The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man who had been sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and investigative lapses.
Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the trial court’s conviction under Sections 342, 363, 365, 376AB, and 506 IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, observing that the evidence did not meet the threshold required in criminal law. The Court emphasised that“the testimony of the victim in the present case, cannot be said to be one of sterling quality so as to not require independent corroboration. The learned Trial Court erred in holding the victim’s testimony to be one of sterling quality and convicting the appellant solely on the strength of the same.”
On examining the record, the Court found significant contradictions between the victim’s deposition, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the MLC, and other materials on record. It noted that allegations of penetrative sexual assault were absent in the initial medical record and there were inconsistencies regarding whether the victim was conscious, whether she was found nude, and who rescued her from the accused’s room.
The Court also flagged discrepancies in police records, including conflicting timelines between the Emergency Response System (ERS) record and the arrest memo. The absence of corroborative forensic or medical evidence, coupled with the non-examination of key witnesses, further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Further, on the presumption of commission of offence raised against the appellant in accordance with Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court held that “in order to trigger the presumption, it is incumbent on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the foundational facts. If the prosecution fails to do so, in the opinion of this Court, a negative burden cannot be thrust upon the shoulders of the accused to prove otherwise.”
Observing that criminal courts must convict only when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
“The solemn duty of a criminal court is not to convict merely because an allegation is made, but to convict only when the allegation is proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Cases Referred
Nirmal Premkumar v. State : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260 Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2012) 8 SCC 21
Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD of Delhi) : 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1938
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Vishruti Chauhan & Mr. Bhanu Pant, Advs.
Respondents- Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State. SI Pravesh, PS Mundka. Ms. Supriya Juneja, Adv. for R-2/ victim.
