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.