The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence of a man convicted under the POCSO Act and relevant IPC provisions, ruling that the victim’s statement was not of “sterling quality” and that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction solely on her testimony.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, presiding over Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2023, held that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority at the time of the alleged offence and that neither medical nor forensic evidence corroborated the charges.
Background
The appellant, Lalesh @ Lala Barle, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), Durg, in Special Sessions Trial No. 60/2019, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 506B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
According to the prosecution, the appellant abducted the victim, who was allegedly a minor, and committed sexual assault on March 25, 2019. The FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother the same day. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcibly took the victim to multiple locations before committing the act at his maternal grandfather’s house.
Legal Arguments
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, argued that:
- The prosecution’s case relied solely on the victim’s statement without any corroborative medical or forensic evidence.
- The victim’s age was not conclusively proven to be below 18 years.
- The victim appeared to be a consenting party, and her statement lacked the reliability required to sustain a conviction.
The State, represented by Mr. Sharad Mishra, contended that the victim had clearly implicated the accused and that the trial court had rightly convicted him based on her testimony.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the evidentiary value of the victim’s age and testimony. The Court found that the school register (Ex. P/12C) relied upon to prove the victim’s date of birth was not supported by the testimony of the headmaster, who admitted he did not make the entry and was unaware of its basis. The victim’s age was also inconsistently stated as December 2, 2001 and 2002 by various witnesses. Although the examining doctor recommended an X-ray for age determination, it was not conducted.
Citing Manak Chand v. State of Haryana and P. Yuvaprakash v. State, the Court reiterated that in absence of valid documentary evidence or medical opinion, minority could not be conclusively established.
On the quality of the victim’s testimony, the Court held:
“Statement of the victim is not of ‘sterling quality’ and she is not a ‘sterling witness’ as she fails to pass any of the tests… Therefore, it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the statement of the victim (PW-1).”
The Court noted that the victim failed to disclose the alleged acts to several persons she met after the incident, including the appellant’s wife, aunts, and grandfather. The lack of such disclosure cast further doubt on the prosecution’s version.
Medical evidence revealed hymen rupture and vaginal bleeding but found no external injuries. The FSL report showed no traces of semen or sperm on the victim or accused’s clothes.
Final Decision
Justice Agrawal held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor or that non-consensual intercourse occurred. The Court concluded:
“It would be absolutely unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant… he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.”
The High Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his immediate release, unless required in any other case. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
