YYY Through Her Father vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
YYY Through Her Father – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRA-AD-306 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 29 and 30 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465 and 506(ii) - Acquittal for sexual assault - The appellant challenged acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to assign proper weight to the minor's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and misapplied statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Court found no cogent evidence to rebut prosecution case, with focus on the prosecutrix's contradictory testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 2-22)

Findings of Court:
The acquittal upheld, stating the trial court's verdict was based on a mature appraisal of evidence.

Issues: Whether the prosecutrix's age and credibility of her testimony establish the accused's guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act could not be aroused due to the prosecutrix's retraction; thus, the burden of rebuttal did not shift to the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed, maintaining acquittal.

Table of Content
1. challenge against acquittal based on prosecutrix's statement (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's preliminary examination of the case (Para 4 , 10 , 11)
3. details of the prosecution complaint and investigation (Para 5 , 6)
4. prosecutrix's contradictory testimony undermines the prosecution case (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. statutory presumptions and their implications on the burden of proof (Para 20 , 21)
6. dismissal of appeal, upholding trial court's acquittal (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari. J.

The instant appeal is directed against the order of acquittal dated 2.8.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (under POCSO Act), Namaul, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him for offences punishable under Sections 465 , 506 (ii) of IPC and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act'), in case FIR No. 520 dated 14.10.2019, registered with Police Station Mahendergarh.

2. The prosecutrix, who is stated to be a minor, has, through her father, challenged the verdict of acquittal (supra), on the ground, that the learned trial Court has not assigned adequate weight age to her statement, as, made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has been further averred that the learned trial Court has not considered the vital aspect i.e. of the statutory presumption(s), as prescribed under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, rather becoming engendered against the accused. Therefore, the onus became laid upon the respondent-accused to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when the respondent-accused has not led any cogent evidence to rebut the apposite statutory presumption, therefore, it is argued that the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent-accused whereas, it has erroneously and illegally made a verdict of acquittal upon the accused qua the charges (supra) framed against him.

3. It was also argued that the age of the victim at the time of the alleged offence was just 12 years and she then was a student of 1st class, therefore, possibly she could not be construed to falsely involve the accused. Contrary to this, it is argued that there is every possibility of the prosecutrix being pressurised, given hers belonging to a poor family, to may be, make testifications, if any, favourable to the accused.

4. Before we examine the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the legality of order of acquittal (supra), it is apt to first deal with the factual matrix of the present matter.

Factual Matrix

5. The prosecution was set into motion upon a complaint Ex.Pl made by the prosecutrix (identity of prosecutrix is withheld in terms of explanation attached to Section 33 (7) of the POSCO Act) recorded on 14.10.2019 to the effect that on 9.10.2019 she was present in the school and was playing as it was games period and in the meantime when she reached at the gate of the room of her class then the accused came there and directed her to come inside the room, on which, she went inside the room where the accused offered her sweets and thereafter gagged her mouth and then forcibly removed her salwar and also put off his pent and then committed rape with her and further threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anyone. The accused allowed her to go back only two minutes before closing of the school time. Thereafter she stopped going to school and when she was not feeling well for 3-4 days, then, on enquiry, she disclosed the entire incident to her mother and thereafter her family informed the police. On the basis of the above statement, FIR under Sections 464 , 465, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act was registered. Thereafter the investigation was carried out by ASI Lal Singh (PW12). During investigation, Sonu Nimal (present respondent-accused) was arrested. During interrogation, he made disclosure statement (Ex.P14) which was signed by the accused and atteste