Patna High Court
Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Holding
The conviction is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to twelve years’ imprisonment (ten years rigorous, two years simple) with the fine unchanged.
Summary
The appellant, Prem Kumar Paswan, was convicted by a Sessions Court for raping an eight‑year‑old girl, under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment with a fine. He appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses, lack of medical examination of the accused, and arguing that the victim’s evidence was insufficient. The High Court examined the forensic reports, medical examination of the victim, and the credibility of the child witness, finding the prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also considered the applicable law on sentencing, noting that at the time of the offence the minimum term under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was seven years, not the later enhanced twenty‑year minimum. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to twelve years (ten years rigorous, two years simple) while leaving the fine unchanged. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the elements of rape under Section 376 IPC and penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 POCSO.
- Whether the presumption of innocence under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was displaced by the evidence.
- Whether procedural deficiencies (absence of medical examination of the accused, delay in filing FIR) vitiate the conviction.
- Appropriate sentence under the law as it stood on the date of the offence, given the amendment to Section 4 POCSO in 2019.
- Whether the appellant, being just over eighteen years old at the time, should be treated as a juvenile for sentencing purposes.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly CrPC) — s. 52
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (formerly Indian Evidence Act) — s. 139
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164, 313, 53A
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 134
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 376AB
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 29, 30, 4
Subjects
- rape
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- IPC Section 376
- presumption of innocence
- forensic evidence
- sentence modification
- age of accused
- conviction upheld
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1309 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2018 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan Paswan Son of Nagendra Paswan Village-
Navil Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Dumariya Ghat, District- East Champaran
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rambinay Upadhaya Son of Himachal Upadhaya village- Navin
Gandhinagar, PS- Dumariyaghat, Dist- East Champaran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Urmila Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Addl.PP
For the Informant : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice on Respondent No. 2,
no one has entered appearance on his behalf to oppose the appeal.
3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence
dated 08.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
2/21
passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge-com-Special
Judge, POCSO Act, East Champaran, Motihari (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 07/
2020, CIS No. 134/2018 arising out of Dumariya Ghat P.S. Case
No. 164 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has
been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 fo
the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO
Act'). By the impugned order, he has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 20 years, out of which 10 years shall be rigorous
imprisonment and rest 10 years shall be simple imprisonment and
also awarded fine of Rupees 25,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine,
the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for further one year.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the informant (PW-4) wherein he has stated that his
minor daughter aged about 8 years went to attend her tuition as
usual from Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan Paswan on 29.09.2018
at about 04:00 P.M. where accused Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan
Paswan after alluring her forcibly committed rape on her and in
order to conceal the evidence, he tried to kill her. This occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
3/21
had taken place at about 04:00 P.M. It is stated that the informant’s
daughter came to her house and it was found that her frock and
undergarment were completely soaked with blood. She disclosed
to the informant weeping that accused Prem Kumar Paswan @
Ranjan Paswan had committed rape upon her by alluring her and
threatened to kill her.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the
informant, FIR being Dumariya Ghat P.S. Case No. 164 of 2018,
was registered under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the
POCSO Act against Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan Paswan.
After investigation, Police submitted chargesheet bearing Charge
Sheet No. 167 of 2018, dated 05.12.2018 against Prem Kumar
Paswan @ Ranjan Paswan for the offence punishable under
Section 376AB of IPC & Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
6. Learned trial court vide order 15.12.2018 took
cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 376AB IPC
as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and found
sufficient materials to proceed against Prem Kumar Paswan @
Ranjan Paswan. After supply of police papers, charges were
explained to the accused which he denied and claimed to be tried,
accordingly, the charges were framed vide order dated 27.09.2019
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
4/21
for the offences punishable under Sections 376AB IPC as well as
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and exhibited several documents. The list of
prosecution witnesses and the documents are given hereunder in
tabular form:-
List of Prosecution witnesses
Prosecution Name of Witness Description of the Witness
Witness No.
P.W-1 Ramjana Upadhyay Related to X
P.W-2 Ajay Kumar Upadhaya Relative of the victim
P.W-3 Rajendra Rai Independent witness
P.W-4 X Victim's-father-cum-informant
P.W-5 Ravikant Yadav Independent witness
P.W-6 Y Mother of the Victim
P.W-7 Victim Victim herself
P.W-8 Doctor Vandana Sharma Medical officer
P.W-9 Abhinav Kumar Dubey Investigating officer
P.W-10 Ajay kumar Forensic expert at F.S.L, Patna
P.W-11 Doctor Sunil Kumar Forensic expert at R.F.S.L,
Muzaffarpur
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by
Ext.-1 Signature of informant over P.W-4
written application of F.I.R
Ext.-1/1 Signature of Rajan Diwedi P.W-4
along with written application
of F.I.R
P-2 Age determination report of P.W-8
Victim.
P.-3 Charge-sheet No.-167/18, P.W-9
dated:05/12/2018
P.-4 Seizure-list of victim’s clothes P.W-9
P-5 Medical examination report of P.W-8
victim.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
5/21
P-6 Report of forensic science P.W-10
Laboratory, Patna.
P-7 Report of forensic science P.W-11
laboratory, R.F.S.L,
Muzaffarpur.
8. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short ‘CrPC’). The appellant in his 313 CrPC statement denied the
allegation and pleaded innocence.
9. The Defence has neither produced any witness nor
exhibited any documentary evidence.
Finding of the Learned Trial Court
10. Learned trial court, after analysing the evidence of
the victim found that there is no inconsistency in her evidence that
the accused committed wrong upon her. Her testimony inspired
confidence to the learned trial court as the defence led no evidence
to prove his case of false implication.
11. Learned trial court found that the evidence of victim
has been corroborated by other witnesses who soon after the
occurrence saw victim’s clothes spotted with blood. Victim’s cloths
were seized and sealed by medical officer and forwarded for
forensic examination by investigating officer. The cloths were
having traces of human blood and semen.
12. Learned trial court found that the prosecution has
proved the foundational facts of the charge under Section 4 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
6/21
POCSO Act. Firstly that the victim was a minor and secondly the
accused committed penetrative sexual assault with her, therefore,
presumption of Sections 29 ad 30 comes into play in this case.
Learned trial court opined that reverse burden applies in this case
and it was the obligation of the defence to prove that the accused
had not committed the offence which it has failed.
13. Learned trial court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the charge under Section 376 IPC and
Section 4 of the POCSO Act, accordingly, convicted the accused
for the offences punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C & Section 4
of POCSO Act.
Submission on behalf of the Appellant
14. Mr. Raghav Prasad, leaned counsel for the appellant,
has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on the ground
that the victim, writer of the written information and the father of
the victim were present in the police station but the FIR has not
been lodged on the basis of the statement of the victim. Thus, in his
submissions, the FIR lodged by the father of the victim would lose
its sanctity.
15. Learned counsel submits that there is no eye witness
except the victim. The appellant was arrested only after five hours
of the occurrence but the Investigating Officer did not follow the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
7/21
mandatory provision of Section 53A CrPC (now known as Section
52 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS)) and no
medical examination of the accused was conducted. In absence of
any medical examination, the semen present on the cloths of the
victim has not been matched. This would, therefore, prove fatal to
the prosecution.
16. Learned counsel further submits that in course of her
deposition, the victim girl was unable to show any paper/document
that could have certified that she was a student of the coaching
institute. She was not able to disclose the name of any teacher,
therefore, her very presence in the coaching institute is not well
proved.
17. Learned counsel submits that the victim has been
assessed between 13-14 years, no spermatozoa was found and the
doctor (PW-8) had not found any sign of penetrative sexual Act. On
these grounds, learned counsel submits that the prosecution had
failed to establish the foundational facts as required under Section
29 of the POSCO Act.
18. It is also submitted that the presumption of the
innocence of the accused is not lost sight of in a case under the
POCSO Act. Hence, the prosecution is liable to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts. In his submissions, in this case, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
8/21
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubts.
Submissions on behalf of the State
19. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, opposed the appeal. Despite, service of
notice on respondent no. 2, he has chosen not to appear in this
appeal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits
that it is an open and shut case. The occurrence took place inside
the coaching institute of the appellant. The victim (PW-7) has
narrated the entire manner of occurrence. She has been examined
by the court as a child witness and found her competent to depose.
She indicated to the learned trial court her private parts where she
was still feeling pain. She identified the appellant in the dock and
reiterated that it is this appellant who had committed wrong act
with her.
20. From the pattern of cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses, we find that the defence had initially set up
a case of there being outstanding dues on account of tuition fee
which was not paid and that the case was lodged only to avoid the
payment but PW-1 denied the suggestion. Further, it would appear
from the cross-examination of PW-7 that she has clearly stated that
she was going to the coaching only for 10-15 days. She has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
9/21
she was being taught only by this appellant and on the date of
occurrence, there was no other student with her as all were told to
go and she was asked to stay.
21. Learned counsel submits that police seized the frock
and underwear of the victim as per seizure list (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-
9’) on the very date of occurrence i.e. on 29.09.2018. Those clothes
of the victim were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
for examination. The reports of the FSL have been proved by the
prosecution through Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW-11) who happened to be
the Assistant Director (Biology) in the regional Forensic Science
Laboratory, Muzaffarpur. According to the FSL report (Exhibit ‘P-
7/PW-11’), blood has been detected on places in each of the
exhibits marked ‘A’ and ‘B’. Semen has been detected in each of
the exhibits marked ‘A’ and ‘B’. These exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ are the
clothes of the victim.
22. It is submitted that mere non-examination of the
appellant medically after his arrest would not result in throwing
away the entire prosecution case. It is the fault of the Investigating
Officer but on record there are unimpeachable materials to
demonstrate that it is this appellant who had committed the sexual
act which resulted in bleeding. The medical examination report of
the victim (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-8’) has been proved by the doctor
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
10/21
(PW-8). From this exhibit, it would appear that the doctor found the
redness around labia majora and labia minora. The victim
explained to the doctor that she was physically assaulted, she
named the appellant and stated that he removed her undergarments
and made sexual contact with her. She further stated that when she
tried to escape, he hit her on face by hand. The doctor noticed
wound on right side eyebrow and around right eye swelling plus
contusion plus around outer side of right eye. It is, thus, submitted
that the claim of the victim that she was also assaulted when she
tried to escape finds support from the doctors version in Exhibit ‘P-
4/PW-8’. The statement of the victim remained consistent with her
statement under Section 164 CrPC.
23. Learned counsel further submits that the victim (PW-
7) in this case is a sterling witness and she would fall in the
category of a wholly reliable witness in terms of Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act (now Section 139 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam).
24. In course of hearing of the appeal, this Court noticed
that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under
Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act but while
sentencing, the learned trial court decided to pass order of sentence
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act because the sentence under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
11/21
Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act were the one and
same. The learned trial court imposed twenty years of
imprisonment out of which ten years shall be rigorous
imprisonment and rest ten years shall be simple imprisonment and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. This Court noticed that Section 4
of the POCSO Act, as existed on the date of occurrence, prescribed
a minimum sentence of seven years which may extend to
imprisonment for life. Vide Amendment Act 25 of 2019, in Section
4, the minimum sentence was enhanced to be not less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. A sub-section
(2) was inserted by the Amendment Act 25 of 2019 with effect
from 16.08.2019 which provided that in case of penetrative sexual
assault on a child below the sixteen years of age, the minimum
sentence shall be twenty years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and the imprisonment for life shall mean an
imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of that person.
Section 376 IPC was also prescribing a minimum sentence of seven
years prior to its amendment with effect from 03.02.2013.
25. As it appeared to this Court that the learned trial
court has imposed a sentence of twenty years, perhaps by
overlooking that at the time of occurrence, the minimum sentence
was only seven years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, this Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
12/21
called upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
to assist on the point of sentence. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted that the
learned trial court seems to have awarded the sentence of twenty
years imprisonment by overlooking the fact that at the time of
occurrence, Section 4 provided for a minimum sentence of seven
years which may extend up to imprisonment for life. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that the sentence
awarded by the learned trial court may be modified to bring it in
tune with the provision existing at the time of occurrence.
26. One more development took place in course of
hearing of the appeal. We noticed that Section 313 CrPC statement
of the appellant was recorded on 15.06.2024 in which he declared
his age as 24 years. Since the occurrence is of 29.09.2018,
therefore, this Court noticed that at the time of occurrence, the
appellant was eighteen years old but then a question arose as to
what is the date of birth of the appellant? If the appellant’s date of
birth would fall after 29.09.2000, then on the date of occurrence,
i.e. on 29.09.2018, he would be below eighteen years of age. On
record, there was nothing to show that what is the date of birth of
the appellant, therefore, in order to ascertain as to what is the
correct date of birth of the appellant, this Court got connected with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
13/21
the appellant through virtual/online mode from the Central Jail,
Motihari. He was presented by the person in charge of the jail. The
appellant was identified and he interacted with the Court. The
appellant has stated that his date of birth is 01.01.2000. Thus on the
date of occurrence, the appellant was eighteen years and nine
months approximately.
27. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that since on the date of occurrence, the appellant was only
a little more than eighteen years of age, he was also in an immature
young age, he may be given an opportunity to connect himself with
the mainstream of the society after his release from jail and for that
reason, this Court may consider reducing the sentence reasonably if
the judgment of conviction is not interfered with.
Consideration
28. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, as also on
perusal of the trial court’s records, we find that in this case, the
victim has been assessed between 13-14 years of age as per the
medical examination report (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-8’). The occurrence
took place on 29.09.2018 in the coaching institute of the appellant.
From the pattern of cross-examination of the victim (PW-7), it
appears that the defence has not suggested her that she had not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
14/21
gone to the coaching institute on the date of occurrence. In fact, the
pattern of cross-examination, particularly the suggestions given to
the father of the victim (PW-4) in paragraph ‘10’ would show that
the defence took a plea that there were outstanding fee and on not
making payment of the same, he had lodged a false case. The
defence did not suggest to the victim that she had not gone to the
coaching institute on the date and time of occurrence. While cross-
examining the victim, the defence set up a case that she had
received injuries due to fall, which the victim denied.
29. The I.O. (PW-9) is the Station House Officer of
Dumaria Ghat Police Station who had assumed the charge of
investigation himself. He had recorded the statement of the father
of the victim, statement of the victim and some other witnesses
who supported the prosecution case. He had sent the victim for her
medical examination with a women police officer and women
Chowkidar. The I.O. has stated in his re-examination that he had
received the clothes of the victim in a sealed dibba of which the
seizure list was prepared by Sub-Inspector of Police Amit Verma.
He identified the signature of Amit Verma (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-9’).
30. This Court further finds from the medical
examination report (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-8’) proved by Dr. Vandana
Sharma (PW-8) that the victim was examined in the Sadar Hospital,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
15/21
Motihari on 13.09.2018 by PW-8 who was posted as a Specialist
Gynecologist in the hospital. She was also a member of the Board.
Age of the victim was assessed between 13-14 years. She proved
her signature and that of Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh. The entire report
has been marked Exhibit ‘P-2’. The doctor was cross-examined by
the defence and she was also re-examined by order of the court.
She has stated that on physical examination, right side eyebrow
swelling was present. Contusion present around outer side of right
eye. On local examination of private parts, she had noticed redness
present on labia majora and minora. She had collected blood-
stained undergarments and clothes and handed over to police Amit
Verma for forensic test. She proved her report which was written in
her hand and bore her signature. This report has been marked
Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-8’. PW-8 has further stated that she found signs of
sexual assault on victim’s body.
31. This Court has further noticed that the FSL report
(Exhibit ‘P-7/PW-11’) shows that one frock and one underwear,
which were marked Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, were received
in the FSL on 04.12.2018. The parcel was duly sealed with
impressions of seal corresponding with the seal impression
forwarded. The result of examination shows:- “(1) Blood has been
detected at places in each of the exhibits marked ‘A’ and ‘B’, (2)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
16/21
Semen has been detected in each of the exhibits marked ‘A’ and ‘B’
and (3) Serological report on origin and group of blood and semen
would follow.” The prosecution witnesses, namely Ajay Kumar
(PW-10) and Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW-11) are the Assistant Directors
who were posted in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and
Muzaffarpur respectively. PW-10 has proved the report (Exhibit ‘P-
6/PW-10’). PW-10 has given the serological report for their origin
and grouping. On all the exhibits, human blood and semen of group
‘A’ have been found. PW-11 has proved the report (Exhibit ‘P-
7/PW-11’) and the result of the examination of exhibits marked ‘A’
and ‘B’ have been taken note of hereinabove.
32. We have also noticed that in this case, Section 164
CrPC statement of the victim was recorded. She has remained
consistent with her statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded on
01.10.2018 and her statements in course of trial.
33. On going through the entire materials available on
the record, we find that the victim in this case is a sterling witness.
There is nothing to disbelieve her even partially. She is a wholly
reliable witness in terms of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act
(now known as ‘Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam’).
34. We are of the opinion that not only the foundational
facts have been proved in this case, the defence is not able to take a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
17/21
consistent stand and plea in course of cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses. While the presumption of innocence
remains intact even in a case under the POCSO Act, it is for the
defence to create a doubt in the prosecution story by preponderance
of probability. We have found that in this case, the prosecution
stood on its own leg but the defence failed to create any doubt in
the prosecution story. Thus, no benefit of doubt can go to the
accused-appellant. The appeal against judgment of conviction fails.
35. Now, coming to the impugned order dated
08.07.2024, by which the appellant has been awarded sentence to
undergo imprisonment for twenty years, out of which ten years
shall be rigorous imprisonment and rest ten years shall be simple
imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in default of
payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for
further one year. The trial court has directed that the amount of fine
realised shall be payable to the victim and it shall also be adjusted
from the compensation amount awarded to her.
36. At this stage, we would extract Section 4 of the
POCSO Act as existed at the time of occurrence hereunder for a
ready reference:-
“4. Punishment for penetrative sexual
assault.- Whoever commits penetrative sexual
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
18/21
assault shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
37. Vide Amendment Act 25 of 2016, the POCSO Act
was amended, certain new provisions were inserted and in some of
the provisions, the minimum sentence was enhanced. After the
amendment with effect from 16.08.2019, Section 4 read as under:-
“4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
—2[(1)] Whoever commits penetrative sexual
assault shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be
less than 3[ten years] but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine.
4
[(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault
on a child below sixteen years of age shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall
mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural
life of that person, and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall
be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to
meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of
such victim.]”.
2. Section 4 renumbered as section 4(1) thereof by Act 25 of 2019, s. 3 (w.e.f. 16-8-2019).
3. Subs. by Act 25 of 2019, s.3, for “seven years” (w.e.f. 16-8-2019).
4. Ins. by Act 25 of 2019, s. 3 (w.e.f. 16-8-2019).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
19/21
38. It is evident on going through Section 4 of the
POCSO Act, as existed at the time of occurrence, that the
minimum sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was seven
years which would have extended to the imprisonment for life.
Sub-section (2) of Section 4 did not exist at the time of
occurrence, therefore, no sentence may be awarded under sub-
section (2) of Section 4. The trial court has missed out on this
development of law and awarded a sentence of twenty years
imprisonment to the appellant. We are of the considered opinion
that the twenty years imprisonment awarded to the appellant
cannot sustain the test of law and it cannot be said to be in
accordance with law as existed at the time of occurrence. What
would be a proper sentence commensurate to the status of guilt
was a question before this Court.
39. This Court, as recorded hereinabove, has interacted
with the appellant who disclosed that his date of birth is
01.01.2000, therefore, on the date of occurrence, he was about
eighteen years and nine months. Taking note of the age of the
appellant, we are of the view that he was in quite young and
impressionable age though he had crossed eighteen years of age
and was liable to be tried as an adult but while awarding
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
20/21
sentence to the appellant, care is required to be taken to ensure
that the appellant is assimilated to the mainstream of the society
after completion of his sentence.
40. We have discussed the matter at length at the Bar.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also fairly
submitted that this Court may consider imposing a reasonable
period of sentence which may be commensurate to the status of
guilt and at the same time, may allow the appellant to return to
his life after release. This Court is of the view that a period of
twelve years of imprisonment, out of which ten years would be
rigorous imprisonment and two years would be simple
imprisonment, would be a reasonable sentence which may be
imposed upon the appellant.
41. Accordingly, we modify the sentence awarded by
the learned trial court to that of twelve years of imprisonment,
out of which ten years will be rigorous imprisonment and two
years will be simple imprisonment. The other parts of the
sentence, such as fine and the simple imprisonment which the
appellant may have to suffer in case of non-payment of fine, as
awarded by the learned trial court, shall remain the same.
42. The impugned order of sentence is modified to the
extent indicated herein above.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1309 of 2024 dt. 23-06-2026
21/21
43. This appeal is partly allowed.
44. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court’s records be sent down to the learned trial court
immediately.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
SUSHMA2/Rishi-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date 25.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.