Patna High Court upheld child rape conviction, relying on consistent testimony and medical evidence despite investigation lapses

Case Overview:

The case arose from an appeal filed by Bambam Mukhiya against his conviction for raping a child below twelve years of age. In 2018, the Special POCSO Court at Darbhanga convicted him under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs 30,000. The main question before the Patna High Court was whether the child’s statement and the medical evidence were reliable enough to uphold the conviction, especially when there were some differences in the witnesses’ statements and several shortcomings in the police investigation.

Facts:

The incident took place during the night of 1 and 2 May 2017. The child was sleeping at home with her younger brother because her mother had gone to Jhanjharpur for medical treatment. According to the child, the appellant, who was her neighbour, entered the house at around 3 a.m., pressed her mouth and sexually assaulted her. She began bleeding and cried out in pain. Her aunt then arrived, after which the appellant ran away. The child was taken to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, where her statement was recorded on the same day. An FIR was registered soon afterwards.

During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the child, her mother, aunt, maternal grandfather, the investigating officer and the doctor who examined her. The medical examination found blood stains, multiple injuries around the genital area, a torn hymen and active bleeding. A radiological test placed her age between ten and twelve years. The defence claimed that the appellant had been falsely implicated. It relied on differences in the witnesses’ statements, the doctor’s admission that the injuries could possibly have been caused by a fall, and the failure of the police to collect important forensic evidence.

Court’s Reasoning:

The High Court closely compared the child’s first statement, her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and her testimony during the trial. Her account remained the same on the most important points. She consistently stated that the appellant entered the house, assaulted her and caused bleeding. She named him from the very beginning and also identified him before the court.

The Court did not treat the smaller differences in her statements as fatal to the prosecution case. For example, there was some confusion about whether she became unconscious, what time her aunt arrived and who took her to the hospital. The Bench considered these to be secondary details. It observed that a young child who had gone through such trauma could not be expected to remember every detail with complete accuracy.

The medical evidence also supported the child’s version. Although the doctor accepted that the injuries could theoretically be caused by a fall, the Court found that the number, nature and location of the injuries were much more consistent with penetrative sexual assault. The absence of spermatozoa did not help the defence because penetration itself is sufficient to constitute rape; ejaculation is not necessary. The age evidence also showed that the victim was below twelve years.

The Court agreed that the investigation was careless. No independent witness was examined, the accused was not medically examined, important material was not sent for forensic testing and no site plan was prepared. However, the Court explained that a defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal when the other evidence is trustworthy. The defence also failed to produce any evidence supporting its claim of false implication.

Decision and Conclusion:

The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence. The appellant will continue to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and must pay the fine imposed by the trial court. The Court also maintained the compensation of Rs 6 lakh awarded to the child and directed that it be paid within thirty days if it had not already been released.

At the same time, the Court did not ignore the poor quality of the investigation. It directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga, to examine the conduct of the investigating officer and take suitable departmental action after giving her an opportunity to be heard. A compliance report must be filed within three months. The judgment makes it clear that minor inconsistencies in a child’s account should not overshadow a consistent and medically supported allegation. It also shows that courts can uphold a valid conviction while separately holding the investigating agency responsible for serious lapses.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here)and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications

Official judgment Link: Bambam Mukhiya @ Govind Mukhiya v. State of Bihar