In a significant verdict, the Jharkhand High Court has overturned a conviction in a POCSO case, citing “serious infirmities” in evidence, including contradictory testimonies and a substantial delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). The court observed that such discrepancies “cannot be ignored” and granted the accused the benefit of the doubt.
The judgment, delivered by a division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, set aside the earlier ruling by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), Simdega, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 21 of 2014, which had sentenced the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from an FIR lodged on June 25, 2014, by a minor girl who alleged that on June 7, 2014, at around 6:30 PM, she was raped while washing clothes at a hand pump near an Aanganbari Centre in her village. The victim stated that the accused gagged her with a cloth and threatened her with dire consequences if she reported the incident. The complaint was filed 18 days later, allegedly due to fear and threats from the accused.
Following the FIR, a case was registered by the Thethaitangar Police under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5(J)(11) of the POCSO Act. The police investigation substantiated the allegations, leading to the filing of a charge sheet, and the accused was subsequently convicted by the trial court.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations:
1. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
A significant point of contention was the 18-day delay in filing the FIR. The defence argued that this delay was not properly explained, casting doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The court noted that while delays in FIRs in sexual assault cases can be justified under certain circumstances, the explanation in this instance was insufficient.
2. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies:
The court identified substantial contradictions in the statements of the victim and her mother. According to the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), she was alone when the alleged assault took place. However, her mother testified that she arrived at the scene to find the accused in a compromising position with her daughter and chased him away. The court found these conflicting accounts to be incompatible and stated that they raised serious doubts about the reliability of the witnesses.
3. Lack of Medical Corroboration:
The medical examination revealed no external or internal injuries to the victim, and the hymen was intact. The doctor who examined the victim testified that there was no evidence of penetration. The court underscored that for a conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, penetrative sexual assault must be conclusively established, which was not the case here. The court further noted, “Unless there is something egregiously unusual in the testimony of a victim, it cannot be discarded even if it is not corroborated by any medical evidence. However, courts need to be on guard against any false implication of the accused.”
4. Legal Error in Sentencing:
The court also pointed out a legal error by the trial court, which sentenced the accused under both Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. This, the High Court noted, was impermissible under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which stipulates that if an act constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the POCSO Act, the offender should be punished under the law that provides for the greater punishment.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was “riddled with infirmities” that raised substantial doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations. The bench remarked, “The prosecution case is riddled with infirmities which raise serious doubt on the veracity of the witnesses… I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.” Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Counsel for the Parties:
– For the Appellant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, and Ms. Ashwini Priya.
– For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Additional Public Prosecutor.
