Case Name: SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI VERSUS HARE RAM SAH & ORS
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024
Date: Monday, the First Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five
Quorum: Shri Justice SANJAY KUMAR and Shri Justice SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Facts
The case began when the appellant, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, reported the molestation of his minor daughter, who was between 12 to 15 years old, by the respondents, Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, following Holi, 2016.
The victim was found to be pregnant (15–16 weeks along) when she was taken for medical help in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.
An FIR was registered on 2 July 2016, and it was discovered during the investigation that the respondents had threatened the victim to keep quiet. The victim subsequently had a medically supervised abortion with the State Legal Services Authority’s consent.
The Trial Court relied upon the victim’s testimony, along with the girl’s school records establishing her age & the medical materials and established evidence to support a conviction.
The trial court convicted the respondents based upon Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Patna High Court acquitted the respondents based upon their doubts regarding the age of the girl, discrepancies regarding dates, the delay of FIR, questions regarding the pregnancy and abortion, and procedural inconsistencies regarding the charges against and the joint trials of the two accused.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court restored the conviction, determining that the High Court was wrong in the doubtful inconsistencies found being reasonable doubt, and that procedural issues did not prejudice the accused.
Issues
Was the acquittal of the appellant by the Patna High Court due to what were labelled minor discrepancies, the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), doubts about the age of the victim and her reported pregnancy, and the procedural irregularities in charges and joint trial, warranted, or should the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act be restored?
Legal Provisions Involved
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Section 376(2) – Punishment for rape, where rape is committed in aggravated circumstances (in this case, against a minor).
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)
Section 4 – Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
Section 6 – Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (provides for rigorous punishments for life)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
Section 223 – Joint trial of several persons (raised by High Court regarding irregular joint trial)
Section 464 – Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in charge (SC held that minor error will not vitiate trial unless prejudice caused)
Arguments
Petitioner
The appellant (the father of the victim) contended that the Patna High Court incorrectly overturned a documented conviction that was well reasoned by the Trial Court.
He stated that the victim’s statement under 164 CrPC, the school certificates, and the medical records established that the victim was clearly a minor at the time of the offence and that she had become pregnant as a result of repeated acts perpetrated against her.
The appellant contended that the High Court erred by amplifying inconsequential discrepancies regarding dates, whether the delay in lodging the FIR prejudiced the appellants, and whether it is unethical for a Judge to legally err on framing a charge, and whether it is unethical or illegal for Judges to conduct a joint trial without authority to do so.
The appellant also stated that the delay in lodging the FIR was a natural occurrence as the crime only unfolded when the pregnancy was discovered, and that the ultrasound report and the discharge certificate from the hospital which said that the victim was pregnant and had undergone an abortion.
The appellant stressed that it is the law that in cases of POCSO the testimony of the child victim is sufficient to make an order or conviction if the testimony is credible. The appellant urged the Supreme Court to restore the conviction against the defendant pursuant to s.376(2) IPC and s.4 and s.6 of the POCSO Act.
Respondent
The respondents argued that the prosecution didn’t prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court was correct in acquitting the respondents.
They submitted that the prosecution’s version had serious inconsistencies because there was no specific time and date the alleged assaults took place, nor were there inconsistencies in the victim’s version.
The respondents questioned the finding of the victim’s age and said that the school records were unreliable and that there was not any medical evidence to support minority.
The accused contended that the alleged pregnancy and abortion were not evidenced when the hospital records were not complete and there was no independent corroboration on the issue. They also sought to emphasize the delay in filing the FIR, which they argued pointed to fabrication and an afterthought.
The accused contended that fatal procedural irregularities took place during the trial, including defects in framing charges and the joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, which amounted to a vitiating factor in the conviction. On such grounds, the accused applied for confirmation of the High Court’s acquittal.
Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that in cases of sexual offences, the testimony of the victim is enough to convict if her testimony is credible. It ruled that school records and clinical reports are valid items of proof of age (Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2013) and that minor inconsistencies or delay in FIR will not defeat justice (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, 2001).
The Court further held that mistakes in framing charges would not invalidate the trial, unless it caused a prejudice, citing Willie Slaney v. State of M.P.(1956).
Judgement
The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal by Patna High Court and restored the conviction of the respondents under Section 376(2) IPC and sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, with life imprisonment, as well as the fines. It ordered the accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Respondents would be taken into custody.
Conclusion
The Court reaffirmed that child victims’ testimony should be afforded significant weight, substantive justice should not be forfeited because of procedural glitches, and the courts should not casually acquit accused parties in POCSO cases. Overall, the judgment underscored that, considering often crushing circumstances, the objective to protect victims and ensure justice takes precedence over unnecessary and nitpicky objections.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more
than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Anwesha Anant
