Patna High Court

Shankar HarijanversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The conviction under Section 376 IPC is set aside as the prosecution evidence was not sufficiently corroborated and the victim was not a sterling witness.

Summary

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court for rape under Section 376 IPC based primarily on the victim's testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the prosecution's evidence, noting that key witnesses named in the FIR were not produced, two prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and the investigating officer was not examined. The victim's statements showed inconsistencies, and the medical report failed to corroborate any injuries or recent sexual intercourse. The Court held that the victim was not a sterling witness and that the prosecution's case lacked necessary corroboration. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the victim's testimony as a sole basis for conviction under Section 376 IPC
Whether the lack of medical corroboration defeats the prosecution's case
The impact of hostile witnesses and non-production of material witnesses on the conviction
The effect of the appellant's prior land dispute with the victim on her credibility
The failure to examine the investigating officer and its implications for a fair trial

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 311, 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 376

Subjects

rape
Section 376 IPC
hostile witnesses
medical evidence
corroboration
appeal
conviction set aside
land dispute
CrPC

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.312 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2012 Thana- SANOKHAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Shankar Harijan, son of Late Sakuni Harijan, resident of village - Choti Naki,
Police Station - Sonakhar, District - Bhagalpur

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Sweety Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Kshem Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Kshboo Kumari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 19-02-2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the

judgement of conviction dated 22.05.2014 and order of sentence

dated 27.05.2014 passed by the court of learned Adhoc

Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur, in Sessions

Trial No. 1245 of 2012/Tr. No. 09 of 2013 (arising out of

Sanokhar P. S. Case No. 29 of 2012), whereby and whereunder

the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of the fine,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
2/12

he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months separately.

Prosecution Story:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

informant, XXX, presented a written application before the

Officer-in-Charge of Sanokhar police station stating therein that

her husband, who is a handicapped person, had gone to Aligarh

to work as a labourer. On 04.05.2012 at about 3 P.M., she went

towards the Maina River to gather cow dung for fuel (Jalawan)

and while doing so, Shankar Harijan (appellant) came from

behind her, caught her arms, knocked her down on the ground,

and committed an illegal act with her. She further alleged that

on her alarm, her co-villagers, namely, Bishnu Harijan, Pagga

Harijan, Chandan Harijan, and Chhotu Harijan, came there, and

on seeing them, the appellant fled towards the village.

Thereafter, she reached home and informed her gotnis, namely,

Poonam Devi, Pinki Devi, and Sushila Devi, as well as her

bhaishur, Upendra Harijan, about the incident. She further stated

in her application that due to a Panchayati in the village, there

was some delay in lodging the case at the police station.

3. The informant recorded his fardbeyan on

05.05.2012 at about 02:30 P.M. at Sanokhar Police Station and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
3/12

detailed the above-mentioned incident. Upon that basis, the

formal FIR bearing Sanokhar P.S. Case No. 29 of 2012 was

registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the

IPC, which set the criminal law in motion.

4. After completion of the investigation, the

appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under

section 376 of the IPC.

5. After cognizance of the alleged offence, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bhagalpur, committed the

case of the appellant to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur,

for trial. The appellant Shankar Harijan stood charged for the

offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The said charge was read

over and explained in Hindi to the appellant by the trial court, to

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined

altogether six witnesses who are as under :-

PW-1 Bishnu Harijan Co-villager of the victim (hostile witness)
PW-2 Chandan Das Co-villager of the victim (hostile witness)
PW-3 Raju Das Co-villager of the victim (hostile witness)
PW-4 XXX The informant (victim)
PW-5 Basudeo The police officer who submitted the
Kumar chargesheet
PW-6 Dr. Anupma The medical officer who examined the victim
Sahay

7. In addition to the above mentioned ocular
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
4/12

evidence, the prosecution proved and exhibited the following

documents in documentary evidence :-

Ext-1 The signature of the victim on the statement recorded
under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Ext-2 The signature of the victim on the written application
Ext-3 Medical examination report of the victim in the writing
and signature of the medical officer.

8. After the completion of the prosecution

evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,

‘Cr.P.C.’) by the trial court. The appellant denied the material

circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution

evidence and stated that he would produce the defence

witnesses while recording his statement.

9. In defence, the appellant produced and examined

altogether three witnesses as defence witness, who are as

under :-

DW-1 Shankar Jha
DW-2 Jageshwar Das
DW-3 Prakash Harijan

10. While convicting the appellant for the offence

under Section 376 of the IPC, the learned trial court mainly

placed reliance upon the testimony of the victim (PW-4).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
5/12

Submissions on behalf of the appellant :-

11. Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant, submits that in the FIR the victim stated that on the

alleged day and time, she went towards the Maina river to

collect cow dung and at that time the accused/appellant came

from behind and caught hold of her, pushed her down, and

committed rape with her, however, before the trial court she

deposed that the said occurrence took place near a graveyard.

According to the victim, the prosecution witnesses PW-1 and

PW-2 reached the place of occurrence upon hearing her cry and,

upon seeing them, the accused/appellant fled away but the said

story was not supported by PW-1 and PW-2 before the trial

court, and they turned hostile.

12. Learned counsel further submits that as per

prosecution the alleged occurrence took place on 04.05.2012,

and it was deposed by the victim before the trial court that

during the occurrence of sexual assault, she sustained some

injuries on her body; however, no supporting injury was found

by the medical expert, despite the victim being examined on

06.05.2012. Hence, there is no corroboration of the victim’s

allegation from the medical evidence.

13. Learned counsel further submits that there are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
6/12

serious contradictions between the victim’s statements recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and

the statements made by her before the trial court in her

evidence. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer,

who conducted the major part of the investigation, was not

produced by the prosecution before the trial court, which

seriously prejudiced the appellant’s defence. Lastly, it is

submitted that, in fact, there was a land dispute between the

appellant and the victim’s family regarding the passage and a

drain, which had been continuing since before the registration of

the FIR and in this regard, sufficient evidence was adduced in

defence by examining the independent witnesses.

Submissions on behalf of the State :-

14. On the other hand, Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that the

victim fully supported her allegations before the trial court in

her evidence, and a mere past strained relationship owing to the

land dispute, as stated by the appellant’s counsel, which mainly

came to light in the defence evidence, cannot be a ground to

completely discard the victim’s allegation. The victim was

overpowered by the appellant from behind; therefore, there was

no possibility of her sustaining any injury from the sexual
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
7/12

assault of the appellant.

Consideration and analysis :-

15. I have heard both sides, perused the evidence

adduced by both sides available on the record of the trial court,

and also taken into consideration the appellant’s statement

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as well as the findings

given by the trial court in the impugned judgment.

16. As per the prosecution story narrated by the

victim herself in her FIR, when the alleged occurrence of sexual

assault was committed by the appellant upon her, her co-

villagers, namely, Bishnu Harijan, Paggo Harijan, Chandan

Harijan and Chhotu Harijan, rushed to the place of occurrence

upon hearing her cry; upon seeing the said villagers, the

accused/appellant fled towards the village. In respect of this part

of the alleged incident, the evidence of the said co-villagers was

very important; however, out of them, only two persons, namely

Bishnu Harijan and Chandan Das, were produced and examined

as PW-1 and PW-2 by the prosecution, and they turned hostile.

Surprisingly, the Investigating Officer did not cite Paggo

Harijan and Chhotu Harijan as prosecution witnesses in the

chargesheet; moreover, the prosecution did not take any steps to

produce and examine them with the help of the provisions of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
8/12

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which goes against the prosecution.

The victim further stated in her FIR that when the

accused/appellant fled upon seeing her co-villagers, she returned

home and informed her gotani, namely Poonam Devi, Pinki

Devi, and Sushila Devi, and her bhaisur, Upendra Harijan, about

the said incident. The prosecution failed to produce any of these

relatives of the informant as prosecution witnesses, whose

evidence was relevant to the prosecution story. In this regard,

there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution, and even

the Investigating Officer did not cite them as prosecution

witnesses in the chargesheet.

17. The victim’s statement was initially recorded

under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2012 after the

registration of the FIR, and her signature on the said statement

has been marked as Exhibit-1. In the said statement, the victim

stated that on the alleged day and time of the occurrence, she

went outside to collect cow dung and did not see the appellant.

She later stated that the appellant firstly forcefully pulled her,

then pushed her down, and started doing wrong with her; she

then cried and upon seeing people, the appellant left her and fled

away. The victim remained silent regarding the names of her co-

villagers in her statement. She further stated that the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
9/12

had been teasing her for the past 2–3 years and was pressurizing

her to accompany him. However, before the trial court, no such

allegation was levelled by the victim in her evidence.

18. Now, I come to the victim’s court evidence. She

was examined as PW-4. Though in her examination-in-chief,

she supported the story described in her FIR and also proved the

FIR and her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,

and also gave details of the names of her co-villagers who

arrived at the place of occurrence upon hearing her cry, as

discussed above, but none of them except two were produced,

and those examined co-villagers turned hostile. In her cross-

examination, the victim stated that 2 to 3 years prior to the

alleged occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between her and

the appellant. Regarding that incident, a panchayati meeting was

also held in which the panches delivered their decision, and the

appellant was let off; however, the dispute between them

continued. From these statements, it is evident that there were

strained relations between the appellant and the victim at the

time of the alleged occurrence; therefore, in such a situation,

there must be some corroborative evidence to support the

allegations of the victim, as she does not appear to be a sterling

witness in the present matter. The victim further deposed in her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
10/12

cross-examination that she went to the doctor after sustaining

bodily injuries and showed the same to the doctor; however, this

fact is not corroborated by the victim’s medical examination

report (Exhibit-3). In this regard, the evidence of PW-6 (the

doctor) is also important, who found no injury on the external or

internal parts of the victim’s body and opined that no evidence

of recent sexual intercourse was found. Thus, the allegation

made by the victim is not corroborated by the medical evidence,

particularly in view of her own statement that she sustained

injuries during the alleged occurrence. It is also important to

mention that in paragraph 5 of her cross-examination, the victim

deposed that a quarrel took place between her and the appellant

and that she lodged the case the very next day. This statement

suggests mala fide intention on the part of the victim in lodging

the case.

19. In the present matter, the prosecution did not

examine the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Jeevan Kishore

Nayak, who conducted the major part of the investigation. It

was deposed by PW-4 (the victim) that the clothes worn by her

at the time of the incident were given to the police. However,

the victim’s clothes were not produced before the trial court, and

to explain the reason for their non-production, the evidence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
11/12

the Investigating Officer was very important; the same remained

unexplained due to his non-examination.

20. As far as the appellant’s defence regarding a

land dispute between the appellant and the victim, which had

been continuing since before the alleged occurrence as stated is

concerned, the evidence given by the defence witnesses (DW-1,

DW-2, and DW-3) is relevant, and all the said witnesses

remained consistent in supporting the appellant’s defence.

Conclusion :-

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

emerging from the prosecution evidences, as discussed above,

the victim does not appear to be a sterling witness mainly in

light of her past enmity with the appellant running since prior to

the registration of the FIR, further due to non-corroboration of

her allegation by medical evidence despite her statement that

she sustained injuries during sexual assault and owing to non-

examination of material witnesses named in the FIR, this Court

is not persuaded to affirm the conviction of the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and the

learned trial court committed an error in appreciating the

evidence of the victim while holding the appellant guilty.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2014
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.312 of 2014 dt.19-02-2026
12/12

convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and the

order dated 27.05.2014 sentencing him for the said offence are

hereby set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

22. The appellant is on bail; accordingly, he and his

sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their respective

bail bonds.

23. Let the records of the trial court, along with a

copy of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court

for needful and necessary compliance.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

Annu/BKS-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date 20.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…