However, the defense raised several red flags. It was argued that the victim was actually in a relationship with another man (a barber named Chhotu Thakur), and the appellant was falsely implicated due to a personal grudge. Interestingly, the initial FIR had named both the appellant and the barber, but the police and the prosecution eventually dropped the charges against the latter without sufficient explanation.

The most critical observation made by the High Court centered on Section 53A of the CrPC. This section mandates the medical examination of a person accused of rape by a registered medical practitioner. It specifically includes the collection of DNA samples to connect the accused to the crime scientifically.

The Bench noted with disappointment:

"It is needless to say that the provision contained in 53A is a forgotten provision in the State of Bihar because this Court had dealt with number of criminal appeals and found that not in a single appeal, the Investigating Officer took resort of Section 53A."

The Court highlighted that if an accused is not medically examined and later claims "impotence" during the trial, the prosecution would have no scientific evidence to rebut that claim. In the present case, despite the accused being arrested on the very day the FIR was lodged, no medical examination was conducted. The Court held that at least some independent scientific evidence should have been brought on record to show the accused was capable of committing the offence.

Apart from the lack of medical evidence, the High Court identified several procedural lapses in how the trial was conducted:

Competency of Child Witness: Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, a Trial Court must verify if a child witness understands the questions and can give rational answers. The High Court found that the Special Judge had failed to record any preliminary interrogation to assess the victim's mental capacity before recording her evidence.
Inconsistencies in Statements: There were "glaring discrepancies" between the initial FIR, the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC, and her testimony in court. Specifically, the shifting narrative regarding the involvement of the other man (Chhotu Thakur) made the prosecution's story unreliable.
Lack of Investigation at the Scene: The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited the alleged place of occurrence in Darbhanga. The prosecution also failed to establish the exact date or time when the alleged rape occurred.

The Division Bench concluded that the "foundational facts" required to prove an offence under the POCSO Act had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that while the victim was indeed pregnant, the prosecution failed to prove who was responsible due to the lack of DNA evidence and a botched investigation.

Setting aside the life imprisonment sentence, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to the law enforcement agencies in Bihar and across India. Criminal investigation is no longer just about oral testimony; it is about scientific precision.

By calling for the "sensitization" of the police, the Patna High Court has signaled that the era of ignoring Section 53A must end. For victims of sexual assault, scientific evidence like DNA profiling is often the only way to ensure a "water-tight" case. Conversely, for the accused, it serves as a safeguard against false implications.

The judgment reinforces a vital legal principle: In the pursuit of justice, the process is as important as the outcome. When the police forget the law (Section 53A), the justice system fails both the victim and the accused.