In a stern reaffirmation of protections for victims of sexual offenses, the Supreme Court of India on September 1, 2025, restored the conviction and life imprisonment of two men accused of raping a minor girl in Bihar’s Bhojpur district. The case, Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors. (2025 INSC 1061), saw the Court set aside the Patna High Court’s acquittal, criticizing it for overemphasizing procedural irregularities like joint trials and inconsistencies while ignoring the victim’s credible testimony. Justices Satish Chandra Sharma, Augustine George Masih, and K.V. Viswanathan held that no prejudice was caused to the accused, emphasizing that procedural lapses cannot undermine substantive justice in heinous crimes.
Case Background: A Father’s Fight for Justice
The ordeal began in 2016 when the appellant, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, discovered his minor daughter was three months pregnant after falling ill post-Holi. Medical examination at Zila Mahila Chikitsalaya, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, on July 1, 2016, confirmed the pregnancy, leading the girl to disclose being raped by neighbors Hare Ram Sah (Respondent No.1) and Manish Tiwari (Respondent No.2) around 3-4 months earlier. Tiwari filed an FIR on July 2, 2016, at Piro Police Station, Bhojpur, under IPC Section 376(2) and POCSO Sections 4 & 6.
After investigation and chargesheet, the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhojpur at Ara, convicted the accused in 2022, sentencing them to life imprisonment with fines (Rs.50,000/- under IPC, Rs.25,000/- under POCSO Section 6, and Rs.10,000/- under Section 4). Sentences were concurrent, with additional jail time for default.
In appeal, the Patna High Court acquitted the duo in 2024, citing unproven incident details, improper age determination, lack of abortion proof, defective charges (wrong date), and violation of CrPC Section 223 (joint trial for separate offenses). The High Court deemed the trial flawed, causing prejudice and miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: Substance Over Procedure
Allowing Tiwari’s appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s conviction, ruling that procedural irregularities—such as joint trial and charge defects—did not prejudice the accused. The bench clarified that CrPC Section 223 permits joint trials for similar offenses in the same transaction, and no objection was raised during trial. It held that acquittal cannot stem solely from procedural lapses unless they vitiate the trial’s fairness.
The Court upheld the victim’s age (under 18) based on her school transfer certificate, Section 164 CrPC statement, and medical report. Pregnancy and abortion were proven via medical evidence, despite minor inconsistencies. The bench credited the victim’s testimony as consistent and reliable, noting no motive for false implication and corroboration from family witnesses.
“In cases of sexual offenses, the victim’s testimony is paramount and can form the sole basis for conviction if credible. Procedural sanctity is important, but it cannot allow culprits to walk free by entangling victims in technicalities,” the judgment observed.
The Court rejected the High Court’s focus on inconsistencies, attributing them to natural memory lapses over time, and dismissed defense witnesses’ claims as unconvincing.
Key Observations: Victim-Centric Justice
The bench lamented the system’s insensitivity, where victims battle procedural hurdles beyond their control. It emphasized POCSO’s child-friendly intent, criticizing the High Court for not remanding the case if procedural flaws existed. The ruling reiterated that joint trials are valid if offenses are connected, and Section 313 CrPC evidence was adequately put to the accused.
This decision aligns with precedents like State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) on victim testimony and Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) on joint trials, reinforcing that acquittals require substantive doubt, not procedural nitpicking.
Implications for Sexual Offense Trials
The verdict bolsters victim rights under POCSO and IPC, signaling courts must prioritize evidence over technicalities in heinous crimes. It may reduce acquittals based on procedural lapses, encouraging fair but efficient trials. Legal experts predict it will guide high courts in reviewing convictions, especially amid rising child sexual abuse cases (over 50,000 reported in 2023 per NCRB). The accused must surrender, with sentences restored.
Case Title:
Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors. (2025 INSC 1061)
Click Here for Full Judgment
Lawcutor 