In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh, an accused in a POCSO case, while making a strong observation on child sexual abuse cases. The court remarked that “minor victim prefer silent suffering over false allegations,” reinforcing the credibility of child survivors and the need for stringent judicial action in such offenses.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, while rejecting the bail plea, observed that sexual crimes against minors must be treated with utmost seriousness and that the burden of proving innocence rests on the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an incident reported on September 5, 2024, in Prayagraj, where the father of an 11-year-old girl alleged that he caught the accused sexually assaulting his daughter inside a locked room in their house. The complainant, who lodged the FIR at 11:20 PM on the same day, stated that he woke up early in the morning to find his daughter missing from her bed. Upon searching, he discovered that a room in the house was locked from inside. When he peeped through the window, he allegedly saw the accused forcing himself on the minor girl while pressing her mouth shut.
The father immediately raised an alarm, prompting the accused to push him aside and flee from the spot after issuing threats. Following this, the complainant sought help from the 1090 Women Helpline, leading to the accused’s arrest on September 6, 2024.
The accused, a law student, was charged under:
– Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (formerly IPC), and
– Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Arguments by Both Sides
Defence Claims
The accused’s counsel, Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, argued that:
– There was an unexplained 17-hour delay in lodging the FIR, raising doubts about its credibility.
– The victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNS contained contradictions, as the FIR initially mentioned rape, but the victim later described molestation and inappropriate touching.
– The medical examination report did not indicate signs of force, undermining the prosecution’s claims.
– The accused had no prior criminal record and was a law student, making him unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
The defence relied on the 2004 Supreme Court judgment in Ram Swaroop vs. State of Rajasthan, arguing that inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony should benefit the accused.
Prosecution’s Counter
The Additional Government Advocate, Deepak Mishra, opposed the bail plea, contending that:
– The victim was only 11 years old, making her a child under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act.
– The father of the victim was an eyewitness, having seen the accused committing the crime through the window.
– The victim consistently stated that she was forcibly confined, disrobed, and sexually assaulted, which falls under the legal definition of rape under Section 63 of BNS.
– As per Section 29 of POCSO Act, the accused is presumed guilty unless proven otherwise.
The prosecution cited Attorney General for India vs. Satish & Another (2021) 4 SCC 712, where the Supreme Court ruled that penetration is not necessary to constitute rape under the POCSO Act.
Allahabad High Court’s Key Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the bail plea, making several important legal observations:
1. On FIR Delay: The court cited State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, ruling that delays in reporting sexual offenses are natural, as victims and their families often fear societal stigma and loss of honor.
2. On the Victim’s Testimony: The court ruled that “even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in details due to variations in observation and recollection.” It held that minor discrepancies do not discredit the victim’s testimony.
3. On the Nature of the Crime: The court concluded that the accused’s acts went beyond mere “attempt” and constituted rape under Section 63 of BNS. The fact that he forcibly confined the minor, disrobed her, and committed inappropriate acts was sufficient to establish guilt.
4. On the Presumption of Guilt in POCSO Cases:
The court emphasized that under Section 29 of POCSO Act, the accused is presumed guilty unless he proves otherwise. The accused had failed to substantiate his claims of false implication.
5. On the Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault:
The court strongly noted that minors do not falsely implicate someone in sexual offenses, stating:
“In our country, a minor girl, victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than falsely implicate someone. Sexual violence against a child leaves behind a traumatic experience, and courts must deal with such cases sternly.”
6. On the Role of Courts in Sexual Crimes:
The court cited State of A.P. v. Bodem Sundara Rao (1995) 6 SCC 230, emphasizing that:
“Sexual violence is a dehumanizing act and a serious blow to a woman’s honor and dignity. When the victim is a helpless child, courts must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity and severity.”
Final Judgment
Considering the seriousness of the crime, the minor status of the victim, and the evidence against the accused, the court denied bail to Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh. The court further clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and that the trial court must conduct an independent assessment based on full evidence.
