Kesari Kumar Mehta @ Keshri Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Bihar

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The appellant preferred a criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Samastipur, whereby Respondent No.2 was acquitted of charges under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that on 19.08.2018, Respondent No.2 along with others forcibly abducted the informant's 17-year-old daughter from their home at gunpoint, with the FIR being lodged two days after the alleged incident.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna considered the sole question of whether the impugned judgment of acquittal warranted interference. The Court examined the prosecution evidence comprising nine witnesses and various documentary exhibits, including the victim's age certificate, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., medical reports, and defence exhibits including school records and mobile connection forms. A key issue was the minority of the victim as of the date of occurrence, her alleged consent being immaterial under the POCSO Act, and her claim that her Section 164 statement was made under coercion.

The Court took note of the unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR and relied upon the Supreme Court's observations in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501) regarding the importance of prompt reporting and the dangers of embellishment arising from delayed FIRs. The judgment, being an oral judgment, was in the process of analyzing whether the trial court's acquittal required interference on the facts and evidence presented.

Catchwords: criminal appeal · acquittal · POCSO Act · abduction · rape · minor victim · delay in FIR · Section 164 statement · coercion · age of victim · consent irrelevant · Patna High Court