Inconsistent Testimony and Flawed Evidence Lead to Acquittal in POCSO and Trespass Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-04-09

Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimony and Lack of Credible Evidence

Shimla, April 8, 2025 – In a significant judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned a lower court's conviction in a case involving charges under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the Cr. Appeal No. 130 of 2022, acquitted the appellant, Sandeep Kumar, citing serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the victim's testimony.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident reported on July 27, 2015, where Sandeep Kumar was accused of trespassing into the victim's room and committing offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that Kumar entered the victim's house at night, switched off the lights, and assaulted her. The trial court had convicted Kumar under Section 457 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and fine.

Appellant's Arguments

Aggrieved by the trial court's decision, Sandeep Kumar appealed to the High Court. His counsel, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, argued that the prosecution's case was riddled with improbabilities and inconsistencies. Key arguments included:

Doubtful Age of Victim: The prosecution failed to produce the victim's matriculation certificate to prove her age, relying instead on a Gram Panchayat certificate, which is not admissible as primary evidence for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act, especially when matriculation certificate could be available. The court cited Jarnail Singh versus State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263 , Sanjeev Kumar Gupta versus State of U.P.& Ors (2019) 12 SCC 370 , Vinod Katara versus State of U.P. , and P. Yuvaprakash v. State to emphasize the hierarchical order for age determination, prioritizing school certificates over local authority birth certificates.

Inconsistent Time of Incident: The victim initially stated the incident occurred at night, but later changed her statement to morning, claiming identification was possible due to "dim solar light." This crucial contradiction undermined her credibility.

Lack of Mobile Phone Evidence: While the prosecution claimed the accused left his mobile phone at the scene, the police failed to establish any link between the phone and the accused, as call detail records and ownership verification were not properly investigated.

Questionable Identification: The victim and other witnesses identified the accused in court for the first time, without any prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), even though they admitted to not knowing him before the incident. The court referenced P. Sasikumar v. State of T.N., (2024) 8 SCC 600 , highlighting the importance of TIP when witnesses are strangers to the accused and emphasizing that dock identification alone is weak evidence.

Contradictory Witness Statements: Discrepancies were noted in witness accounts regarding the sequence of events, particularly concerning the accused's alleged return to collect his mobile phone, further casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative.

Medical Evidence: The medical evidence of simple injuries did not fully corroborate the victim’s version of assault, specifically lacking injuries expected from the alleged manner of assault described.

State's Counter Arguments

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Jitender Sharma, defended the trial court's judgment, asserting that the victim's testimony was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence. They argued that minor discrepancies should not discredit the entire prosecution case.

Court's Observations and Decision

Justice Kainthla, after considering the arguments and evidence, sided with the appellant. The High Court emphasized the critical flaws in the prosecution's case:

> "In the present case, the victim was studying in the B.Sc. first year on the date of the incident, and her matriculation certificate is available. Therefore, the prosecution was supposed to produce the matriculation certificate to prove the victim’s date of birth. However, the prosecution relied upon the birth certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Khanaur, which is not admissible... Hence, there is no legally admissible evidence to show that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident and the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is not sustainable."

The court further observed the significant contradiction in the victim's testimony regarding the time of the incident, undermining her identification of the accused:

> "The shift in the time of the incident from the night to the morning would affect her testimony adversely and it is difficult to rely upon her testimony due to this major contradiction."

Regarding the identification issue, the court stated:

> "In the present case, there is no evidence that the witnesses knew the accused or had seen him before the incident; therefore, his identification made in the dock for the first time in the Court without any previous test identification parade cannot be relied upon."

Ultimately, Justice Kainthla allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and acquitted Sandeep Kumar of all charges. The court directed the refund of the fine amount, if deposited, and mandated Kumar to furnish a personal bond and surety as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This judgment underscores the importance of robust evidence, consistent testimony, and adherence to legal procedures, particularly in cases involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act and IPC. The High Court's decision serves as a reminder that convictions cannot stand on shaky foundations of inconsistent and unsubstantiated evidence.