Jammu & Kashmir High Court Upholds Conviction for Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act – Delay in FIR Lodging and Minor Contradictions Insufficient to Overturn Verdict

Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 25,000 for aggravated sexual assault on a minor boy. The court rejected the appeal challenging the conviction, finding that the prosecution had adequately proved the charges, and minor contradictions did not warrant overturning the verdict.

Facts:
The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a minor boy at a Madrassa. The incident occurred on November 4, 2021, when the appellant, a teacher at the Madrassa, called the minor to his room under the pretext of asking for water. Once inside, the appellant allegedly removed the boy’s clothes and attempted to assault him. The boy cried and informed other students. The father of the victim lodged a formal complaint on November 12, 2021, which led to the appellant’s arrest.

Issues:

1. Whether the delay in filing the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case.
2. Whether the appellant was wrongly convicted for the substantive offence instead of the attempt to commit the offence.
3. Whether the contradictions in the victim’s testimony undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant’s counsel argued that there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. He also contended that the appellant could not be convicted for the substantive offence since he was only charged with an attempt. Furthermore, the defense pointed to contradictions in the victim’s statements, particularly about the details of the assault, and challenged the validity of the minor’s age as recorded by the school based on his Aadhar card.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The prosecution argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to the victim’s father being handicapped and unable to immediately reach the police station. They maintained that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the contradictions in the testimony were minor and did not affect the substance of the case. The victim’s age was supported by school records, and the defense failed to disprove this.

Analysis of the Law:
The court examined Sections 10 and 18 of the POCSO Act, determining that the charge of aggravated sexual assault was appropriate given the nature of the crime. It reviewed the legal provisions regarding errors in charges, concluding that the appellant’s defense failed to demonstrate how any such errors misled him or resulted in a failure of justice. The court also addressed the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, noting that it had been adequately explained by the prosecution and did not appear to be part of an attempt to concoct evidence.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, to support its conclusion that discrepancies in witness testimony or minor procedural errors do not automatically invalidate a conviction. The court emphasized that unless the appellant could prove that these errors had caused a miscarriage of justice, the conviction would stand.

Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that the prosecution had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the FIR and that the minor contradictions in the victim’s statements were not significant enough to discredit the overall credibility of the testimony. The court held that the appellant’s actions met the criteria for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Furthermore, the court observed that while the appellant was initially charged with an attempt, the evidence supported a conviction for the substantive offence, and the error in charging did not mislead the appellant or result in a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no failure of justice in the conviction.

Implications: This case reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in testimony and delays in lodging FIRs, when adequately explained, do not automatically lead to acquittal. It also underscores the presumption of culpability under the POCSO Act, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the charges.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Reviews and Defers Death Sentence in Brutal Petrol Burning Case Leading to Deaths of Two Women and a Child, Citing Accused’s Mental Illness and Need for Caution in Determining “Rarest of Rare”