The Supreme Court on September 1, 2025, presided over by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal arising from a 2016 incident. The Trial Court had convicted the Respondents under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000. However, on appeal, the High Court acquitted the Respondents, citing miscarriage of justice due to several lapses, including improper joinder of offences under Section 223 Cr.P.C., unclear date and time of the incident, lack of proof of the victim’s age, absence of evidence regarding abortion, and inconsistencies in the chargesheet. The case arose when the Appellant’s daughter was found to be three months pregnant and disclosed that the Respondents had raped her a few months earlier around Holi. Following this, an FIR was lodged at PS Piro, Bhojpur, Bihar on July 2, 2016.
The Appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in holding that non-compliance with Section 223 Cr.P.C. caused prejudice, as this objection was never raised by the defence. It was submitted that the Respondents had ample opportunity to defend themselves, and the victim’s minority was conclusively established through her school transfer certificate, medical evidence, and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her testimony, supported by medical records of pregnancy and abortion, was consistent and reliable. With no evidence of enmity, there was no motive for false implication. The Respondents, however, argued that the investigation was casual and negligent, the charges defective, and the joint trial illegal. They further contended that Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not properly complied with and that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including the victim’s account, undermined the conviction while defence evidence was ignored.
After considering the submissions and relevant precedents, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in treating procedural irregularities as fatal. The Court observed that the victim’s age, pregnancy, and abortion were adequately proved, and her testimony was credible and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence. It emphasized that if the High Court found irregularities, the proper course was to remand the matter for fresh adjudication rather than acquit the Respondents, thereby disregarding the victim’s rights. It was further held that defects in charge framing and joint trial under Section 223 Cr.P.C. had not caused any prejudice sufficient to vitiate the trial. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s acquittal was set aside, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were restored.
Appearances-
For the Appellant: Advs Pratik Mishra, Vatsal Vishal and Ramashray Roy
For the Respondent/s : Adv Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
