Delhi High Court Acquits Accused Under POCSO Act: “The Leap from Physical Relations to Sexual Assault Must Be Proven,” Cites Insufficient Evidence and Survivor’s Testimony Inconsistencies

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court acquitted the appellant, who was previously convicted under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault). The Court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged sexual assault, citing inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony and a lack of corroborative medical evidence. The Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment, observing that it lacked proper reasoning and relied too heavily on presumptions rather than clear evidence.

Facts

1. Complaint and Allegations:
   • A complaint was filed on March 18, 2017, alleging that a minor girl, aged approximately 14 years, was kidnapped by the appellant on March 17, 2017. The appellant was later found with the survivor in Faridabad.
2. Investigations and Statements:
   • The survivor’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicated that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant, referred to him as her boyfriend, and stated that they had a physical relationship.
   • The medical examination of the survivor reported no external injuries and no signs of physical or sexual assault.
3. Trial Court’s Conviction:
   • The Trial Court convicted the appellant, reasoning that the survivor’s age and her statement about “physical relations” established the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault.

Issues

1. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proved that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC.
2. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment, which relied heavily on the survivor’s age and statements, was sustainable without corroborative evidence.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant argued the following:

1. The Trial Court ignored essential parts of the survivor’s testimony, including her statements that she went with the appellant voluntarily and that no force or assault was involved.
2. The prosecution failed to present clear evidence of penetrative sexual assault.
3. The appellant was not aware of the survivor’s age, and there was no deliberate intent to commit the alleged acts.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution submitted:

1. The survivor’s testimony and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement established that the appellant had a physical relationship with her, which was sufficient to convict him under the POCSO Act.
2. The appellant’s knowledge of the survivor’s age was immaterial since the POCSO Act deems consent irrelevant for minors.

Analysis of the Law

1. Interpretation of Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act:
   • The law requires concrete evidence of sexual assault, including acts of penetration or physical injury.
   • The Court highlighted that mere statements by the survivor, such as “samband banaya” (made relations) or references to “physical relations,” lacked the specificity necessary to establish penetrative sexual assault.
2. Evidence Requirements:
   • The medical examination revealed no injuries or signs of sexual assault. The survivor herself denied experiencing any force or assault.
   • The prosecution’s reliance on ambiguous terminology without corroborative medical or eyewitness evidence was inadequate.

Precedent Analysis

The judgment reiterated established principles that:

• Convictions under the POCSO Act must be based on clear and convincing evidence, not presumptions.
• Survivors’ testimony, while significant, must be supported by consistent statements and corroborative evidence, especially when the medical evidence contradicts allegations.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Inconsistencies in Testimony:
   • The survivor stated in her testimony that she accompanied the appellant voluntarily, referred to him as her boyfriend, and denied any force or assault. She also testified that her parents opposed her relationship with the appellant due to their differing religions.
   • In cross-examination, she reiterated that no physical assault or wrongdoing occurred during their time together.
2. Medical Examination:
   • The medical report explicitly stated that there were no external injuries or signs of sexual assault.
   • The lack of injuries and the survivor’s denial of assault raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Faulty Reasoning by the Trial Court:
   • The Trial Court inferred sexual assault solely from the survivor’s age and statements about “physical relations.”
   • The High Court emphasized that the terms used were ambiguous and did not necessarily indicate penetrative sexual assault.
4. Benefit of Doubt:
   • The High Court ruled that when evidence is inconclusive or insufficient, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of penetrative sexual assault. The Court noted that the Trial Court’s reasoning was flawed, lacking substantive evidence or logical analysis. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Implications

1. Legal Standards in POCSO Cases:
   • The judgment underscores the importance of robust evidence and clear reasoning in cases under the POCSO Act, especially where the survivor’s testimony is inconsistent or ambiguous.
2. Impact on Judicial Reasoning:
   • The case highlights the need for trial courts to provide detailed reasoning in judgments, avoiding presumptions or overreliance on the age of the survivor.
3. Protection of Accused’s Rights:
   • By emphasizing the principle of “benefit of doubt,” the judgment reinforces the necessity of safeguarding the rights of the accused in cases of inconclusive evidence.

Also Read – Supreme Court Quashes Termination of Absentee Doctors, Directs Voluntary Retirement with Retrospective Effect from 2010: “Delay in Processing VRS Applications Cannot Justify Arbitrary Use of Article 311(2)(b)”