No Parent In Our Society Can Damage Reputation Of Their Daughter Regarding Her Chastity: Patna High Court Upholds Rape Conviction

The appellant claimed that he was falsely implicated for extortion of money and getting the victim married to him. The division bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar did not agree with this contention, stating that the allegation was also made against other two co-accused. The Court noted that as the victim gave birth to a child after about nine months of the occurrence, it proves that she was subjected to rape by the appellant and other co-accused.

The Court was of the view that there was reasonable explanation about the delay in lodging the FIR after 5/6 months of the incident. It recognised that the victim had been threatened by the accused to not disclose it to anyone under the threat of death. The victim had informed her mother only after six months because she got pregnant. The Court also noted that a village panchayat had imposed a fine against the appellant, but when he did not make any payment, the victim/informant gave a complaint to the police.

The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused under Section 376 IPC.

However, the Court acquitted the appellant under Section 3 POCSO Act as the prosecution could not prove the age of the victim to be under 18 years. The Court stated that no certificate was produced to prove the victim's minority despite the victim studying in Class 9. It stated that “Withholding documentary proof regarding age of the victim gives rise to adverse inference against the prosecution in regard to age of the victim.”

It further noted that during the examination of victim's father, he had stated that the victim was around 14-15 years. However, during cross-examination, he mentioned that she began her studies at the age of 10. As victim was in class 9 at the time of the incident, the Court remarked that as per his deposition the victim would have been around 19 years old on the date of the incident.

Medical evidence also suggested that the victim was above 18 years. The Court noted that even though medical opinion on the age of the victim is not conclusive evidence, it could be a guiding factor. It stated that “..medical opinion has to be always considered along with the attending circumstance.” Based on the medical opinion along with oral evidence of the father of the victim, the Court observed that the victim was above 18 years at the time of the incident.

It stated that prosecution could not discharge the initial burden of proof to prove the age of victim and thus held provisions of POCSO cannot apply against the appellant.

Case title: Deo Narayan Yadav @ Bhulla Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, CR. APP (DB) No.871 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 52