Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Manoj – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 172 of 2023
Decided on 5.12.2025
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2) and 506 – Rape and criminal intimidation of minor girl(step-daughter) – Conviction and sentence – Doctor specifically recorded that there were no internal or external genital injuries – Torn hymen, in isolation, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of sexual assault – There are substantial gaps and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Victim denied portions of her earlier statements, claiming that she had been influenced by fear, and mother acknowledged having no knowledge of alleged incidents – This retraction has profound impact on the case, as victim and her mother were principal witnesses whose testimony was expected to substantiate allegations – When a key witness turns hostile, evidentiary value of prior statements diminishes considerably; particularly where accused is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine in a manner that tests veracity of earlier statements – Retraction creates serious doubt regarding reliability of prosecution’s narrative – Medical evidence cannot conclusively establish that accused committed offence – Minor discrepancies in timing of statements, procedural observations, and absence of eyewitnesses further compound doubt surrounding prosecution’s narrative – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 10, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23 and 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Statement of victim – Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim, though detailed, cannot alone form basis of conviction – Such statements must be corroborated by independent evidence and are insufficient when principal witness disavows allegations – In present case, victim’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were detailed in respect of alleged sexual assaults over several years – However, in light of her turning hostile during cross- examination and hostile stance of her mother, reliance solely on 164 statement would be legally unsustainable and would violate principle that conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 16)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – DNA evidence, although scientifically credible and accurately reflecting presence of biological material from appellant on certain exhibits, does not by itself prove non-consent, penetration, or timing of alleged assault – DNA analysis establishes contact but does not substitute for evidence of criminal intent or sexual assault – DNA evidence must be considered in conjunction with corroborative evidence to form basis of conviction – In present case, with victim turning hostile, DNA evidence remains uncorroborated and cannot independently support conviction for rape or aggravated sexual assault – DNA evidence, while scientifically accurate and showing presence of biological material from appellant on certain exhibits, cannot independently establish guilt in absence of corroborative evidence – Mere genetic matching does not prove sexual assault, non-consent, or timing of alleged act. (Paras 17 and 19)
Result: Criminal Jail Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Purohit, J.—This Appeal is preferred by appellant from Jail assailing the judgment and order dated 15.11.2023, passed by learned FTC/Additional Sessions/Special Judge POCSO, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.150 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Manoj, whereby, the appellant-Manoj was convicted under Sections 376(2) and 506 IPC, and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation further two months’ additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2) IPC; two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation further 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC; the appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, however, at the time of conviction, as per Section 376(2) IPC, the punishment prescribed for the offence is more severe than the POCSO Act, 2012 for similar aggravated offences; under Section 42 of the 2012 Act, where there is a conflict between punishments prescribed under IPC and POCSO Act, the greater punishment shall prevail. Therefore, since section 376(2) of IPC, 1860, prescribes a harsher punishment for the offence, the sentence has been imposed under section 376 (2) and no separate punishment has been awarded for the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and any period of incarceration during trial shall be set off with the punishment.
2. According to the prosecution case, the victim, a minor girl who was the step-daughter of the accused- appellant, lodged a First Information Report at Kichha Police Station on 18.04.2019, alleging that on the night of 17.04.2019, her step-father had quarreled with her and thereafter committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. She reported the incident promptly the next day, seeking legal recourse. The Investigating Officer, based on the FIR, carried out a careful investigation. During this process, the victim’s clothes, vaginal swab, vaginal smear slide, and pubic hair were seized and sealed. The appellant was arrested, and his penile swabs, clothes and blood sample were collected under seal. A formal charge-sheet was filed under Sections 376(2), 323, 506 IPC and Section 5(l)(d)/6 of the POCSO Act. On 27.07.2019, the charges under Sections 376(2), 506 IPC and under Section 6 POCSO Act were framed upon appellant in the trial court and the appellant pleaded not guilty.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Kanak Banodha, PW-2 the victim, PW-3 victim’s mother, PW-4 victim’s maternal uncle, PW-5 victim’s grandmother, PW-6 Smt. Sunita Yadav (teacher), PW-7 Sub-Inspector Babita Goswami, and PW-8 Head Constable Naresh Singh Samant. Additionally, the prosecution produced documentary evidence: medical report (Exhibit P-1), FIR (Exhibit P-2), victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-3), School/SR register (Exhibit P-4), arrest memo (Exhibit P-5), site-plan (Exhibit P-6), charge-sheet (Exhibit P-7), and the FSL / DNA report (Form 23A/6-23A/7).
4. Thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations leveled against him by stating that he has falsely been implicated in a false case due to personal enmity and stated that he is innocent.
5. The following is a consolidated account of the testimonies of all the witnesses examined in this case:—
• PW-1, Dr. Kanak Banodha, testified that she examined the victim on 18.04.2019. On external examination, she found no fresh external injuries but noted that the hymen was torn. With consent from the victim’s grandmother, she conducted an internal examination but observed no internal injuries. She stated that she sealed the vaginal swab, smears slide, pubic hair, and the victim’s clothes, and handed them over
(1) Rape – DNA evidence must be considered alongside corroborative circumstances and cannot form the sole basis of conviction – Torn hymen, in isolation, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of the victim's testimony without corroboration, the significance of a 'sterling witness', and the reliance on consistent testimo....
In sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony must be credible and corroborated by reliable evidence to support a conviction.
In sexual offenses against minors, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction if deemed credible, even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under POCSO Act based on corroborative medical evidence, maintaining that hostility of witnesses does not nullify the prosecution's case when foundational facts are es....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
