Sita Ram Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 05.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO, Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in POCSO Case No. 16 of 2017 arising out of Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 109 of 2017.

By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and vide impugned order dated 05.08.2020, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the victim’s mother recorded by S.I. Meera Kumari at Post Operative Ward, Bed No.5, ANMMH Gaya on 16.02.2017 at 10:30 AM. In her fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘3’) the victim’s mother (PW-6) has alleged that on 15.02.2017, her daughter (X) came home from school and went to play with some of her friends in Tola Sevak School near her house. It is further alleged that at around 6:00 PM, Sita Ram Manjhi arrived near Tola Sevak School and gave her daughter money to bring Sir Gold (gutkha). Her daughter brought and gave him the gutkha. Thereafter, Sita Ram Manjhi gave informant’s daughter a chocolate and by alluring her, took her to the edge of the pyne (water body) and committed rape. The informant further alleged that her daughter returned home crying and disclosed everything about the incident. At that time, some boys of the neighbourhood informed that Sita Ram Manjhi had come to the school. There was blood on her daughter’s clothes. After this, the informant along with her son went to Bangal Bigaha, whereupon seeing Sita Ram Manjhi, they tried to catch him but he fled towards the river. After this, on 15.02.2017 at 9:30 PM, the informant along with the victim went to the police station from where the police admitted the victim to Magadh Medical for treatment.

On the basis of this written application, FIR being Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 109 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 was registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against Sita Ram Manjhi. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 228 of 2017 dated 15.05.2017 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant Sita Ram Manjhi. Learned trial court vide order dated 01.07.2017 took cognizance of the offences punishable under above-mentioned Sections against the appellant Sita Ram Manjhi.

Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.2017 charges were framed under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant Sita Ram Manjhi.

In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are given hereunder in tabular form:-

Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) in which he took a plea that he is innocent.

Learned trial court, after analysing the evidences on record, found that the rape was committed on the victim by the accused Sita Ram Manjhi. Learned trial court found that the victim in her 164 CrPC statement identified the appellant who had committed filthy act with her. Learned trial court further found that the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy on the point of identification of the accused as there is no reason and ground before the court about false implication of the accused in the matter.

Learned trial court further found that Ramji Manjhi (PW-4), who is co-villager of the informant, has stated in paragraph ‘3’ of his deposition that he had seen the accused Sita Ram Manjhi standing near the victim when she was playing in the school. Learned trial court found that the informant (PW-6) in paragraph ‘8’ of her deposition has stated that the accused Sita Ram Manjhi had run away when she went to search him in the house. The act of running away shows the conduct of the accused.

Learned trial court also found that the medical examination report (Exhibit ‘2’) and FSL report (Exhibit ‘6’ and ‘6/A’) proved that the rape was committed on the victim on the date of occurrence.

Learned trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the prosecution has proved it’s case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. He has also pointed out that there is no evidence to connect the appellant to the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that the statements of the father, mother and aunt of the victim do not corroborate with each other, this creates doubt in the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that there is no eye witness to the occurrence which makes it very convenient for the prosecution to fabricate a false story.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that PW-2 in paragraph ‘3’ has stated that the victim girl came back by herself from the field, which is contradictory to the statement of PW-1 in paragraph ‘1’ The counsel argued that this makes her an unreliable witness.

Learned counsel has further argued that the victim is merely 6-7 years of age and at such an innocent age, the parents can very well tutor her to give false statements against the appellant, the chances of tutoring the child is very high and cannot be denied. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the place of occurrence has not been verified.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the appeal. It is submitted that learned trial court has examined the evidences available on the record meticulously and found the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order need no interference of this Court.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the foundational facts are proved against the appellant and the appellant has failed to prove as to why the victim or her family would falsely implicate him.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the medical evidence is corroborative to the story narrated by the victim and her family.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the age of the victim in the medical examination has been assessed between 6-7 years which makes her a minor.

Learned counsel for the informant has endorsed the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant 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 prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the victim’s mother recorded by S.I. Meera Kumari at Part Operative Ward, Bed No.5, ANMMH Gaya on 16.02.2017 at 10:30 AM. In her fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘3’), the victim’s mother (PW-6) has alleged that on 15.02.2017, her daughter (X) aged about 6 years, had gone to play with her friends in Tola Sevak School where Sita Ram Manjhi (the appellant) came at about 6:00 PM and asked her daughter to bring Sir Gold gutkha, he gave her some money, whereafter, her daughter brought the gutkha and it is alleged that Sita Ram Manjhi (the appellant) allured her daughter by giving a chocolate and took her towards the bank of the pyne (a water body) where he committed rape on her. The informant (PW-6) alleged that her daughter (X) returned home weeping and told her the entire story, whereafter, some boys of the mohalla informed that Sita Ram Manjhi had come. The informant further said that her daughter’s clothes were soaked with blood. The victim came to Bangal Bigaha with her son and tried to caught hold of Sita Ram Manjhi, but he fled away towards the river. The informant brought her daughter (X) to the police station, from where the police got admitted the victim in Magadh Medical.

In course of trial, PW-6 has supported the prosecution case. She has stated that when her daughter returned, she was bleeding from her private part. She has also stated that the appellant had committed rape and when she had gone in search of the appellant to his house, he was not found there. PW-6 has stated that she identifies Sita Ram Manjhi, who was present in the court.

In her cross-examination, the informant (PW-6) has stated that her daughter had come alone weeping to her house, she had seen blood on the leg of her daughter. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that her daughter was only weeping. She could not tell anything then she was taken to hospital. She has stated that her fardbeyan was recorded by a madam but she was not read over the matter written on that. She had proved her thumb impression on her statement. She has stated that along with her villagers, namely, Malo Devi, Gaina Manjhi and Prakash Manji had gone to the police station.

The defence cross-examined the informant (PW-6) by suggesting that no occurrence had taken place with her daughter as she suffered some injuries at the time of playing sports. The witness denied the suggestion. Then the defence suggested this witness that the accused had not committed rape on her daughter and she had deposed falsely in a false case but both the suggestions have been denied by the informant (PW-6). We find that the informant (PW-6) is an illiterate lady. She has given her thumb impression on the fardbeyan as well as on her deposition sheets.

The I.O. (PW-10) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the basis of the statement, Meera Kumari had written and signed the fardbeyan, which he identified as Exhibit ‘3’. The I.O. has also proved the signature present on the formal endorsement on the F.I.R. signed by Munshi Vivekanand, signed by the Officer-in-Charge Naresh Kumar which has been marked Exhibit ‘4’. This I.O. (PW-10) had seized the blood-stained cloth (frock) of the victim and had prepared the production-cum-seizure list in his own pen, which he had proved as Exhibit ‘5’. PW-10 had sent the seized exhibit to Patna Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. He had taken the victim for medical examination and got her statement recorded in the court. He had also recorded the statement of the father of the victim, who had disclosed the age of the victim as 6 years. PW-10 had inspected the place of occurrence and has given the description of the same.

In his cross-examination, the I.O. (PW-10) has stated that he had completed investigation of this case within three months. He had sent the seized articles to FSL Patna for examination. He had got recorded the statement of the victim in court after 16 days of the occurrence. He was not made available any document relating to age of the victim and as disclosed by the victim, he had recorded her age as 6 years. This witness was suggested by the defence that his investigation was defective and he had only done the table work, which this witness denied.

It is evident from the pattern of the cross-examination of PW-6 as well as PW-10 that the defence has not questioned the age of the victim. No issue has been raised with regard to the age. In fact, the evidence of Dr. Shakuntala Nag (PW-9) would show that the victim was examined by this doctor on 02.03.2017 at 10:40 AM. She was brought there by the I.O. (PW-10) and her mother (PW-6) with the Chaukidarin Usha Devi. The doctor conducted the general examination and found as under:-

It is evident from the deposition of the doctor (PW-9) that the victim had only 6+6/6+5 teeth. There is no iota of doubt from the evidences available on the record that the victim was aged between 6–07 years. Although the doctor (PW-9) concluded that there was no sign or symptom of present intercourse, but at the same time, the doctor found sign of inflammation present around vaginal introitus and slight laceration of hymen. It was said that it indicates that there might be some old injury. This evidence of the doctor (PW-9) is to be considered together with the FSL report (Exhibit ‘6’ and Exhibit ‘6/A’) which are as under:-

Now we come to the evidence of the victim who has been examined as PW-8. She is a child witness. The learned trial court has tested the competence of the witness to depose in course of trial to depose truly.

On perusal of the evidence of the victim (PW-8), it appears that the victim identified the accused in the court and clearly stated that the accused had committed dirty act with her. The victim (PW-8) has narrated the occurrence which had taken place that day. She has taken the name of the children who were playing with her and one elder person was also present there, who had asked the name of the accused, because of which the victim could know the name of the accused. The defence suggested the victim (PW-8) in a different manner. This time, the suggestion was given that there was an enmity between the father of the victim with the accused, it is for this reason, mother of the victim had lodged this false case against the appellant. The victim (PW-8) denied the suggestion and also denied further suggestion that the appellant had not committed any wrong act with her.

On perusal of the evidence of informant (PW-6) and that of the victim (PW-8), we find that the pattern of cross-examination on behalf of the defence is completely different. Perhaps the defence was not certain about its own case. While the mother was suggested that no such occurrence had taken place with her daughter and she had suffered injuries in course of playing the sports, no suggestion was given to PW-6 that there was any enmity between the father of the victim and the appellant. There was no suggestion that because of the enmity, PW-6 had falsely implicated this appellant. Therefore, when PW-6 was in the dock, no such suggestion was given to her.

We have noticed from the evidences available on the record that there may be minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the father and mother of the victim on the point of how the victim returned home, but in our considered opinion, these discrepancies are totally immaterial and would not have any significant effect on the prosecution case. One independent witness, namely, Ramji Manjhi (PW-4) has stated in paragraph ‘3’ of his deposition that on the date of occurrence, he had seen the victim girl playing near the school and he has also stated that at the same place, the accused was also standing. The defence did not suggest this witness that on the date of occurrence, the accused-appellant had not gone near the school where the victim was playing. Therefore, there is no suggestion even by way of whisper that the accused was not there. In fact, when we look at the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it may be easily found that the accused has not made any statement that there was any enmity between the father of the victim and the appellant and for that reason, he has been falsely implicated.

Going by the entire evidences available on the record, we find that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act gets fully attracted in the facts of the present case. The victim is minor. She has identified the appellant in the courtroom as the perpetrator of crime. In her medical examination and FSL report, the allegation of commission of rape is getting corroborated. Therefore, once the foundational facts are available on the record and Section 29 of the POCSO Act is attracted, the burden would shift upon the accused to prove his innocence, though by preponderance of possibility.

We are of the considered opinion that in this case, the appellant is not able to create any dent in the prosecution case. The credibility of the victim girl (PW-8) remains intact. Her testimony is getting corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of her mother (PW-6), the doctor (PW-9) and the I.O. (PW-10). No case for interference with the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court is made out.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the sentence awarded by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has directed that the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. No sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 376 IPC in the light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the appellant is correct in pointing out that Section 6 of the POCSO Act was amended vide Amendment Act No. 25 of 2019 with effect from 16.08.2019, whereunder the minimum imprisonment provided is 20 years. Prior to its amendment, Section 6 of the POCSO Act read as under:-

Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court seems to have committed a mistake in awarding 20 years rigorous imprisonment. Perhaps, the learned trial court could not take notice of the date of occurrence in this case, which was of 15.02.2017. In such circumstance, the amended penal proviso would not have applied in the case of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant in this case was aged about 25 years at the time of occurrence. He comes from a very poor financial background and for that reason, he was unable to engage a lawyer of his choice. He was provided legal aid in course of trial, but that did not help him, as it would appear from the pattern of cross-examination itself that many important questions were not put to the witnesses. It is submitted that taking note of the age of the appellant and that he may still reform and join the mainstream, this Court may consider imposing appropriate sentence in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State do not dispute this legal position.

Having regard to the entire submissions noted hereinabove and upon finding that on 15.02.2017, i.e. the date of occurrence, Section 6 of the POCSO Act provided for a minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, we are of the opinion that a sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant would be appropriate. It will also give him an opportunity to return to the mainstream of life and assimilate with the civilized society. We, therefore, modify the sentence awarded to the appellant. The appellant shall undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence committed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

This appeal is partly allowed.

Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial court’s records be sent down to the learned trial court.