In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court acquitted a man convicted of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court cited significant contradictions in the victim’s testimony and a failure by the prosecution to establish foundational facts, particularly the victim’s age. The judgment comes as a reminder of the judiciary’s reliance on credible evidence and consistent testimony to ensure justice.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident reported in October 2018. The prosecution alleged that the accused had confined the victim, then a minor, at his residence and committed sexual assault. The victim was reportedly taken by the co-accused to multiple locations before being reunited with her family. An FIR was filed at the Mahila Police Station in Aurangabad, Bihar.
The Trial Court convicted the accused in 2021 under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 120B (criminal conspiracy), as well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹61,000. However, the accused appealed the conviction, challenging the reliability of the evidence.
High Court’s Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar scrutinized the evidence and testimonies presented during the trial, ultimately finding them insufficient to uphold the conviction. The court highlighted several legal and factual deficiencies in the prosecution’s case.
Key Legal Issues and Observations
1. Contradictory Testimony by the Victim:
– The court found inconsistencies between the victim’s initial written complaint and her trial testimony. While she alleged forced confinement and sexual assault, her conduct following the alleged incident suggested otherwise.
– The victim willingly accompanied the co-accused to multiple locations, including another city, without attempting to escape or seek help, even in public spaces.
Court’s Observation: “The prosecutrix does not appear to be truthful and trustworthy… Her conduct renders her unreliable.”
2. Failure to Prove the Victim’s Minority:
– A central issue was whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution did not produce admissible documents, such as school or birth certificates, to establish her age. No ossification test was conducted either.
– The court cited established legal precedents requiring documentary or medical evidence to prove the age of a victim under the POCSO Act, ruling that oral testimonies were insufficient.
Court’s Observation: “Without foundational proof, oral evidence of the victim’s age is inadmissible.”
3. Medical Evidence Contradictions:
– The medical examination of the victim found no recent physical injuries or evidence of sexual assault. While an old hymenal rupture was noted, it was deemed inconclusive regarding the alleged incident.
– The absence of injuries or corroborating medical evidence undermined the prosecution’s claims of force or coercion.
4. Inconsistent Family Testimonies:
– The victim’s family did not take immediate steps to report her disappearance. Her mother and siblings failed to alert the police promptly or actively search for her.
– Contradictions were also noted in the family’s statements about their efforts to locate the victim.
Court’s Observation: “The delayed response of the family casts serious doubts on the prosecution’s version of events.”
5. Presumption of Guilt Under POCSO Act:
– The court reiterated that the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act could only be invoked if foundational facts were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
– In this case, the failure to establish the victim’s age disqualified the application of these statutory presumptions.
Court’s Observation: “Presumption of guilt is not automatic; it requires the prosecution to first establish foundational facts.”
Given the contradictions in the victim’s testimony, lack of corroborating medical evidence, and failure to prove the victim’s age, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court set aside the Trial Court’s conviction and acquitted the accused, emphasizing the principle that benefit of the doubt must go to the accused in cases of unreliable evidence.
The High Court further directed the immediate release of the accused, who had been in custody since 2018, unless required in other cases.
