The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man who was serving a life sentence for the sexual assault of a 10-year-old girl, ruling that a trial court’s observation of the victim’s visible discomfort during identification cannot serve as the foundation for conviction.
Setting aside the conviction, a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions in the survivor’s testimony and procedural lapses in the investigation.
The bench directed that the man be released immediately unless he is required in connection with another matter.
Trial Court Findings Overruled
The trial court had previously sentenced the man to rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Sections 376AB, 341, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In its judgment, the trial court noted that the survivor had detailed the assault and identified the man, observing that she appeared perturbed and uncomfortable when shown the accused on a screen.
Addressing arguments from state counsel regarding the child’s reaction, the High Court clarified that emotional distress observed on screen cannot override substantial doubt surrounding the evidence. The bench stated that such observations cannot ground a conviction when the record leaves reasonable suspicion regarding the accused’s involvement and undermines the integrity of the prosecution’s case.
Inconsistencies in Identification
In evaluating the case, the High Court pointed out significant flaws in how the perpetrator was identified. The bench found a lack of consistency in the survivor’s statements regarding whether she was able to see the assailant’s face during the incident.
Additionally, the bench observed that the survivor’s modified statements concerning lighting at the crime scene were unsupported by the official site plans. During cross-examination, the child survivor also stated that the investigating officer had made her write on a blank sheet of paper.
Questions Surrounding Custodial Confession
The High Court also highlighted irregularities in how the accused was linked to the crime. The man was not named in the initial First Information Report or in any witness statements. His name surfaced only after he was arrested by the same police station in an unrelated case, where police claimed he confessed to the sexual assault while in custody.
The bench noted that this sequence of events cast suspicion on the prosecution’s case, raising the possibility that the accused may have been falsely implicated while in custody under pressure stemming from public outcry.
