The Patna High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing a lack of supporting medical evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 749 of 2019, which arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitamarhi, dated March 7, 2019.
The case originated from an incident reported on May 12, 2017, where a minor girl alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a neighbor while alone at her home. The victim’s father lodged a complaint leading to the registration of a case under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The main issues before the High Court were whether the prosecution had established that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense and whether the charges of sexual assault had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The court analyzed the medical evidence presented during the trial, particularly the testimony of Dr. Deepa Singh, who conducted the medico-legal examination of the victim. The medical report indicated no external injuries on the victim’s body or private parts, no presence of spermatozoa, and the presence of an old hymenal tear. The court noted that the medical evidence did not conclusively support the claim of a recent sexual assault.
Furthermore, the High Court pointed out significant contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the victim and her parents, and discrepancies in the evidence presented by the investigating officers. For example, the victim testified that she was dragged into a room by the accused, but the medical examination showed no signs of external injury that would typically be expected in such circumstances. Moreover, there were inconsistencies regarding whether the room where the alleged incident occurred had a door and how the father of the victim entered the room.
Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Upholding the acquittal, the High Court stated, “The prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence, nor is there any forensic evidence on record in support of the allegations leveled against the accused. As per the medical evidence, there was no external injury found on the person of the victim, nor was there any medical finding in support of the allegation of rape.”
The court emphasized that, in the absence of conclusive evidence, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The judgment cited several precedents, including Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) and Murugesan vs. State (2012), where the Supreme Court laid down principles for appellate courts while dealing with appeals against acquittal. The court reaffirmed that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not substitute its view for that of the trial court.
Important Observations
The bench further noted, “Even if two views are possible, the appellate court is not required to supplant the view of the learned Trial Court by another view.” The judgment underscored that an appellate court must interfere only when the trial court’s decision is found unreasonable or lacking a proper appreciation of the evidence.
In its final remarks, the High Court held that the view taken by the trial court was reasonable and based on a proper appreciation of law and facts. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that “there is no scope for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment.”
The Patna High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal reflects the judiciary’s adherence to the principles of criminal justice, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt should favor the accused.
