The case arose from Piro, District Bhojpur (Bihar) in 2016. A minor girl, daughter of appellant Sushil Kumar Tiwari, was repeatedly raped by Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari. She became pregnant, and her condition was confirmed during treatment at Zila Mahila Chikitsalaya, Ballia (U.P.). Following this, an FIR was lodged on 02 July 2016.
The trial court convicted both accused under:
- Section 376(2) IPC – Life imprisonment + ₹50,000 fine each
- Section 6 POCSO Act – Life imprisonment + ₹25,000 fine each
- Section 4 POCSO Act – 7 years imprisonment + ₹10,000 fine each
(All sentences to run concurrently).
Read also: FoodTechBiz Wins Copyright Battle, Court Orders Foodinfotech to Remove Copied Articles
Later, the Patna High Court set aside the conviction, citing:
- Failure to prove exact date and time of incident.
- No clear determination of the victim’s age.
- Lack of abortion proof.
- Errors in framing charges.
- Improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC.
The High Court held that these lapses led to “miscarriage of justice.”
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed strongly with the High Court’s findings.
- On Victim’s Age: “The victim was conclusively under 18 years. Oral and documentary evidence established her age as between 12–15 years. The High Court erred in doubting this.”
- On Delay in FIR: The Court noted the delay was natural, as the victim was threatened and only disclosed the offence after pregnancy was discovered.
- On Proof of Pregnancy & Abortion: Medical records and hospital documents confirmed pregnancy and abortion, which the High Court wrongly ignored.
- On Procedural Errors: “Mere irregularity in framing charges or joint trial does not invalidate proceedings unless it causes actual failure of justice.”
- On Reasonable Doubt Principle: “Minor inconsistencies cannot be elevated to reasonable doubt. Loose acquittals based on trivial contradictions allow culprits to escape law.”
Read also: Chhattisgarh High Court Seeks Better Medical Facilities in State Hospitals
The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction and sentence, ruling that:
“Procedure is not supposed to control justice. The High Court misapplied the law, leading to an unwarranted acquittal. The trial court’s judgment stands restored.”
The accused were ordered to surrender within two weeks, failing which the trial court must ensure custody.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.
Appeal: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
