The Patna High Court held that on procedural safeguards under the POCSO Act, has acquitted a man convicted by a trial court to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO, holding that the prosecution failed to lay the “basic foundation” required for conviction and that the sole testimony of the victim was not wholly reliable.

A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ritesh Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Ranjay Singh, who had been convicted by the Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-6th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in a case arising from a 2018 FIR alleging that the appellant and a juvenile co-accused had raped the victim, resulting in pregnancy.

The Court found that the trial court never determined the victim’s age as mandated under Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The medical board’s dental-based estimate (14–15 years) was not obtained pursuant to any order of a Committee or Board as contemplated by the JJ Act, and no school admission register or birth certificate was produced despite the victim herself testifying she attended a school. The Court held that “proof of age of the victim is an essential requirement to bring a case under the scope and ambit of POCSO Act,” and its absence meant the foundational fact triggering the presumption under Section 29 POCSO was never established.

Prosecution Witnesses Statement

Here in this case, the mother, and the victim gave three different and conflicting accounts of where and how the pregnancy was terminated — variously a private doctor, an unnamed government hospital, Sadar Hospital, and even the police station itself. No treating doctor was examined, no medical documentation of the alleged delivery/abortion was produced, and the “dead child” was never seized or subjected to DNA analysis to establish paternity. The Court noted this made it impossible to scientifically connect the pregnancy to the appellant rather than the acquitted co-accused, Gaurav Kumar, raising “a doubt… whether it is a case of over-implication.”

The Victim’s Own Statement

An important factor was the victim’s statement that she had “no complaint against Ranjay Singh.” The court considered this statement significant, as it raised doubts about the conviction, which was based only on her testimony.

Retrospective Application of Section 376(3) IPC

The Court also found a separate legal error. The alleged offence took place before the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force on 21 April 2018. However, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under the stricter Section 376(3) of the IPC, which was introduced by the 2018 amendment, instead of applying the law that was in force at the time of the alleged offence.

Decision

Court said “it would not be safe to sustain the conviction… on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim… which this Court has found as no wholly reliable piece of evidence,” the court set aside both the judgment of conviction and the sentencing order, allowed the appeal, and directed the appellant’s release forthwith.

Case title – Ranjay Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 324 of 2023, decided on 01.07.2026