Patna High Court Overturns Conviction for Rape and POCSO Offences Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Failure to Prove Victim’s Age

Court’s Decision:

The Patna High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the victim as a minor and noted inconsistencies in the evidence presented, leading to a lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts:

1. The case originated from the victim’s complaint, where she stated that she was raped by three accused persons, including the appellants, in a paddy field on the other side of a canal.
2. The incident occurred when the victim had gone to graze her goats along with other children. Her goats crossed to the other side of the canal, where the accused were allegedly present.
3. The accused were convicted by the trial court for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000.

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution could prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, making the POCSO Act applicable.
2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The counsel for the appellants argued that the entire prosecution story was fabricated, highlighting contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the victim and other witnesses.
2. It was contended that the prosecutrix’s account did not align with the physical evidence, and that her age was not established correctly, as the document presented to prove her age (the admit card) was not reliably linked to the victim.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The State defended the trial court’s conviction, arguing that the victim’s statement was credible and supported by medical evidence.
2. The prosecution emphasized that the minor status of the victim was proved through her school documents and argued that any discrepancies in the evidence were minor and did not impact the guilt of the accused.

Analysis of the Law:

1. The court referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates specific procedures to determine the age of a child. The court found that the trial court did not follow this procedure correctly.
2. The prosecution relied on a school admit card to prove the victim’s age, but the document contained a different name, and no school records were produced to establish a direct link between the document and the victim.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130: The court reiterated that medical evidence and corroborative statements must be consistent to sustain a conviction under rape charges.
2. P. Yuvaprakash vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2023 SC 3525: The court emphasized the need for strict proof when the age of the victim is a determining factor for applying the POCSO Act.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the victim as a minor convincingly. There were multiple inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, and the medical evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution’s narrative.
2. The alleged place of occurrence was also not established with certainty, as the Investigating Officer failed to corroborate the victim’s version with any independent witness or physical evidence.

Conclusion:

The Patna High Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from several shortcomings, including the failure to establish the age of the victim, lack of credible evidence to prove the crime, and procedural irregularities during the investigation. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

Implications:

This judgment reiterates the importance of strict adherence to procedural norms, especially in cases involving serious offences under the POCSO Act. It also underscores that courts must be vigilant in ensuring that every link in the chain of evidence is satisfactorily proved before confirming convictions in such sensitive matters.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: “Magistrate’s Order Directing FIR Registration After Taking Cognizance is Legally Untenable and Violates Procedural Safeguards of Cr.P.C.”