6 min readNew DelhiJun 10, 2026 01:01 PM IST
First published on: Jun 10, 2026 at 01:01 PM IST
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a bus driver for the rape of a 16-year-old girl, who did not return home after tuition because she had an argument with her father.
A division bench of Justices Meenakshi Mdan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan was dealing with a plea of a convict challenging the trial court conviction order under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
“She remembered the registration number of the bus. That night, inside the bus, he forced himself on her and raped her despite her protests. Later on, he apologised to her for raping her. After that, they drove to the petrol pump, and he asked her to stay inside the vehicle. He boarded the bus and went to Gangtok. After he returned, he asked her to leave, and she went to the same ‘hawa ghar’ (kiosk/waiting shed). It was raining then. She may have lost consciousness after that,” the court said on May 29.
Justices Bhaskar Raj Pradhan and Meenakshi Madan Rai noted that the girl remembered the registration number of the bus.
The order added that the failure of the prosecution to further clinch the case with the forensic evidence result does not negate the deposition of the victim, as well as the medical evidence provided by them and other prosecution witnesses.
‘Central is the victim’s version’
- Central to this present prosecution, like in every case of sexual offence, is the victim’s version.
- The victim had informed the magistrate in her statement that in March 2022, she had an argument with her father.
- After attending tuition, she did not wish to return home, so she stayed at “hawa ghar” (kiosk/waiting shed).
- While she was there, one person came in a bus and asked her if she wanted to accompany him. She did not trust his intentions and refused.
- She spent the night at the “hawa ghar” (kiosk/waiting shed).
- Early the next morning, he came back again in a different vehicle and once again asked her if she wanted to accompany him.
- By then, she was hungry and cold, and so she accompanied him.
- He first drove her to the petrol pump, and after that, they boarded the bus that was driven by him.
- He had to drop off the employees of the company, and while doing so, he fed her food at a particular place.
- He asked her to spend a day with him, and they travelled on the bus the entire day while he was picking up and dropping off the employees.
- The identification of the appellant in Court by the victim was not objected to by the defence.
- The defence has also not suggested that it was not the appellant who was with the victim on the day of the incident.
- In fact, the suggestion made to the victim during cross-examination reflects his admission that they were together on the day of the incident.
A bus ride and the heinous crime
The petitioner was challenging his 2024 conviction order under Section 376(1) of the IPC. He has been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000.
The case originated from a missing-person report stating that the victim, aged 16, did not return home after her tuition ended at 5:30 p.m. Later, the police registered a case under Section 363 IPC against unknown persons.
According to the investigating officer, after receipt of the missing report and registration of the case, messages were circulated to all police stations and police outposts. Subsequently, she was traced and admitted to the hospital.
Following the medical report that revealed that she was sexually assaulted, the investigating officer filed a chargesheet alleging that the appellant, a bus driver, had committed rape against the minor victim while she was travelling in his bus and was liable to be punished under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
In conviction, the session judge relied upon the statements of the owner of the bus to confirm that he had engaged the appellant as the driver of the bus, which was seized by the prosecution in the present case.
Two employees of the same company had seen a girl travelling with the appellant in his bus during the relevant time. The judge was reassured that it was, in fact, the victim who had travelled with the appellant on the bus during the relevant period through the admission of the defence.
Petitioner’s case
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate N Rai submitted that the defence demolished the medical evidence of the prosecution during the trial. According to him, the medical and forensic reports do not suggest sexual assault; that even if the prosecution has been able to establish rape upon the victim, the appellant’s guilt was not proved.
He further argued that the victim’s age was not proved during the trial; although a test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution, they suppressed the test identification report, clearly raising a presumption against them under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
He relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contentions. He argued that in Rajesh Patel v State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court, on examination of the evidence of the case, concluded that the prosecution’s story as narrated by the prosecutrix was most improbable and unnatural. The Supreme Court also found that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which was not tenably explained.
He referred to another Supreme Court judgement, Shaktiman Rai vs State of Sikkim, which held that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot draw strength from the weaknesses of the defence.
Sikkim High Court was dealing with a plea of a man convicted in rape case challenging his sentence. (AI-generated Image) 
Justices Bhaskar Raj Pradhan and Meenakshi Madan Rai noted that the girl remembered the registration number of the bus.
Share
