Back
Delhi High Court Acquits Vikash Noting Prosecution Failed To Establish For POCSO Conviction
In a significant ruling, the has overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years imprisonment under the . Justice Madhu Jain emphasized that do not automatically shift the to the accused unless the prosecution first establishes the of the alleged crime.
A Case of Shifting Narratives
The case originated from a FIR filed at , following reports that a 17-year-old girl had gone missing. The appellant, Vikash, was later apprehended at the Ambala Railway Station alongside the minor.
The prosecution's case faced immediate turbulence due to the conflicting accounts provided by the prosecutrix. In her initial statement under , the girl claimed she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant, entered into a consensual relationship, and married him. However, during subsequent proceedings—including her statement under and her trial testimony—she alleged that she was kidnapped at knifepoint and subjected to sexual assault.
Arguments from the Bar
Counsel for the appellant argued that the failed to acknowledge the and improvements in the prosecutrix's testimony. Furthermore, the defense pointed to substantial investigative lapses, including the failure to identify the alleged place of occurrence or produce such as .
The State maintained that because the prosecutrix was a minor, her consent was legally irrelevant, and the prosecution was thus relieved of the need to prove force or coercion under the POCSO framework.
The Court’s Legal Analysis
Justice Madhu Jain, presiding over the appeal, held that the erroneously applied the presumption of guilt under . The Court clarified that while the act allows for a presumption of a "culpable mental state," it is not a substitute for the basic requirements of .
"The statutory presumption under
does not arise automatically upon registration of a case. The prosecution must first establish the
constituting the alleged offence,"
the judgment noted. The High Court further highlighted that the significant investigative omissions, combined with the prosecutrix's inconsistent and improved version of events, rendered the conviction unsafe.
Key Observations
-
"The statutory presumption under does not arise automatically upon registration of a case. The prosecution must first establish the constituting the alleged offence."
-
"The minority of the prosecutrix renders her consent legally irrelevant; however, it does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation to establish the of the offences charged through reliable and cogent evidence."
-
"In the absence of reliable and consistent evidence establishing the , it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction."
Implications of the Decision
By extending the to the appellant, the High Court’s decision serves as a vital reminder that and the remain intact even in sensitive cases. The order directed the immediate release of the appellant, setting aside the 20-year sentence and concluding that the inconsistencies in the prosecution's star witness testimony could not form a valid basis for a criminal conviction.
