The High Court of Chhattisgarh has acquitted an appellant previously convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment, citing a “vitiated” identification process and a fractured chain of circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, set aside the conviction, emphasizing that while the occurrence of a crime was proved, the prosecution failed to link the accused to the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Background
The appeal (CRA No. 1323 of 2022) was filed by Prasen Kumar Bhargav against the judgment dated July 8, 2022, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO Act), Balodabazar. The Trial Court had convicted Bhargav under Sections 450, 363, 506-II of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.
The prosecution’s case was that on the night of September 26, 2019, an 11-year-old girl was abducted from her home while sleeping. The victim alleged she was taken in a “capsule-type” vehicle, sexually assaulted, and later dropped off near a village. During the investigation, the police seized a bulker vehicle belonging to the appellant and conducted a Test Identification Parade (TIP), where the victim identified the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, counsel for the appellant, argued that the conviction was based on a fundamentally defective investigation. He submitted that the victim did not know the appellant prior to the incident, yet the appellant was shown to the victim and witnesses at the police station before the formal TIP was conducted. It was further argued that the TIP was conducted at an Irrigation Department Rest House rather than in jail, violating standard procedures. The defence relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Nazim & Others v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) to argue that exposure of the accused before TIP renders the identification meaningless.
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State, supported the Trial Court’s judgment, contending that the minor victim’s testimony was natural and trustworthy. The State argued that the recovery of the appellant’s vehicle and the victim’s identification during the parade formed a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, focusing primarily on the reliability of the identification and forensic evidence.
1. Vitiated Test Identification Parade (TIP) The Court observed significant irregularities in the TIP. The Bench noted that the proceedings were conducted at a Rest House instead of a jail or police station. Crucially, the Court found that the Investigating Officer and the SDM admitted that the appellant had been exposed to the witnesses prior to the TIP.
Referring to the legal principles laid down in Asharfi and Ram Dhani v. State and Nazim v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held:
“The TIP in the present matter cannot be treated as a reliable piece of corroborative evidence… Any exposure of the accused prior to TIP destroys the evidentiary value of the parade, rendering subsequent identification in court meaningless.”
2. Medical and Forensic Evidence While the Court acknowledged that the medical evidence proved the victim had been sexually assaulted, it emphasized that medical opinion establishes the crime, not the identity of the culprit. The Bench noted the absence of any forensic link:
“The FSL report does not detect semen, DNA, blood or any trace attributable to the appellant on the seized clothes of the victim… nor on the alleged underwear of the appellant.”
3. Circumstantial Evidence and CCTV The Court found the circumstantial evidence “fragile.” The prosecution relied on CCTV footage (via a pen drive) to place the appellant’s vehicle in the area. However, the Court discarded this evidence due to the lack of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and the absence of proof regarding the footage’s origin.
4. Material Contradictions The Bench highlighted material variations in the statements of the victim and her family regarding the timeline of the disappearance and the description of the vehicle (“capsule car” vs. the seized bulker).
Decision
The High Court held that the Trial Court had adopted a “presumptive approach” and ignored material deficiencies. The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator.
In its concluding observations, the Court stated:
“It is one thing to find that an offence was committed and it is another to find the accused guilty of that offence. The prosecution here has proved the former but has failed to remove reasonable doubt about the latter.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated July 8, 2022, and acquitted Prasen Kumar Bhargav of all charges. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
