Patna High Court
SADIR QUARAISHI @ MD SADIRversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt and the uncorroborated testimony of the child witness was unsafe, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.
Summary
The appellant Sadir Quaraishi was convicted by a Special Judge under Section 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the alleged rape of a five‑year‑old girl, based largely on the victim’s testimony and a delayed FIR. The appellant appealed, arguing that the four‑day delay in lodging the FIR, suppression of the first version of the prosecution case, inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of corroboration, and questionable forensic evidence created reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the credibility of the child witness, the influence of local political figures, the inadequacy of medical findings, and the improper handling of the seized clothing. It also considered the limited applicability of the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, noting that foundational facts were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Concluding that the prosecution’s case was fraught with contradictions and that reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor was unsafe, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment underscores the need for careful scrutiny of child testimony and strict adherence to evidentiary standards in POCSO cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of four days in lodging the FIR defeats the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the testimony of the child victim, without corroboration, can sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the forensic evidence and medical report sufficiently corroborate the alleged sexual assault.
- Whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applies in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 164, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376AB
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 29, 30, 4, 42, 6
Subjects
- child sexual abuse
- POCSO Act
- statutory presumption
- delay in FIR
- child witness credibility
- medical evidence
- acquittal
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.800 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2019 Thana- JALE District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sadir Quaraishi @ Md Sadir S/O Late Ali Hasan Quaraishi R/O Village-
Jalley, Darzi Muhalla, Ps. Jalley, Dist. Darbhanga
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Nafees, S/O Late Sajjad Darzi, R/O Vill.- Jaley, Darzi Muhalla, P.S.-
Jaley, Dist.- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Md. Imteyaz Ahmed, Advocate
Mr. Ritwij Raman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP
For the Resp No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 19-06-2026
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of the informant
despite service of notice.
3. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and order of sentence
dated 05.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
2/40
passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in
POCSO G.R. Case No. 19 of 2019 arising out of Jalley P.S. Case
No. 48 of 2019. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 AB of the
Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). By
the impugned order, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for twenty years with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- under
Section 376 AB of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the
informant (maternal uncle of the victim). In his fardbeyan, the
informant has alleged that two years ago, his sister was murdered
by her in-laws and his brother-in-law was sent to jail. They had
four children whom the informant brought to his house and some
of the children were with his relatives. One amongst the four
children ‘X’ (victim) resides with the informant and studies there.
The informant takes care of the house. The informant has stated
that there was a marriage in his sasural so he had gone there. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
3/40
further alleged that on 06.04.2019, there was a marriage in the
neighbourhood of the informant in which his niece was playing
with other children. Sadir Qureshi resident of the same village
took informant’s niece to his place by luring her and committed
rape on her. The victim continued to cry and scream but the
accused raped her and left only after committing rape. Her niece
came home crying and bleeding. Informant’s mother, who is
herself a heart patient, became unconscious and could not tell
anyone about the incident. When the informant came home, he
gathered information about the incident, after which he went to
police station to lodge complain. Informant had brought clothes of
the victim along with the application.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the
informant, FIR being Jalley P.S. Case No. 48 of 2019 dated
10.04.2019 was registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 4, 6
of the POCSO Act against this appellant. After investigation, police
submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 47 of 2019 dated
31.05.2019 against this appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
6. Learned trial court vide order 19.06.2019 took
cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and
Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act against appellant. Charges were read
over and explained to the appellant in Hindi which he denied and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
4/40
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed vide order
dated 15.11.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 376 AB
of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
eight witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. The list of
prosecution witnesses and the documents are given hereunder in
tabular form:-
List of Prosecution witnesses
Prosecution Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
PW-1 Md. Afjal Victim’s Relative
PW-2 Sahani Khatoon Victim’s Relative
PW-3 Ms. X Victim
PW-4 Najini Khatoon Non-official witness
PW-5 Dr. Kumari Nisha Medical Officer
PW-6 Mumtaz Ahmad Formal Witness
PW-7 Md. Munauar Hostile witness
PW-8 Ram Kishore Rai Investigating Officer
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/
Attested by
‘1’ Entire Medical Report PW-5
‘2’ Signature of Mumtaj Ahmad on PW-6
written statement
‘3’ Signature of Munauar on PW-7
Seizure List
‘4’ Endorsement in writing and PW-8
signature of SHO on the written
application of the informant
‘5’ Formal FIR PW-8
‘6’ Seizure List PW-8
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
5/40
‘7’ Blood Report of the appellant PW-8
‘8’ Entire statement under Section
164 CrPC of the victim
‘9’ Original FSL Report
Mark ‘X’ Copy of FSL Report
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 also produced two witnesses on
behalf of the appellant and also produced some documentary
evidences which are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Defence witnesses
Defence Name of the Witness Description of the
Witness No. Witness
DW-1 Rabbana Parween Other witness
DW-2 Md. Sami Ansari Other witness
List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/
Attested by
‘D-1’ Certified copy of plaint of M.R.
No. 140/2016 pending in the
court of Principal Judge,
Darbhanga.
‘D-2’ Certified copy of cognizance
order passed in C.R. No.
1145/2016 pending in the court
of SDJM Darbhanga
‘D-3’ Certified copy of complaint
petition of C.R. No. 1145/2016
pending in the court of SDJM
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
6/40
Darbhanga
‘D-4’ C.C. of FIR of Jalley PS Case
No. 181/ 2019
‘D-5’ C.C. of Chargesheet of Jalley
PS. Case No. 181/2019
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
10. Learned trial court after analysing the evidences
available on the record found that the victim has substantially
supported the allegations and charges against the appellant in her
testimony before the court. She corroborated her previous
statement made under Section 164 CrPC. Learned trial court found
that the relative of the victim has also supported the case of
prosecution and statement of the victim who came to know about
the occurrence from the victim just after the occurrence. Learned
trial court observed that there is nothing in their testimony to
create doubt regarding the occurrence.
11. Learned trial court further found that the medical
report shows that the hymen was not intact and there was redness
in the genital examination of the victim. It is though recorded that
no definite opinion can be given about sexual intercourse, learned
trial court opined that medical corroboration is not required as the
victim has been examined after five days of the occurrence and it
is established law that if the sole testimony of the victim is reliable
and repose confidence then it must be relied upon.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
7/40
12. Learned trial court further found that the defence
case is not believable that due to marital dispute or political
enmity, false case has been registered. No victim or her relative
can stake their reputation and reputation of their minor daughter by
falsely alleging the appellant for such heinous offence which will
leave a scar to the life of the victim and make her present as well
as future miserable. Hence, learned trial court found that the
statements of the victim and her relatives are trustworthy.
13. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case concluded that the prosecution has
successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all
reasonable doubts. Accordingly, learned trial court convicted the
appellant for the offences punishable under Section 376 AB of the
IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment and order on various grounds. It is submitted
that in this case, there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the First
Information Report. The occurrence is said to have taken place on
06.04.2019 at 10:00 AM when the victim (niece of the informant)
was playing with the children. It is submitted that the appellant is
Ward Member of Ward No. 14, Jaale North Panchayat, he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
8/40
aged about 55 years and it is alleged that he had allured and taken
away the victim to his house, where he subjected her to wrong act.
Learned counsel submits that in course of investigation and trial,
the prosecution has not produced a single witness from amongst
the children who were playing with the victim.
15. It is submitted that the maternal uncle of the victim
(PW-1) has stated in paragraph ‘3’ of his deposition that the
accused got elected as Ward Member, he was elected from the
panel of the Mukhiya, wife of Md. Taj.
16. Learned counsel submits that the maternal
grandmother (nani) of the victim has been examined as PW-2, who
has stated that the occurrence took place between 10:30-11:00
AM. When she was in her house, then the victim came weeping
and behind her, Sadir Quraishi came and gave Rs. 10 to the victim
for taking ice-cream. She was told about the occurrence by the
victim. This witness went to a medical shop and brought some
medicines, whereafter the victim urinated. She claimed that she
had told about the occurrence to the villagers, who asked her to
wait for Barat (her son) who was in his sasural. Her son came after
four days, whereafter they went to the police station and lodged
the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
9/40
Contrary to her statement in the examination-in-chief, PW-2
has stated that she had told her villagers, namely Mumtaz, Rizwan
Quraishi and Md. Manuwar, but she had not told her son Afzal,
aged 21 years at that time to go and lodge the case. She made a
mobile call to her son Nafees, she did not remember that when
Nafees had gone to sasural and when he had returned. Nafees was
married in Basaitha village, which is under Jaale Police Station,
situated at a distance of four km and it takes a 10 minutes’ walk in
reaching to the Jaale Police Station from her house. On the date of
occurrence, she had not gone to Jaale Police Station with the
victim. It is pointed out that in paragraph ‘5’ of her deposition,
PW-2 has stated that Taj is the Mukhiya of her village and she had
gone to the police station together with the Mukhiya, Sarpanch and
Ward Member. She has further stated that she had gone to the
police station in the night of the occurrence and then on the next
day with the Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward Member for lodging the
case and the case was registered.
17. Learned counsel submits that from the deposition of
PW-2, it is evident that her conduct is not natural, she did not ask
her son Afzal to go to the police station, which is at a distance of a
10 minutes’ walk to lodge the case. She went with the Mukhiya
Taj, Sarpanch and Ward Member to the police station in the night
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
10/40
and she claims that the case was lodged. Nafees, who is the
informant of this case, was not present with her as he was in his
sasural. Therefore, the prosecution seems to have suppressed the
first version of the prosecution story disclosed by PW-2 in the
police station. The present case has arisen on the basis of a written
information submitted by Nafees (one of the sons of PW-3) after
four days of the occurrence. In this connection, the evidence of the
writer of the written information, namely Mumtaz Ahmad (PW-6)
has stated in course of trial that he was a social worker and one of
the candidates for the post of Mukhiya. He has stated that Md.
Nafees is residing in a foreign country, he had brought a paper to
him and on that paper whatever were written, this witness had
copied the same on a plain paper. He never met thereafter with
Md. Nafees. For the first time, he was examined in the court and
prior to that, his statement was never recorded. This witness (PW-
6) has stated that Sadir Quraishi (the appellant) is a good person,
he is his villager, therefore, he knows him. Learned counsel
submits that it is evident from the statement of the deed writer
(Katib/PW-6) that he had copied the writings brought by Md.
Nafees. Thus, the prosecution seems to have lodged this case in a
pre-planned manner setting up a date four days prior to the
lodgment of the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
11/40
18. It is submitted that all through this period, the victim
was in the company of the informant and his mother, therefore, the
chances of her being tutored cannot be ruled out.
19. Learned counsel submits that in this case, the
prosecution claims to have produced the leggings of the victim in
presence of the two witnesses in the police station, namely
Mumtaz Ahmad and Md. Manuwar. Mumtaz Ahmad (PW-6) has
not made any statement that the production-cum-seizure list
(Exhibit ‘P-6/PW-8’) has been signed by him or was made in his
presence but the learned trial court has marked the production-
cum-seizure list as Exhibit ‘P-6’ at the instance of the I.O. (PW-8).
The another seizure list witness Md. Manuwar (PW-7) has, though
identified his signature (Exhibit ‘3’) but he has clearly stated that
he did not know that for which thing the production-cum-seizure
list was prepared. PW-7 was declared hostile by the prosecution.
He has stated that Sadir Quraishi is a reputed person and is Ward
Member of the Panchayat. He had not heard anything wrong about
him. He has further stated that nothing was seized in his presence.
20. It is further submitted that in the report submitted by
the Forensic Science Laboratory (marked ‘X’) bloodstains have
been found and the ABO grouping of the blood is said to be ‘AB’,
Rh Type - ‘positive’ (Exhibit ‘P-7/PW-8’) but the blood of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
12/40
victim or the accused have not been matched with the group of
blood found on the legging.
21. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this
Court towards the evidence of the victim (PW-3) aged about five
years. It is submitted that while the prosecution case is that the
victim girl was playing with children, in her statement in
paragraph ‘6’, PW-3 has stated that she was playing alone and
nobody was there when Sadir Quraishi took her away. It is
submitted that this statement of the victim (PW-3) is a material
departure from the prosecution case, as the prosecution had no
witness to say that the occurrence took place in the manner alleged
by the prosecution. It is submitted that the victim (PW-3), who is
five years old only, has stated with precision that when she was
taken away, it was day hour at 2:30 PM and that Sadir Quraishi
had kept her in the house for three minutes. Learned counsel
submits that it is not expected from a five years old minor to say
the exact time at which she was taken away and the time during
which she was kept in the house. All these statements with
accuracy only show that PW-3 was tutored. It is submitted that this
witness has stated that when she was coming to her maternal
grandmother’s place, people had seen her but she had not disclosed
the occurrence to anyone of them. She disclosed the occurrence to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
13/40
her maternal grandmother. It is submitted that PW-3 has not stated
that Sadir Quraishi was coming behind her and that he had given
Rs. 10 to her to purchase ice-cream. Thus, the statement of
maternal grandmother (PW-2) and that of the victim (PW-3) are at
material variance.
22. Learned counsel submits that in paragraph ‘7’ of her
deposition, the victim has stated about the prior enmity between
the accused and the maternal uncle of the victim. She has stated
that her maternal grandmother runs a tea shop on which this
witness was cleaning the cup plate. Sadir Quraishi was purchasing
tea and biscuits from the said shop. This witness has further stated
that a quarrel had taken place between Sadir Quraishi and her
maternal uncle on account of some transactions. The defence
suggested that because Sadir Quraishi is an elected Ward Member
and had won from the panel of the present Mukhiya, wife of Taj
Hasan, therefore, the ex-Mukhiya, Mumtaz, got Sadir Quraishi
falsely implicated in this case due to the dispute between Sadir
Quraishi and the maternal grandmother of the victim.
23. Learned counsel submits that victim was medically
examined by Dr. Kumari Nisha (PW-5) on 11.04.2019 i.e. after
five days of the occurrence. During her examination, the doctor
opined on genital examination that hymen was not intact and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
14/40
genital area was reddish in color but no definite opinion can be
given about sexual intercourse. PW-5 proved the medical report
(Exhibit ‘P-1/PW-5’). In her cross-examination, she has stated that
victim was not accompanied with lady constable at the time of her
medical examination by the doctor. In paragraph ‘12’ of her
deposition, the doctor has stated that at the time of genital
examination of the victim, any sign of injury was not found but
she found the genital reddish in colour. The defence put her a
question in paragraph ‘13’ as to the time of injury in which the
redness colour of injury appear on the body part? PW-5 has stated
that the redness of the colour of injury remain appear within 6 to 8
hours of commission of injury. She has stated that in her report,
she had mentioned that there was no definite conclusion/opinion
regarding commission of intercourse against the victim.
24. In the background of the medical report, delay in
lodging of the FIR and the statement of the victim (PW-3) with
regard to the quarrel between her maternal uncle and Sadir
Quraishi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it would
not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the sole
testimony of the victim, who is a child witness and has been
apparently tutored.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
15/40
25. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the
attention of this Court towards the evidences adduced through the
defence witnesses, namely Rabbana Parween (DW-1) and Md.
Sami Ansari (DW-2). DW-1 is the daughter of the accused, Sadir
Quraishi. She has stated that Md. Taj had got her engaged as Asha
worker and he by claiming himself unmarried persuaded her
father, Sadir Quraishi, to marry her. She was married to Md. Taj on
20.12.2011. She came to know later that Md. Taj was married to
one Shama Parween and they had a daughter aged about eight
years. She alleged that her husband Md. Taj was demanding dowry
and when she was unable to fulfill the demand then she was
thrown out of the matrimonial house on 22.08.2016. DW-1 had
lodged a dowry case against Md. Taj and his family on 24.08.2016,
whereafter Md. Taj was threatening her that her father and the
whole family would be destroyed. DW-1 alleged that Md. Taj
influenced Md. Nafees (the informant) and got the appellant
implicated in this case. The defence has brought on record certified
copy of the plaint (Exhibit ‘D-1’), certified copy of order taking
cognizance (Exhibit ‘D-2’), certified copy of complaint petition
(Exhibit ‘D-3’), certified copy of FIR (Exhibit ‘DW-4’) and
certified copy of charge sheet (Exhibit ‘D-5’), to demonstrate that
the daughter of this appellant had lodged FIR and maintenance
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
16/40
case against Md. Taj. It is submitted that as per the statement of
PW-3, she had gone to Jaale Police Station to lodge the case on the
date of occurrence itself with the Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward
Member. The Mukhiya is the first wife of Md. Taj. Thus, it is
evident that Md. Taj was acting behind the curtain and his first
wife, Shama Parween, who was the Mukhiya, was supporting PW-
3. The enmity is also corroborated from the statement of PW-3
(paragraph ‘7’) and that of the hostile witness (PW-7). Thus, it
would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the State
26. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
has been contested by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State. It is submitted that in a case under the POCSO Act, Section
29 raises a presumption. The evidences adduced in this case have
laid down the foundation for attracting the applicability of Section
29. In the present case, the victim is a minor aged about 5–7 years.
The victim and other prosecution witnesses have duly supported
the prosecution case, hence, the learned trial court has rightly
convicted the appellant and awarded a sentence of 20 years’
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/. It is submitted
that in the present case, the appellant has been awarded sentence
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for a period of 20 years. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
17/40
learned trial court has invoked Section 42 of the POCSO Act and
in the light of the said provision, the higher period of sentence has
been awarded. It is, however, not disputed that vide Amendment
Act 25 of 2019, with effect from 16.08.2019, Section 6 of the
POCSO Act was substituted and in the substituted provision, it has
been provided that the period of imprisonment shall not be less
than a term of 20 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 or with death.
Prior to the substitution of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the
minimum imprisonment was that it shall not be less than a term of
ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Consideration
27. 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, this Court finds that the plea of
the appellant that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the
First Information Report requires consideration. As per the
prosecution case, the occurrence has taken place on 06.04.2019 at
10:00 AM when the victim (niece of the informant) was playing
with the children. The victim (PW-3) has, however, deposed that
she was playing alone. She has stated that the occurrence took
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
18/40
place at 2:30 PM and she was in the house of the accused for only
three minutes.
28. PW-2, who is the mother of the informant, has
claimed that the victim came weeping to her and behind the
victim, the accused also came and gave her Rs. 10/- to take ice-
cream, but in her deposition, PW-3 had not stated so. It has also
come in evidence that the victim had disclosed the occurrence to
PW-2 immediately after reaching her house and PW-2 claimed that
she had seen blood stains on the salwar and both the thighs of the
victim and that the victim was unable to urinate, therefore, PW-2
went to a medicine shop and brought some medicine, whereafter
the victim could urinate. PW-2 has, however, stated in her cross-
examination that she was not aware how many doctors are there in
the village. She has stated that Jaale Referral Hospital is a
government hospital which is at the same distance at which the
police station is situated. She has also stated that the police station
is at a distance of ten minutes and the house of the accused is
situated at a distance of ten steps from her house. There are two
houses in between the house of PW-2 and that of the accused,
Sadir Quraishi. Both the houses are of the brothers of the accused,
but she is not on talking terms with them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
19/40
29. From the evidences available on the record, it is also
clear that on the day when the occurrence took place, one of the
sons of PW-2, namely, Afzal, aged 21 years was present but PW-2
did not ask her son Afzal to go to police station and lodge the case.
Md. Nafees (informant) was in his sasural, which is only at a
distance of 2-4 kilometer and according to PW-2, he was informed
of the occurrence by telephone on the date of occurrence itself. In
paragraph ‘4’ of her deposition, PW-2 has stated that the police
station is at a distance of 10 minutes’ walk from her house but on
the date of occurrence, she had not taken the victim girl to Jaale
police station. It is evident from the statement of the witnesses,
such as PW-2, who had the immediate occasion to see the victim
girl (PW-3), that her conduct is not natural. She did not ask her son
Afzal to go to the police station and her son Md. Nafees was at a
distance of only 4 kilometer from the police station, but he did not
inform the police for four days. PW-2 was having a mobile in her
hand and she claims to have called her son Md. Nafees on the date
of occurrence itself. She was also in touch with Mukhiya,
Sarpanch and Ward Member, despite all these, the victim was not
taken to the police station.
30. This Court further finds from the evidence of PW-6,
Mumtaz Ahmad that Md. Nafees (the informant), who has not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
20/40
been examined in course of trial, had gone to PW-6 with a pre-
written paper and this witness claims that he had copied the same
on a plain paper, whereafter he never met Md. Nafees. PW-6 was a
candidate for the post of Mukhiya and claimed himself a social
worker. He signed the written information as a Katib (deed writer)
and in his cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that Sadir Quraishi
(the appellant) is a good person. This Court finds that the
informant, who has not been examined in course of trial, and his
mother (PW-2) both were in consultation with the Mukhiya
candidate (PW-6) and the Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward Member
who have not been examined. Obviously, the informant and his
mother were in consultation with these people who were
influential at local level, still, the written information, based on
which the present case has been lodged, was submitted after four
days. To this Court, therefore, it appears that there is no prima-
facie plausible reason to explain the delay in lodging of the FIR.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the first version of the prosecution case seems to have been
suppressed. This Court finds force in this submission. In paragraph
‘5’ of her deposition, PW-2 has stated that she had told Mukhiya,
Sarpanch and Ward Member that they would go to the police
station and lodge a case. PW-2 has categorically stated that she had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
21/40
gone to the police station with Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward
Member in the night of the day of the occurrence and then on the
next day to lodge the case and the case was lodged.
32. The I.O. (PW-8) has deposed that he had recorded
the statement of Md. Nafees on 10.04.2019 and he had gone to the
house of the informant during investigation of the case, where the
informant had presented an old yellow colour full trouser on which
there was a blood-like stain, which he had seized in presence of
the two witnesses. He has proved the seizure list (Exhibit ‘P-
6/PW-8’) but in course of his cross-examination, PW-8 has stated
that he had assumed that the cloth given by the informant is the
cloth of the victim. He had not mentioned the length, width, etc. of
the article produced before him so that it may be clear whether it
was the cloth of a child or that of an adult.
33. On analyzing the evidence with regard to the first
version of the prosecution case, it appears to this Court that the
initial version of PW-2, said to have been made in the police
station in presence of Mukhiya, Sarpanch and Ward Member, has
been suppressed by the prosecution. There was no reason for the
informant to contact Mumtaz Ahmad (PW-6) who was a candidate
for the Mukhiya post in past, to go with a written information and
then again, there was no reason as to why PW-6 would rewrite and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
22/40
copy the same on a plain paper, which will be the basis of lodging
of the present case. Mumtaz Ahmad (PW-6) has signed on the
written information as deed writer (katib) which is an unusual
conduct of PW-6.
34. In the written information (Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-8’), it is
written that the cloth of the victim is being produced together with
the application, but the I.O. has stated that a cloth was handed over
to him in course of investigation only. In paragraph ‘18’ of his
deposition, he has categorically stated that the cloth was not made
available to him with the written information/FIR. It is, thus,
evident that at the time of lodging of FIR, the informant and PW-6
both made a wrong and false statement that the cloth of the victim
is being produced with the application. This conduct of the
prosecution is to be considered together with the fact that there had
been an inordinate delay of four days in lodging of the FIR, still,
the cloth of the victim was not handed over to police with the
written information. The fact that I.O. (PW-8) had not given the
complete description of the trouser and the same does not find
mention in the production-cum-seizure list, would further create
doubt over the manner in which the production-cum-seizure list
was prepared much after lodging of the First Information Report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
23/40
35. Afzal (PW-1) is one of the sons of PW-2. He has
deposed that he was in his house when the victim girl came
weeping and told about the wrong act committed by the appellant
with her. He claimed that his mother was also present in the house.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that the victim told the
entire occurrence to his mother and it was his mother who had
given him the information about the occurrence. He has stated that
Sadir Quraishi is 60 years old, his wife is alive, he has one son and
one married daughter. He has one natni. He has stated that he had
asked his mother to lodge a case but his mother had not lodged the
case, the entire society had lodged the case and in that society,
Mumtaz Ahmad, Iqbal Alam, Md. Ibrar, Md. Imran Quraishi,
Rizwan Quraishi, Gulab Quraishi and other people had lodged the
case. The members of the society prepared a paper on which all the
people had put their signature but the present case was not going
on on the basis of the paper prepared by the society. This witness
has further stated that the informant, Mohammad Nafees, is his
elder brother. He has given his fardbeyan before police, whereafter
the case was lodged. He has stated that Sadir Quraishi is a Ward
Member since 2016. From the evidence of PW-1, it is further clear
that his very presence at the time when the victim was telling
about the occurrence to PW-2 is doubtful. He was told about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
24/40
occurrence by his mother. It is further evident that he had asked his
mother to lodge the case, but his mother had not lodged the case.
He has disclosed about the preparation of a document which was
signed by some people but that paper has been withheld by the
prosecution, as according to this witness, the case was not lodged
on that basis. The belief of this Court that the prosecution has
withheld the very first version of the case and that there is no
plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the case, gets
strengthened on perusal of the statement of PW-1.
36. In this case, the I.O. (PW-8) has stated that the
victim was with him from 10.04.2019 to 11.04.2019 and thereafter,
without obtaining any order from the court, he had handed over the
victim to her nani (PW-2) and mama Md. Nafees (informant-not
examined). Thereafter, he had produced the victim in the court on
11.04.2019. On perusal of the trial court’s records, it appears that
on 11.04.2019, the FIR No. 48 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019 was filed
in the court. The I.O. produced the victim girl with a request for
recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Darbhanga deputed Shri Manish
Kumar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darbhanga to record
statement of the victim girl under Section 164 CrPC. The I.O. filed
another petition for medical examination of the victim girl which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
25/40
was allowed and the Superintendent, DMCH, Darbhanga was
directed to get the victim girl medically examined and submit a
medical report at the earliest.
37. What is evident from the order dated 11.04.2019 is
that the leggings/trouser of the victim girl, which has been shown
seized on 10.04.2019 at 17:50 Hrs., was not placed before the
court on 11.04.2019. The material exhibit, i.e., trouser of the
victim girl, was also not produced before the court. In this regard,
the order dated 22.04.2019 recorded by the learned Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Darbhanga would show that the I.O. of the case filed
requisition along with forwarding letter in triplicate and material
exhibits i.e., an old full trouser of yellow colour of victim girl and
prayed for sending the material exhibit to FSL, Muzaffarpur, for its
chemical analysis. The material exhibit was handed over to the
I.O. with the direction to produce FSL report after its chemical
analysis. It is, thus, evident that the production-cum-seizure list is
antedated and ante-timed. A perusal of the same would show that it
does not bear any signature by way of endorsement of the learned
Special Judge showing the date of filing in the court. The order
dated 22.04.2019 does not show that the trouser was produced
before the court in any sealed envelope/bag. The I.O. (PW-8) has
stated that the informant had given him the cloth in an open
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
26/40
polythene and he had not put any seal on the same when the cloth
was handed over to him. PW-8 has further stated that he had
deposited the cloth in the malkhana. It is, thus, evident that the
cloth mentioned in the production-cum-seizure list was kept in an
open polythene and it was not produced in court for about 12 days
from the date of lodging of the FIR. The fact that it was not kept in
any sealed bag having signature of the seizure list witnesses would
prove fatal to the prosecution.
38. The aforesaid evidences are to be examined keeping
in view the stand of the defence that it is a case of false
implication. The appellant was a Ward Member. It has come in
evidence that his daughter (DW-1) was married to Md. Taj as his
second wife. The first wife of Md. Taj is the Mukhiya of the
village of the informant. DW-1 and Md. Taj were not maintaining
good marital relationship and they were fighting litigation which is
evident from the defence exhibits. It is evident that Mukhiya, who
is the first wife of Md. Taj, had gone to the police station with PW-
2 and it has further come in evidence that there had been some
quarrel between the son of PW-2 and Sadir Quraishi over some
transactions. PW-2 has admitted that her sons were running a tea
shop. Her statement that in between her house and that of this
appellant there are two houses of the brothers of the appellant but
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
27/40
she is not on talking terms with them, would further show that the
family of the informant was not maintaining a harmonious
relationship with the appellant’s family. PW-3, who is the victim of
the case, has herself admitted about the quarrel between her
maternal uncle and the appellant over some transactions.
39. The medical examination report (Exhibit ‘P-1/PW-
5’), which has been proved by Dr. Kumari Nisha, does not mention
any sign of sexual act. She has stated on genital examination that
hymen was not intact and genital area was reddish in colour but no
definite opinion can be given about sexual intercourse. She has
further explained that at the time of genital examination of victim,
any sign of injury was not found and according to her statement,
the redness of color of injury remain appear within 6 to 8 hours of
commission of injury.
40. On an analysis of the evidence of the doctor (PW-5)
it would appear that if the occurrence, as alleged, would have
taken place on 06.04.2019, the redness would have been present
within 6 to 8 hours. The fact that the doctor found the genital
reddish in colour after five days of the occurrence as alleged, but
she did not find any sign of injury would further lead this Court to
take a view that the medical report does not suggest commission of
any sexual act upon the victim.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
28/40
41. This Court is conscious of the judicial
pronouncements that a conviction may lie in an appropriate case
on the basis of sole testimony of a child witness but to what extent
a safe reliance may be placed on the testimony of a child witness
has always been a matter of discussion. It would depend upon the
other materials present on the record inspiring confidence in the
court to believe the testimony of the child witness alone for
convicting the accused.
42. In the present case, this Court has noticed the
inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, the influence of Mukhiya,
Sarpanch and Ward Member over the family of the informant, self-
contradicting and vacillating statement of PW-2, no witness at all
on the point of taking away of the victim girl by the accused on the
date and time of occurrence and then we have also seen the
medical examination report together with the deposition of the
doctor. Taking all these materials cumulatively, we are of the
opinion that the deposition of the child witness in this case (PW-3)
is required to be analysed with all circumspection and care. In the
case of Pradeep vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC
3245, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the conviction only
on the testimony of a child witness who does not inspire
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
29/40
confidence is not safe. The relevant paragraph of the judgment
reads as under:
“8. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the
testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of
caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is
easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no
ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court
must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child
witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question
whether there is a possibility of the child witness being
tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child
witness is required to be made by the Court with care and
caution.”
43. It is the prosecution case that the victim (PW-3) was
playing with the children. The informant has stated so in the
written information which is the basis of the FIR, but the
informant has chosen not to appear in course of trial. The victim
(PW-3) has not stated so in paragraph ‘6’ of her deposition. She
has stated that she was playing alone and there was no one else
when she was taken away by the appellant. She gives the exact
time of occurrence as 2:30 PM, whereas the prosecution case is
that the occurrence took place between 10:30-11:00 AM. PW-3 has
stated that she was kept for three minutes in the house by the
accused and from there she had gone to her nani’s (PW-2) place.
She has stated that the place where she was kept by the accused is
at distance from the house of her nani and when she was coming,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
30/40
people had seen her but she had not stated about the occurrence to
anyone.
44. This Court finds that there is no witness at all on the
point that PW-3 was coming to her nani’s house from the place
where she was taken by the accused. Her nani (PW-2) has stated
that when she was in her house then PW-3 came weeping but PW-
3 does not say so. PW-2 has stated that Sadir Quraishi (the
appellant) also came behind the victim girl and gave her Rs. 10/-
to take ice-cream but PW-3 does not say so. The I.O. (PW-8) had
inspected the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of
occurrence is situated at a distance of 50-60 steps (50-60 kadam)
from the house of the informant. It is, therefore, evident that the
statement of PW-3 that the house of her nani is at distance from
the house of the accused is not a correct statement. Nobody has
seen her being taken away, nobody has seen her coming from the
house of the appellant and even as PW-2 says that she came
weeping and was having blood stains on her trouser and thighs,
there is no witness to say that he had seen the victim girl coming
weeping from the house of the appellant. In fact, this Court finds
that in paragraph ‘7’ of her deposition, the victim has clearly stated
that this appellant was purchasing tea and biscuits from the shop
which was being run by her nani and she was engaged in cleaning
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
31/40
of cup plates there. She admits quarrel between the appellant and
her maternal uncle over some transactions. In such circumstance,
chances of false implication of the appellant, who was a Ward
Member and had his own political rivals like PW-6 who had also
contested the election for the post of Mukhiya, cannot be ruled out.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in this case it
would not be safe to rely upon the uncorroborated sole testimony
of PW-3.
45. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has relied upon the presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO
Act. Section 29 of the POCSO Act reads as under:
“29. Presumption as to certain offences.- Where a
person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence under sections 3,
5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall
presume, that such person has committed or abetted
or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may
be, unless the contrary is proved.”
46. This provision has come up for consideration in the
case of Joy vs. State of Kerala reported in (2019) 1 KLT 935,
Veerpal vs. State reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2686,
Subrata Biswas and Another vs. State reported in 2019 SCC
Online Cal 1815 and this Court had occasion to consider the same
in the case of Bachcha Kumar @ Baccha Kumar @ Bachcha
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
32/40
Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 406 of 2022. Paragraph ‘20’ of the judgment in the case
of Veerpal @ Titu reads as under:
“20. Section 29 of POCSO Act provides that Court
shall presume that the accused has committed the
offence for which he is charged with, until contrary
is proved. However, the presumption would operate
only when the prosecution proves the foundational
facts in the context of allegation against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. After the prosecution
establishes the foundational facts, the presumption
raised against the accused can be rebutted by
discrediting the prosecution witnesses through cross-
examination and demonstrating the gaps in
prosecution version or improbability of the incident
or lead defence evidence in order to rebut the
presumption by way of preponderance of
probability.
Keeping the same in perspective, the prosecution in
the first instance is required to establish the
foundational fact that the incident, as alleged, was
conveyed by the victim to her dadi (grandmother) on
16.09.2016 (i.e. the day of lodging of FIR).
However, the evidence and statements during
investigation, as discussed above, reflect different
dates of alleged communication of the incident,
which throws a doubt on the prosecution version. In
view of above, in absence of foundational fact not
being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reliance
placed upon presumption under Section 29 & 30 of
POCSO Act by learned Trial Court to base
conviction, appears to be misplaced. Taking in the
alternative, even if the foundational facts are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
33/40
considered to be proved, to make the presumption
under Section 29 of POCSO Act, the same stands
discredited by way of discrepancies brought in
cross-examination of the victim, PW3 and witnesses
examined in defence.
The presumption of guilt under Section 29 & 30 of
POCSO Act taken by the learned Trial Court could
not be an edifice to convict the appellant since
testimony of victim is unreliable and there are
serious flaws and gaps in the prosecution case. As a
wrongful acquittal shakes the confidence of people,
a wrongful conviction is far worse. A child abuser in
the eventuality of false implication even continues to
suffer a blot of social stigma which is much more
painful than the rigours of a trial and imprisonment.
Prosecution case is marred by inadequacies and
contradictions which strike to the root of prosecution
case and, as such, prosecution has failed to bring
home the charge against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
For the foregoing reasons, appeal is allowed and the
judgment and order on sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is
acquitted and be released forthwith, if not required
in any other case. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Jail
Superintendent and the learned Trial Court for
information and compliance. A copy be also
provided to the appellant, free of cost.”
47. In the case of Subrata Biswas (supra), the Hon’ble
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has discussed the scope of
statutory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
34/40
Paragraph ‘22’ and ‘23’ of the judgment in the case of Subrata
Biswas (supra) are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“22. The statutory presumption applies when a
person is prosecuted for committing offence under
Sections 5 and 9 of the Act and a reverse burden is
imposed on the accused to prove the contrary. The
word “is prosecuted” in the aforesaid provision does
not mean that the prosecution has no role to play in
establishing and/or probablising primary facts
constituting the offence. If that were so then the
prosecution would be absolved of the responsibility
of leading any evidence whatsoever and the Court
would be required to call upon the accused to
disprove a case without the prosecution laying the
firm contours thereof by leading reliable and
admissible evidence. Such an interpretation not only
leads to absurdity but renders the aforesaid
provision constitutionally suspect. A proper
interpretation of the said provision is that in a case
where the person is prosecuted under Section 5 and
9 of the Act (as in the present case) the prosecution
is absolved of the responsibility of proving its case
beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, it is only
required to lead evidence to establish the ingredients
of the offence on a preponderance of probability.
Upon laying the foundation of its case by leading
cogent and reliable evidence (which does not fall
foul of patent absurdities or inherent probabilities)
the onus shifts upon the accused to prove the
contrary. Judging the evidence in the present case
from that perspective, I am constrained to hold that
the version of the victim (PW-1) and her mother
(PW-2) with regard to twin incidents of 24th March,
2016 and 18th April, 2016 if taken as whole, do not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
35/40
inspire confidence and runs contrary to normal
human conduct in the backdrop of the broad
probabilities of the present case.
23. Hence, I am of the opinion that the evidence led
by the prosecution to establish the primary facts
suffer from inherent contradictions and patent
improbabilities particularly the inexplicable conduct
of the victim herself. One part of the prosecution
case improbabilises the other part to such an extent
that no man of reasonable prudence would accept
the version as coming from the witnesses. Hence, I
am of the opinion that the factual matrix of the case
does not call for invocation of the aforesaid
statutory presumption so as to convict the appellant
on the charges levelled against him.”
48. The same views have been expressed by the Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in the case of Joy (supra).
49. This Court has discussed these provisions in the case
of Heera Das Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2025 (2) BLJ
517 and again in the case of Bachcha Kumar @ Baccha Kumar
@ Bachcha Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 406 of 2022.
50. While discussing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, this
Court cannot lose sight of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramanand vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR
2022 (SC) 5273. Paragraph ‘99’ and ‘101’ of the judgment in case
of Ramanand (supra) read as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
36/40
“99. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in
proving a preponderance of probability in favour of
his case. It is not necessary for the accused person
to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in
default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of
proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his
case by a preponderance of probability. In American
Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol. 30, the expression
“preponderance of evidence” has been defined in
Article 1164. In America the term means “the
weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side, and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term greater weight of the
evidence”, or “greater weight of the credible
evidence”. It is a phrase which, in the last analysis,
means probability of the truth. To be satisfied,
certain, or convinced is a much higher test than the
test of “preponderance of evidence”. The phrase
“preponderance of probability” appears to have
been taken from Charles R. Cooper v. F.W. Slade,
(1857-59) 6 HLC 746. The observations made
therein make it clear that what “preponderance of
probability” means “more probable and rational
view of the case”, not necessarily as certain as the
pleading should be.
101. The inalienable interface of presumption of
innocence and the burden of proof in a criminal
case on the prosecution has been succinctly
expounded in the following passage from the
treatise The Law of Evidence, 5th Edn. by Ian
Dennis at page 445:
“The presumption of innocence states that a person
is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In
one sense this simply restates in different language
the rule that the burden of proof in a criminal case is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
37/40
on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt. As
explained above, the burden of proof rule has a
number of functions, one of which is to provide a
rule of decision for the fact-finder in a situation of
uncertainty. Another function is to allocate the risk
of mis-decision in criminal trials. Because the
outcome of wrongful conviction is regarded as a
significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal
the rule is constructed so as to minimise the risk of
the former. The burden of overcoming a
presumption that the defendant is innocent therefore
requires the State to prove the defendant's guilt.”
[Emphasis supplied]
51. In this case, this Court has already recorded that
there is not only an inordinate and unexplained delay of four days
in lodging of the FIR, it is a case in which the prosecution has
suppressed the first version of the prosecution case.
52. On a complete analysis of the entire materials on the
record, we are of the considered opinion that not only the
prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts such as
that the victim was taken away by the appellant on the date and
time suggested by the prosecution, the defence in this case has
been able to create doubt over the prosecution story. We have
discussed the defence case which have been sought to be placed
before this Court by producing two defence witnesses and the
documentary evidences. The defence witnesses are to be given
equal weightage. In case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri vs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
38/40
State of Gujarat reported in (2014) 7 SCC 716, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in paragraph ‘219’ and ‘220’ as under:-
“219. It has been held by this Court in a catena of
cases that while examining the witnesses on
record, equal weightage shall be given to the
defence witnesses as that of the prosecution
witnesses. In Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar 35 this
Court held as under: (SCC p. 356, para 3)
“3. … Before drawing the curtain on this
score, however, we wish to clarify that the
evidence tendered by the defence witnesses
cannot always be termed to be a tainted one
by reason of the factum of the witnesses being
examined by the defence. The defence
witnesses are entitled to equal respect and
treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue
of credibility and the trustworthiness ought
also to be attributed to the defence witnesses
on a par with that of the prosecution — a
lapse on the part of the defence witnesses
cannot be differentiated and be treated
differently than that of the prosecutors’
witnesses.
220. Further, it has been held in State of Haryana v.
Ram Singh75 as under: (SCC p. 439, para 19)
“19. … Incidentally, be it noted that the
evidence tendered by defence witnesses
cannot always be termed to be a tainted one
— the defence witnesses are entitled to
equal treatment and equal respect as that of
the prosecution. The issue of credibility and
the trustworthiness ought also to be
35. (2002) 1 SCC 351 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 175
75 (2002) 2 SCC 426 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 350
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
39/40
attributed to the defence witnesses on a par
with that of the prosecution. Rejection of the
defence case on the basis of the evidence
tendered by the defence witness has been
effected rather casually by the High Court.
Suggestion was there to the prosecution
witnesses, in particular PW 10 Dholu Ram
that his father Manphool was missing for
about 2/3 days prior to the day of the
occurrence itself—what more is expected of
the defence case: a doubt or a certainty—
jurisprudentially a doubt would be enough:
when such a suggestion has been made the
prosecution has to bring on record the
availability of the deceased during those 2/3
days with some independent evidence.
Rejection of the defence case only by reason
thereof is far too strict and rigid a
requirement for the defence to meet — it is
the prosecutor's duty to prove beyond all
reasonable doubts and not the defence to
prove its innocence — this itself is a
circumstance, which cannot but be termed to
be suspicious in nature.”
53. In ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that the
learned trial court has erred in appreciation of the evidences
available on the record. The conviction of the appellant cannot be
sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
order of the learned trial court. The appellant shall be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
54. This appeal is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.800 of 2023 dt.-19-06-2026
40/40
55. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
courts’ record be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
I agree.
SUSHMA2/Rishi- (Soni Shrivastava, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 12.05.2026
Uploading Date 19.06.2026
Transmission Date 19.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.