Court Highlights Material Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony, Unexplained Delay in FIR, and Absence of Corroborative Medical Evidence in Overturning Conviction
In a significant judgment delivered on 27th October 2026, the Patna High Court acquitted Sambhu Sada, who was earlier convicted for kidnapping and raping a minor girl, due to the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court in 2015. However, upon appeal, the High Court found serious flaws in the prosecution's case and set aside the conviction and sentence.
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Vidyanand Bhagat, the father of the victim, alleging that on the night of 12th September 2010, his minor daughter was taken away by Sambhu Sada and others, and that some money and ornaments were missing from the house. The victim was recovered on 17th September 2010 and medically examined the following day. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimonies of family members and the victim herself.
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, expressing serious doubts about the reliability of the principal witnesses. The father, Vidyanand Bhagat (PW-4), claimed to be an eye-witness to the kidnapping but his testimony was found to be an improvement over his earlier version, inconsistent, and not in line with natural conduct expected of a father witnessing such an incident. Notably, he did not raise an alarm, pursue the accused, or approach the police immediately, and there was an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The Investigating Officer also testified that none of the witnesses had claimed to have seen the accused taking the victim away.
The victim's testimony (PW-9) was found to suffer from material contradictions and variations. Initially, she implicated all three accused in the rape but later corrected herself to state that only Sambhu Sada had committed the act, whereas her earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned only Sambhu Sada. Additionally, discrepancies existed regarding the date and circumstances of the offence. The court emphasized that while the testimony of a prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction if it is cogent and of sterling quality, the inconsistencies in this case undermined its credibility.
Medical evidence further failed to provide corroboration. Although the victim was medically examined shortly after recovery, the hymen was found torn but there were no signs suggestive of recent intercourse. The court observed that absence of medical signs of recent intercourse does not disprove rape per se, but in this case, where oral evidence was fraught with infirmities, medical evidence could not compensate for the lack of credibility.
Regarding the charge under Section 366A IPC relating to inducement of a minor for illicit intercourse with another person, the court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana, which requires that the inducement be with intent to force or seduce the minor to illicit intercourse with a third person. Since the prosecution's case was that the appellant himself committed rape and not that the victim was induced for intercourse with another person, the court held that the ingredients of Section 366A were not satisfied.
The court reiterated the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It underscored that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. The judgment also referenced recent Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the need for corroboration when testimony is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
Ultimately, the Patna High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, material contradictions in the victim's evidence, absence of corroborative medical evidence, and lapses in investigation. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and Sambhu Sada was acquitted of all charges. The court also ordered the discharge of bailors and return of any fines paid.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the standards of proof in criminal cases, especially those involving serious allegations such as sexual offences, ensuring that convictions rest on credible and consistent evidence.
Bottom Line:
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366A and 376 - Conviction for kidnapping/procuration of minor girl and rape set aside - Evidence of father as alleged eye-witness found unreliable due to improvement, unnatural conduct and unexplained delay in FIR - Testimony of prosecutrix found suffering from material variations between Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and deposition - Medical evidence did not provide corroborative assurance - Ingredients of Section 366A IPC not made out in absence of proof that minor was induced for illicit intercourse with another person - Benefit of doubt granted.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 366A, 376; Indian Evidence Act Section 134; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 164
Sambhu Sada v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3008389
