The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted in a POCSO case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the assailant through reliable and substantive evidence. The Court found serious lapses in the investigation and termed the failure to secure identification of the accused in court a fatal flaw in the prosecution case.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal against the Rajasthan High Court judgment affirming the conviction. The accused had been in custody since February 5, 2017 and had remained incarcerated for more than nine years by the time of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The case arose from an incident involving a five-year-old child in Ajmer in December 2016. The FIR was initially registered against an unknown person. The accused was arrested nearly two months later and was identified by the child during a Test Identification Parade (TIP). However, during her deposition before the trial court, the child did not identify the accused in the witness box.
The Supreme Court emphasised that a TIP is only corroborative evidence and cannot substitute substantive identification in court. It noted that the accused was present when the child testified and had even stated that she could identify him, yet neither the prosecution nor the trial court made any effort to have her identify him during her deposition.
The Bench also found that the child had admitted that the police told her the accused’s name after the incident. This assumed significance because the accused had not been named in the FIR. The Court further noted that a sketch allegedly prepared with the child’s assistance during the investigation was never produced before the trial court.
The Court also flagged a major discrepancy in the medical evidence. The doctor who examined the child on December 7, 2016 stated that the injuries were 5–7 days old, whereas the prosecution alleged that the assault took place on December 5. The Court held that this contradiction went to the root of the prosecution case.
The Bench further noted the absence of DNA profiling or other scientific evidence linking the accused to the offence. It also criticised the investigating officer for failing to inquire into complaints made by the accused and his family alleging false implication.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s conviction as well as the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment. It acquitted the accused and directed that he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
