Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, given to the appellant by the lower court. The High Court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted the appellant, providing the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies and gaps in the victim’s testimony and a lack of corroborative evidence.
Facts:
- The victim, a minor at the time of the incident, alleged that the appellant enticed her away and kept her confined for two days during which he raped her.
- The incident reportedly took place between August 10, 2022, and August 12, 2022. The victim claimed that the appellant left her near the village road after two days of confinement.
- The victim’s mother filed a police report on August 14, 2022, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Issues:
- Whether the victim’s testimony was reliable enough to convict the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The prosecution argued that the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her testimony in court established that the appellant had committed the offence of rape.
- The victim’s age, as certified by the school records, showed that she was a minor, and hence, even if consensual, the act would fall under the purview of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The defense argued that the allegations were fabricated due to a personal grudge, as the appellant had refused to marry the victim.
- It was contended that the victim’s actions, such as not raising an alarm and the delay in reporting, indicated that the story was concocted.
- The defense highlighted inconsistencies in the victim’s account and argued that there was no physical evidence or injury to corroborate her claims.
Analysis of the Law:
- The High Court noted that under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, there is a presumption of guilt that must be rebutted by the accused. However, for this presumption to apply, the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Court emphasized that the lack of specific details in the victim’s testimony, coupled with her contradictory statements, made it impossible to rely on her account.
Precedent Analysis:
- The Court referred to past rulings that emphasized the need for consistent and credible testimony from the victim, especially in cases lacking physical evidence.
- It reiterated that the mere fact of the victim being a minor does not automatically validate the charges without corroborative evidence, as established in various Supreme Court judgments.
Court’s Reasoning:
- The Court found that the victim’s testimony was riddled with contradictions. For instance, the victim initially claimed she did not shout for help or raise an alarm, despite being in public areas like a railway station.
- The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s case, as there were no signs of recent intercourse or injury on the victim’s body.
- The two-day delay in lodging the FIR was not explained satisfactorily, further casting doubt on the victim’s narrative.
- The court also observed that the father of the victim, a police officer, did not support the prosecution’s case, which weakened the credibility of the allegations.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the evidence did not support the victim’s claims and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the appellant was acquitted, and his life sentence was set aside.
Implications:
This judgment reaffirms the principle that while the testimony of the victim in cases under the POCSO Act holds significant weight, it must be reliable and free of contradictions to sustain a conviction. The ruling emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence, especially when the victim’s account is inconsistent. The decision may impact future cases involving minor victims and will likely be cited in situations where the credibility of the victim’s testimony is in question.