Patna High Court acquits a Homeguard in a high-profile POCSO case, citing lack of medical evidence and unreliable child testimony. The Court emphasized that convictions cannot be based solely on tutored statements.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: In a judgment, the Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a Homeguard who had been sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged sexual assault of a five-year-old girl.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that medical evidence disproved the allegation of penetrative sexual assault and that the child witness admitted to being tutored by her parents and the police.
Allowing the criminal appeal, the Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his immediate release.
ALSO READ: “Love, Not Lust”: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Victim Marries Accused
Case Background
The appeal challenged the judgment dated November 9, 2022, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Patna, which convicted the Homeguard under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000.
The FIR, lodged by the victim’s mother on August 24, 2020, alleged that the accused had forcibly taken the minor into his room and sexually assaulted her. Initially, the complaint stated that the accused had rubbed his private parts against the child’s anus, causing scratches. However, during the trial, the allegations escalated to penetrative sexual assault with bleeding.
Arguments Presented
Defence
- The Amicus Curiae argued that the Trial Court failed to establish the competency of the child witness.
- Major contradictions appeared between the FIR and the court testimony.
- Medical evidence did not support the claim of penetration or injuries, contrary to the parents’ statements.
- The appellant claimed false implication due to prior enmity, asserting that he had reported the victim’s father to a superior officer for misconduct.
Prosecution
- The State argued that the minor’s statement alone was sufficient for conviction.
- Cited redness and swelling as corroboration.
High Court’s Observations
1. No Evidence of Penetrative Sexual Assault
The Bench found that medical findings contradicted the prosecution’s version.
“The medical evidence rules out a case of rape… evidence of penetration to any extent was not found by the doctor… the Trial Court has grossly misdirected itself in treating external rubbing as penetrative sexual assault.”
The doctor confirmed that only redness and swelling were present near the anal region and that such an injury could result from a fall.
2. Child Witness Was Tutored
The Court noted that the victim expressly admitted being coached:
“She admitted that her parents and the police officer (‘Daroga Ji’) told her what to say.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench stated that unsafe or doubtful testimony cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
3. Presumption Under Section 29 POCSO Not Automatic
The Court held that the statutory presumption applies only after foundational facts are proven, which did not occur in this case.
4. Defence of Enmity Considered Probable
The victim acknowledged disputes involving her father, supporting the defence narrative.
The Court held that the prosecution did not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and the conviction was legally unsustainable.
“It would not be safe to convict the appellant solely on the testimony of the child witness.”
The High Court:
- Set aside the conviction and sentence
- Acquitted the appellant
- Directed his release forthwith
- Awarded ₹15,000 honorarium to the Amicus Curiae
Case Title:
Jai Krishna Yadav Versus The State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.205 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On POCSO
