Gorelal Singh vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4248 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010614542018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2015 Thana- KASHICHAK District- Nawada
======================================================
Gorelal Singh Son of Balmiki Singh Resident of Village-Rebra,P.S.
Kashichak,Distt.-Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hajari Mistri Son of Late Bharath Mistri Resident Of Village - Rewara, Ps-
Kashichak (Shahpur OP), Dist- Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
for the informant.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2018 and the order of
sentence dated 04.10.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nawada in Sessions
(POCSO) Case No. 36 of 2015, arising out of Kashichak P.S.
Case No. 109 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
2/7
and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under
Section 448 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
four years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 354 of
the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years
and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and in
case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment of six months.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
16.12.2015, at about midnight, this appellant entered the house
of the informant, namely Hajari Mistri, by removing bricks from
a window and attempted to molest the informant’s
granddaughter, who was sleeping with her sister. When the
victim and her sister raised an alarm, the appellant fled from the
place of occurrence. It was further alleged that the appellant
took away the victim’s nose pin, described as Besar . The
informant and other witnesses claimed to have identified the
appellant in the light of a torch.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether
seven witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Hajari Mistri, is the informant

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
3/7
who supported the prosecution case regarding the occurrence.
P.W. 2, namely Anar Devi, also supported the prosecution
version and stated that the victim and her sister identified the
appellant in torchlight. P.W. 3, namely Neha Kumari, the
victim’s sister, stated that she was sleeping with the victim when
the appellant entered the room and opened the victim’s clothes.
She further stated that, when she protested, the appellant
slapped her. P.W. 4, the victim, supported the allegation that the
appellant entered the room through the window and molested
her. She also stated that the appellant took away her Besar . P.W.
5, namely Bablu Singh, was declared hostile. P.W. 6, namely Dr.
Kumari Ragini Sinha, a member of the Medical Board, deposed
regarding the examination of the victim on 05.01.2016. The
medical examination recorded the victim’s physical
characteristics and secondary sexual characteristics. The
Medical Board assessed her age to be between 15 and 16 years.
No injury was found on the victim. P.W. 7, namely Ranjit
Kumar, the Investigating Officer, proved the relevant documents
relating to the institution of the case and investigation. He stated
that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was
recorded and that, after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted. In his cross-examination, he referred to

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
4/7
certain omissions in the statements of the informant and the
victim’s sister regarding the details of the occurrence.
5. The defence examined D.W. 1, namely Pappu
Ram, who stated that he resided near the informant’s house and
that he had not heard any alarm on the alleged date of
occurrence. The defence also suggested that the case had been
instituted due to a monetary dispute between the parties
concerning a shop. No documentary evidence was adduced on
behalf of the defence.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as indicated in the
opening paragraph of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the
learned trial court and submits that the prosecution witnesses
are related to the informant and that their evidence suffers from
material inconsistencies. It is further submitted that the victim’s
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. does not
fully correspond with her deposition before the trial court.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the absence of any
injury on the victim and submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated on account of the existing monetary dispute

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
5/7
between the parties.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand,
has opposed the appeal and submitted that the victim’s
testimony is supported by the evidence of her sister and other
prosecution witnesses. It is contended that the absence of
physical injury does not, by itself, discredit the victim’s
testimony and that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court
finds that the victim has specifically attributed acts of sexual
assault to the appellant. Her testimony receives support from the
deposition of her sister, who stated that she was present at the
time of occurrence. The discrepancies pointed out by the
defence, including the variations between the victim’s statement
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the
trial court, have to be considered in the context of the evidence
as a whole. The absence of physical injury, in the circumstances
of the present case, is not sufficient by itself to discard the
victim’s testimony.
10. The learned trial court has considered the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
6/7
evidence and found the appellant guilty under Sections 448 and
354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, while acquitting him
of the charges relating to theft and attempted rape. On an overall
consideration of the materials available on record, this Court
finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the finding of guilt
recorded against the appellant. The conviction of the appellant
is, accordingly, affirmed.
11. So far as the sentence is concerned, the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year under Section 448 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for four years each under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the
POCSO Act, along with fines as imposed by the learned trial
court. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the
occurrence and the period of imprisonment already undergone
by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice
would be served if the substantive sentence is modified to the
period already undergone by the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated
26.09.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Nawada in Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 36
of 2015 arising out of Kashichak P.S. Case No. 109 of 2015 is
hereby affirmed. However, the order of sentence dated

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
7/7
04.10.2018 is modified to the period already undergone by the
appellant.
13. In result thereof, the appellant, above named, is
discharged from the liability of his bail bond in connection with
this case. The fine, if already deposited, shall remain deposited;
however, if the same has not been deposited, the appellant shall
not be required to deposit it.
14. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.
15. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date 30.10.2026