Back
Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Over Prosecution's Failure to Prove
In a significant ruling that underscores the necessity of establishing in sexual offences against minors, the acquitted a man convicted under the , and . The Division Bench, comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused knew the alleged victim was a minor or that he had the intention to engage in sexual intercourse with a child. The judgment, which overturns a trial court's conviction, has sparked discussions on the in POCSO cases, particularly when the accused raises a regarding the victim's age.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR filed on , alleging that the accused, a married man with a child, had kidnapped and sexually assaulted a girl. The trial court, relying on the victim's birth certificate, concluded that she was about 13–14 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecution argued that the victim had gone with the accused only because he threatened to commit suicide, and that the couple had travelled to Guwahati and other places, where they had physical relations. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping) and (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), sentencing him accordingly.
The accused appealed, contending that the victim had willingly accompanied him and had represented herself as 18 years old. He pointed to an overwriting in the birth certificate, where the year of birth appeared to have been changed from 2008 to 2003, suggesting the victim had altered the document herself.
Court's Key Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence, including the original Register of Births and Deaths and the counterfoil of the birth certificate. It confirmed that the victim's date of birth was
, making her approximately 13 years old at the time of the FIR. However, the court noted that the birth certificate contained visible overwriting—a fact that was never in the accused's possession.
"It cannot be said that the appellant was aware that the alleged victim was a child, due to the overwriting in her Birth Certificate,"
the Bench observed.
Crucially, the court considered the accused's statement during his examination under
. He claimed that the victim had told him she was 18 and that she had overwritten the year of birth. The prosecution did not controvert this explanation. The High Court held that
"when the appellant has set up a defence and offered an explanation which is probable, by considering the
of the victim having overwritten the year of birth in her Birth Certificate, it is the requirement of the Court to consider the explanation given by the appellant."
The Bench further noted that the victim and the accused stayed together for over ten days, travelled by bus, and visited several places.
"The alleged victim had gone willingly with the appellant and had met various people on the way. The girl could have complained to any number of people and told them that she was being kidnapped if she had not gone willingly with the appellant,"
the court reasoned.
Legal Analysis: and
The judgment distinguishes between the physical act (
) and the mental element (
). While the court accepted that sexual intercourse had occurred—supported by medical evidence showing an absent hymen—it found that the prosecution had not established the accused's knowledge of the victim's minority.
"The appellant being a married man with a child, he should not have played around with the emotions of a vulnerable victim,"
the court acknowledged, yet it emphasised that a conviction requires proof of both elements
.
The court also addressed the issue of consent. Although it reiterated that a minor cannot give valid consent, it recognised that the accused's belief about the victim's age, if reasonably held, could negate the requisite
. The Bench stated:
"When a doubt has been created by the appellant and the Prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellant had the knowledge that the victim was a minor or had the intention to have sexual intercourse with a minor, it cannot be said that the Prosecution has proved its case
."
Implications for POCSO Litigation
This ruling is likely to have a significant impact on how POCSO cases are prosecuted, particularly where the accused raises a defence of about the victim's age. Legal experts note that the judgment reinforces the principle that is an essential ingredient in sexual offences, even under a like the POCSO Act. The court's willingness to consider the accused's under Section 313 CrPC as creating a reasonable doubt sets a precedent for similar cases.
However, some observers caution that the judgment could be misused by defendants who falsely claim ignorance of a victim's age. The court itself acknowledged the vulnerability of child victims, noting that
"a minor cannot give a valid consent."
The decision underscores the need for thorough investigation and corroborative evidence to establish the accused's knowledge, especially when documentary evidence like birth certificates is disputed.
Conclusion
The 's acquittal serves as a reminder that the prosecution must not only prove that an offence occurred but also that the accused possessed the requisite mental state. By holding that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden, the court has set aside the trial court's conviction and called for a more nuanced approach in POCSO cases. The judgment will undoubtedly be cited in future appeals where the is raised, and it may prompt legislative or judicial clarification on the standard of proof for in sexual offences against minors.
