The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, observing that the testimony of the prosecutrix appeared to be “motivated on account of the disputes between the parents” rather than truthful. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the trial court’s 2020 judgment, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal, filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), challenged the acquittal of the respondent, Sheel Kumar, who was charged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the respondent had sexually harassed his 13-year-old daughter. However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant (mother) and the prosecutrix (daughter), noting that the allegations were exaggerated and stemmed from the mother’s apprehension of being evicted from the matrimonial home. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix’s mother on June 8, 2014. She alleged that her husband, an alcohol addict, routinely physically assaulted her and sexually harassed their 13-year-old daughter. The FIR (No. 0387/2014) was registered at Police Station Nangloi under Sections 323/354 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Charges were subsequently framed against the respondent under Section 323 IPC and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2). The respondent, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed innocence, asserting he was falsely implicated due to ongoing disputes with his wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) acquitted the respondent on January 10, 2020, leading the State to file the present appeal.
Arguments of the Prosecution
The State argued that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix, contending it was sufficient for conviction. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecutrix had given a consistent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her examination-in-chief.
Although the prosecutrix turned hostile during cross-examination on December 18, 2019, the prosecution relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1991), arguing that the evidence of a hostile witness should not be “wholly effaced” if it finds corroboration from other evidence. The State maintained that the guilt of the respondent was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna meticulously analyzed the testimonies and the variations between the initial complaint and the statements made in court.
- Hostile Complainant: The Court noted that the mother (PW-2) turned “completely hostile” during the trial, denying the contents of her own complaint despite admitting her signature.
- Analysis of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement: The Court observed that in her statement before the Magistrate, the mother primarily expressed apprehension that she might be turned out of the house by her in-laws. The Court noted, “What emerges essentially from the Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the Complainant is that… she was further scared for the safety of the daughter and apprehended that something wrong could happen with her.” The Court found that the specific allegations of sexual intent mentioned in the FIR were absent or diluted in this statement.
- Inconsistencies in Prosecutrix’s Testimony: The Court found the daughter’s testimony to be “exaggerated and full of contradictions.” The prosecutrix deposed that her father watched her bathe, an allegation that was neither in her Section 164 statement nor in her mother’s complaint. The Court termed this “an exaggeration.”
- Medical Allegations: The prosecutrix claimed that a fist blow from her father caused her to suffer from Tuberculosis. Dismissing this, the Court observed, “It is clearly understandable that this is the imagination of a child who was barely 13 years old, as Tuberculosis cannot be acquired simply by a fist blow.”
- Motivated Testimony: The Court highlighted the admission by the prosecutrix regarding litigation between her grandparents and parents over eviction. The Court concurred with the trial court’s finding that the testimony was influenced by these domestic disputes. Justice Krishna observed, “It is a case where the testimony of the Prosecutrix does not seem to be truthful, but motivated by the surrounding disputes between the parents.”
The Court further noted that during re-cross-examination in 2019, after the parents had started living separately, the prosecutrix stated she “did not want her father to be punished.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case “remained in the realm of suspicion.” Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State NCT of Delhi v. Sheel Kumar
- Case Number: CRL.A. 1641/2025
- Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
