Court cites contradictions in testimony, unexplained delay in FIR, and lack of corroborative evidence as reasons for maintaining acquittal.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of Phool Chand, accused of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in a case that involved allegations of sexual misconduct against a minor by her paternal uncle. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the trial court's acquittal, maintaining that the decision was neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record.
The case stemmed from an incident on February 23, 2014, when the prosecutrix, a minor, alleged that her paternal uncle, Phool Chand, entered her house, sent her younger brothers outside, and committed acts of sexual assault. The father of the prosecutrix allegedly discovered the incident, leading to a physical altercation, but the police were initially informed only about a quarrel.
Key to the court's decision was the unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report (FIR) about the alleged sexual assault, with the initial police report on the incident describing it as a family dispute. The court noted material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her father, as well as a lack of independent corroborative evidence, such as medical or forensic findings, to substantiate the claims.
The judgment emphasized that while the testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction if reliable, in this case, inconsistencies and omissions in witness statements created reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the trial court's findings were supported by the absence of a timely disclosure of the assault to the police and the presence of a potential motive for false implication due to a family property dispute.
The appellate court reiterated the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and emphasized the necessity of exercising caution in appeals against acquittals. The court found that the trial court's decision was a possible view based on the evidence, and thus, there was no justification to overturn the acquittal.
Bottom line:-
Acquittal in cases under POCSO Act and IPC, where substantial contradictions exist in testimony, delay in lodging FIR is unexplained, and corroborative evidence is absent, cannot be reversed unless the trial court's findings are perverse or contrary to the record.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3(d) read with Section 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(i), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 378.
State v. Phool Chand, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2936556
