then caught hold of her by her hair and threatened
to kill her if she did not agree to marry him. Thereafter, he
started beating her maternal grandmother (Nani), and after that
the appellant and his companions brought her to a temple
situated near the River Geruwa, where the appellant forcibly
married her by showing a pistol.
16.1. In view of above statements, at the time of
commission of the alleged occurrence, only the victim and her
maternal grandmother (Nani) were present at their house, and
the victim’s grandmother witnessed the commission of the
alleged occurrence. However, very surprisingly, she (Nani) was
not examined by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution failed
to produce any medical evidence to prove the alleged assault on
the victim’s grandmother by the accused persons, despite the
victim’s allegation that she had been assaulted by the accused
persons, including the appellant.
17. If these above statements are taken into
account, it appears that PW-4, the brother-in-law of the
informant, was not present at the victim’s maternal
grandmother’s house where the first part of the alleged
occurrence took place. However, the said statements of the
victim contradict the evidence of PW-4, particularly with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
11/17
respect to his presence at the alleged place at the time of the
occurrence. PW-4 deposed in his examination-in-chief that, on
the alleged day and time of occurrence, he and his family
members went to sleep after taking meals and thereafter, the
appellant and his companions, armed with weapons, came and
started beating him, caught hold of the victim by her hair, and
dragged her outside the village. They also fired shots on the
outskirts of the village. This statement shows that PW-4 claimed
to have witnessed the first part of the occurrence, whereas the
victim (PW-3) denied his presence at that place. This serious
contradiction between the testimony of the victim (PW-3) and
her maternal uncle (PW-4) creates a serious doubt regarding the
credibility of the prosecution story.
18. Now, coming to the other aspects of the
evidence of PW-3, she deposed in her examination-in-chief that
the appellant and his companions first took her to Ghogha
railway station, from where the appellant took her to Ranchi,
where she was kept in a rented room. It is an admitted position
that the investigating officer did not make any effort to
investigate the place where the victim was allegedly kept by the
appellant in Ranchi. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring
material evidence that was highly relevant to establish the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
12/17
allegation of rape by the appellant on the victim while she was
in his captivity, which lasted for several days in Ranchi. Here, it
is relevant to mention that, as per the prosecution story
emerging from the victim’s evidence, she was first taken to a
temple situated on the bank of the Geruwa River, where the
appellant allegedly forcibly married her. It also came in the
evidence of PW-4 that there are several houses of villagers in
the victim’s maternal grandmother’s village, and the house of
the victim’s maternal grandmother is surrounded by the houses
of her relatives. As per the allegation, the appellant, along with
three associates, first entered the house of the victim’s maternal
grandmother, assaulted her, and thereafter dragged the victim
towards the said temple. All these events allegedly took place
inside the village and in close proximity to the houses of the
victim’s relatives and neighbours, yet the investigating officer
did not examine any of them. This circumstance goes against the
prosecution and creates doubt regarding the reliability of the
prosecution story, particularly the allegations made by the
victim.
19. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-4, who
happens to be the maternal uncle of the victim. Though he
claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the initial part of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
13/17
alleged occurrence but as discussed above in light of the
evidence of the victim (PW-3), he does not appear to be an
eyewitness to that part of the occurrence. He deposed in
paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief that the accused had
threatened him with dire consequences if he attempted to lodge
an FIR, and for that reason, he did not lodge the case and
instead informed the victim’s father about the occurrence.
However, in paragraph 13 of his cross-examination, he stated
that a period of four years had passed after the alleged
occurrence and during the said period, the appellant had never
threatened him. If the statements made by this witness (PW-4)
in his examination-in-chief are believed, it appears that the
alleged incident came to his knowledge on the same day, yet he
did not take any step to lodge an FIR. His subsequent conduct
also appears to be suspicious, as he stated in cross-examination
that when the victim returned home, he did not inform the
police.
20. Here, it is important to mention that, as per the
evidence of this witness (PW-4), the victim returned home
alone, and it is not the case of the prosecution that she was
recovered by the police from the captivity of the appellant. PW-
4 stated in his cross-examination that 10 to 20 blows with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
14/17
butt of a gun were inflicted upon his body by the accused, for
which he was treated by a doctor, however, the prosecution
failed to produce any medical evidence to substantiate this
statement.
21. In the instant matter, the prosecution could not
examine the main investigating officer. Therefore, with regard to
the places of the alleged occurrence, particularly the reasons for
not examining material witnesses, the appellant did not get an
opportunity to cross-examine him, as a result of which the
defence taken by the appellant stood prejudiced.
22. In order to shake the credibility of the victim,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the
attention of this Court to the evidence of the victim’s father and
argued that the victim was not of good character, as her father
deposed in cross-examination before the trial court that the
victim had been married one year ago and she had a male child
who was 5 to 6 months old at that time. In rebuttal to this
statement, the prosecution has not offered any explanation.
23. As far as the evidence of PW-5, who medically
examined the victim, is concerned, the learned APP has
vehemently argued that the medical findings recorded by PW-5
corroborate the victim’s allegation as to subjecting her to rape
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
15/17
by the appellant as an abrasion on outer vaginal orifice was
found by the medical expert (PW-5). Merely in view of this
medical evidence, particularly the presence of an abrasion on
the outer vaginal orifice of the victim, the prosecution cannot be
absolved from its burden to establish the allegation of rape
beyond reasonable doubt especially when the victim does not
appear to be a sterling witness like in the present matter.
23.1. Furthermore, the medical expert (PW-5)
admitted in her examination-in-chief that she did not find any
evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the victim.
23.2. Here, it is relevant to mention that the victim
was examined on 08.05.2018, whereas the alleged occurrence is
said to have taken place on 17.04.2018. With regard to the
circumstances under which the victim returned from the alleged
captivity of the appellant, no cogent evidence has been adduced
by the victim or the other witnesses. Therefore, it is difficult to
conclude that the said abrasion found on the private part of the
victim was a result of the alleged sexual violence. Hence, the
said contention does not assist the prosecution.
Conclusion :-
24. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the victim, who is the star and most
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
16/17
material witness of the prosecution, does not qualify as a
sterling witness. Her testimony is neither of such impeccable
quality nor of such consistency as to inspire the confidence of
the Court without hesitation. On the contrary, her evidence
suffers from material inconsistencies and lacks the degree of
certainty required of a sterling witness, as explained by the
Supreme Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Rai Sandeep
@ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21.
24.1. Further, there are serious contradictions
between her testimony and that of PW-4, who claimed to be an
eyewitness to the alleged kidnapping. These contradictions
strike at the root of the prosecution case and render the
prosecution version doubtful.
24.2. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to
establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory
presumption under Section 29 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Consequently, the burden
cannot be shifted upon the appellant, and the benefit of the
statutory presumption cannot be extended to the prosecution in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. The judgment impugned convicting the
appellant for the charged offences punishable under sections 363
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2433 of 2024 dt.29-06-2026
17/17
of the IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act does not inspire
confidence of this court to affirm it and this court finds
sufficient reasons as discussed above to set aside it. Hence, the
impugned judgment of conviction and the consequent order of
sentence passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court
(POCSO Act)-cum-7th Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bhagalpur, in POCSO Case No. 1720 of 2018 arising out of
Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 71 of 2018, are hereby set aside.
26. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
27. The appellant is in judicial custody, so, he is
directed to be released forthwith if his custody is not required in
any other case.
28. Let the records of the trial court, along with a
copy of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court
for needful and necessary compliance.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.07.2026 Transmission Date 06.07.2026
