In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that the evidence presented, including the phrase “physical relations” used by the complainant, was insufficient to conclusively establish sexual assault or penetrative sexual assault. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, sets a significant precedent in interpreting evidentiary standards under POCSO and IPC provisions.
Case Background
The case revolved around an FIR filed on March 18, 2017, at Madhu Vihar Police Station in East Delhi. The complainant, the mother of a 14-year-old girl referred to as Ms. X, alleged that her daughter had been lured and kidnapped by the appellant on March 17, 2017. The police traced the girl and the appellant to a rented room in Faridabad, where they were found the next day.
Following the incident, medical examinations were conducted, and Ms. X’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). She disclosed that she had gone willingly with the appellant, whom she described as her boyfriend, and that they had engaged in “physical relations” with mutual consent. Despite her claims of consent, the prosecution proceeded on the basis of her being a minor, under which consent is immaterial in cases of sexual offences.
In March 2024, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court identified the following pivotal issues during the appeal:
1. Ambiguity in Terminology: The prosecution relied on the victim’s use of the phrase “physical relations” and “samband banaya” to establish sexual assault. The court found these terms to be too vague to conclusively prove penetrative sexual assault.
2. Medical Evidence: The medical examination report (MLC) revealed no external injuries or clear evidence of penetrative assault. The absence of expert testimony to clarify the medical findings further weakened the prosecution’s case.
3. Reasoning in Trial Court’s Judgment: The High Court noted that the trial court had failed to provide a reasoned analysis of the evidence. It had merely paraphrased witness testimonies without addressing inconsistencies or gaps in the prosecution’s case.
4. Consent and Age Factor: While the survivor was under 18 years of age, making consent legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act, the court stressed that the prosecution still needed to prove the occurrence of the alleged acts beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Findings
The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and observed that the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof required for conviction. Notably:
– The survivor’s testimony did not unequivocally establish penetrative sexual assault. Her use of the term “physical relations” lacked clarity, and the context of her statements suggested a consensual relationship.
– The medical report failed to corroborate claims of sexual assault. The court emphasized the importance of medical expert testimony in such cases, which was absent here.
– The trial court had unjustifiably drawn conclusions based on the age difference between the appellant and the survivor, rather than concrete evidence.
Significant Observations
The bench made several critical observations in its judgment:
– “The leap from physical relations or samband to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault is one which has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference.”
– “The phrase ‘physical relations’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse let alone sexual assault.”
– The court highlighted the need for precision in legal terminology and evidence to avoid wrongful convictions.
Verdict
The Delhi High Court, after an in-depth review of the evidence, set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court noted that the trial court had not provided a sufficiently reasoned judgment to support the conviction. It highlighted that the conclusions drawn were based largely on presumptions and lacked corroborative evidence.
The bench emphasized that in criminal cases, especially those involving stringent laws like the POCSO Act, the standard of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution had failed to substantiate its claims with unequivocal evidence, and the medical report did not corroborate the allegations of penetrative sexual assault. Additionally, the High Court found inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony, noting that she had stated she willingly accompanied the appellant and described him as her boyfriend.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, writing for the bench, observed that terms like “physical relations” and “samband” used by the survivor were too ambiguous to automatically infer penetrative sexual assault. The court pointed out that no effort was made by the prosecution to clarify these terms or provide expert medical testimony to explain the findings in the survivor’s medical examination report.
Furthermore, the court underscored that while the survivor’s age made consent legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act, the prosecution was still required to conclusively prove the alleged acts. The court criticized the trial court’s reliance on the age difference between the appellant and the survivor as a determinative factor, stressing that such assumptions cannot replace evidence-based conclusions.
The High Court concluded by granting the benefit of doubt to the appellant, remarking that a conviction cannot rest on ambiguous or insufficient evidence. Bench directed the acquittal of the appellant and ordered that the judgment be communicated to the concerned jail authorities for immediate compliance. The case was disposed of, with all pending applications resolved.
