Patna High Court Acquits Appellant in POCSO Case for Lack of Credible Evidence

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 812 of 2019, delivered on 7 April 2021 by Hon’ble Justice Birendra Kumar, set aside the conviction of a man who had been sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, as well as certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The appellant had been convicted by the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, for allegedly sexually harassing a 15-year-old girl. The Trial Court had imposed four years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, one year imprisonment under Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment), and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint), with all sentences running concurrently.

The alleged incident took place on 15 December 2016. According to the prosecutrix (the minor girl), she was going to the cowshed around 6:00 a.m. when the accused, a co-villager, caught her, molested her, bit her on the cheek, and tore her lower garment. When she screamed, people from the village gathered, and the accused fled. She then informed her family, who went to the local Sarpanch, but since the accused refused to settle through Panchayati, the matter was reported to the police.

The defence, however, argued that this was a false and retaliatory case. They pointed out that just a few days earlier (6 December 2016), the accused’s sister-in-law had filed a case against the prosecutrix’s family under several IPC sections, including 354(B), 452, and 380. That case was registered as Kudhani P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017. The appellant contended that the present FIR was filed only to pressurize him into withdrawing that earlier case.

During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim and her family members. The defence produced two witnesses who claimed to have been present near the scene and stated that no such incident occurred, but rather a quarrel between two families had taken place.

The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story:

• The medical report revealed only simple abrasions caused by a blunt object, with no evidence of tooth marks or bleeding, which directly contradicted the prosecutrix’s statement about being bitten on the cheek.
• The prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that her clothes and body were muddy, suggesting that she had fallen near the water pump rather than being attacked.
• The existence of an earlier pending case filed by the accused’s sister-in-law against the prosecutrix’s family was suppressed by the prosecution, which damaged its credibility.
• The defence witnesses stated that they were at the nearby fields during the alleged time and saw no such assault, which the Court found plausible.

Given these factors, the High Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal law, if there is significant doubt, the accused must get the benefit of that doubt.

Consequently, the Court quashed the conviction and sentence, allowed the appeal, and directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reaffirms some essential principles of criminal justice:

• Presumption of innocence: A person accused of a sexual offence cannot be convicted merely on suspicion or emotion; the evidence must be clear, cogent, and consistent.
• Benefit of doubt: Where two interpretations of facts are possible, the one favoring the accused must be accepted.
• Duty of prosecution: Suppression of relevant facts (like pending family disputes) and contradictions in medical and oral evidence can destroy a prosecution case.
• Judicial vigilance in POCSO cases: While the POCSO Act aims to protect children, courts must ensure that innocent individuals are not wrongfully convicted due to false or exaggerated complaints.

This decision serves as a caution to investigating agencies and prosecutors to thoroughly examine all angles and ensure impartiality when family disputes or personal enmity are evident.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the conviction under POCSO and IPC Sections 354-A and 341 was sustainable?
  • Decision: No. The prosecution’s case contained major contradictions between the oral and medical evidence. The claim of tooth bites and sexual assault was not medically corroborated.
• Whether prior enmity and cross-cases affected the credibility of the prosecutrix’s version?
  • Decision: Yes. The Court noted suppression of the earlier case filed by the accused’s relative against the victim’s family, which cast serious doubt on the motives behind the FIR.
• Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused?
  • Decision: Yes. Given inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and credible defence witnesses, the accused was entitled to acquittal.
• Final Outcome:
  • The conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2019 and 29.01.2019 were set aside.
  • The appeal was allowed.
  • The appellant was ordered to be released immediately.

Case Title

Appellant v. State of Bihar

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 812 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 365

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

For the Appellant: Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate
For the Respondent (State): Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, A.P.P.

Link to Judgment

MjQjODEyIzIwMTkjMSNO-rY9mZzfNNKw=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.