The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities, such as defective charge framing or improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, do not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless a failure of justice is proven. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies and procedural lapses should not be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to acquit an accused, especially in heinous offences, if the core prosecution evidence remains credible and consistent. The conviction was restored as no prejudice was established.
Facts Of The Case:
In 2016, a few months after the Holi festival, the appellant’s minor daughter began experiencing health issues. Her deteriorating condition led her mother to take her to a hospital in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. On July 1, 2016, a medical examination at the Zila Mahila Chikitsalaya revealed that the victim was approximately three to four months pregnant. Upon questioning, she disclosed that she had been raped by the two respondents, Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, on multiple occasions. She stated that the first incident occurred one afternoon when Manish Tiwari raped her in her home. A few days later, Hare Ram Sah raped her in his coaching center. Subsequently, both accused allegedly continued to sexually assault her for several months. An FIR was lodged the following day, leading to a trial where the Sessions Court convicted both respondents under Sections 376(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, the High Court acquitted them, citing procedural infirmities, including an improper joint trial and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, which prompted the present appeal before the Supreme Court by the victim’s father.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the registration of FIR No. 209/2016 at Piro Police Station, Bhojpur, Bihar. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case proceeded to trial before the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Bhojpur. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for offences under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents, primarily citing procedural infirmities including an improper joint trial in violation of Section 223 of the CrPC. This acquittal by the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court by the victim’s father through a Special Leave Petition, which culminated in the present judgment restoring the Trial Court’s conviction.
READ ALSO:Domicile vs. Study: Supreme Court Explains Who Qualifies as a “Local” for Medical Seats
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made significant observations, holding that procedural lapses, such as a defective charge or an improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, do not automatically invalidate a conviction unless a failure of justice is concretely established. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred by equating minor inconsistencies and procedural irregularities with reasonable doubt without demonstrating actual prejudice to the accused. It reaffirmed that the testimony of a sexual offence victim, if consistent and credible, can form the sole basis for conviction. The Court also noted that the victim’s minority was conclusively proven through unrebutted evidence and that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the threats she received. Ultimately, the Court restored the trial court’s verdict, underscoring that the intent of special statutes like the POCSO Act must not be defeated by a hyper-technical approach to procedure.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, finding the respondents, Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari, guilty under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court directed the respondents to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which the trial court was ordered to take appropriate steps to take them into custody to serve their life imprisonment. The judgment of the Trial Court was reinstated in its entirety.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs Hare Ram Sah & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1061 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18377 of 2024) Date of Judgement: September 01, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Download The Judgement Here