High Court Modifies POCSO Conviction: Acquits Accomplices While Upholding Sentence for Sexual Assault Under Sections 376DA/POCSO - 2026-06-06

Fractured Justice: High Court Reassesses Evidence in High-Stakes POCSO Case

In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala, the division bench consisting of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has partially overturned a lower court’s conviction in a complex POCSO case. While the court affirmed the life sentence for the primary accused, it set aside the convictions of three other individuals—including the mother of the accused—citing a lack of reliable evidence to sustain findings of complicity.

The Foundation of the Dispute

The case centers on a traumatic timeline spanning 2017 to 2018, during which an 11-year-old girl was allegedly subjected to repeated sexual assaults. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of the survivor, who alleged that the primary accused, Suresh Babu P.M., frequently visited her home under the guise of meeting his mother (the 4th accused), who was employed as the survivor's maid. According to the survivor, these visits escalated into predatory behavior, including the capturing of nude photographs used for blackmail.

Legal proceedings were initiated in 2019 after the survivor disclosed the abuse to school teachers, eventually leading to a trial that resulted in the conviction of all four accused.

Contrasting Arguments

The appellants challenged the ruling on multiple fronts: * The Defence: Counsel argued that the survivor’s testimony was "tutored" and inconsistent, noting the two-year delay in reporting the incidents. They emphasized that there was no forensic or circumstantial evidence to connect the other accused to the crime and argued that the foundational facts required for the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act were never adequately established. * The Prosecution: The State asserted that the survivor’s testimony was of "sterling quality," and that in cases involving minors, the court should not impose rigid requirements for immediate reporting, acknowledging that trauma and public stigma often dictate the timeline of disclosure.

Beyond Presumptions: The Legal Analysis

The High Court’s analysis emphasized a critical legal distinction: while the POCSO Act allows for a presumption of guilt under Section 29, this cannot be invoked until the prosecution has established a solid, credible foundation of facts.

The court engaged with several landmark precedents, including State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors and Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa , reinforcing that while a delay in FIR reporting in sexual cases is not inherently fatal, it does not exempt the prosecution from the requirement of providing consistent, reliable evidence against all accused individuals.

In this specific instance, the court found the survivor’s account against the 1st accused to be credible, but it identified fatal inconsistencies in her subsequent, "improved" statements regarding the involvement of the co-accused. The court firmly rejected the notion of shifting the burden of proof onto the accused based solely on moral considerations or procedural lapses by others.

Key Observations

The judgment provides a stern reminder of the standards of proof required in criminal justice:

> "The trial court is not justified in convicting accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is deficient to fasten penal liability to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. However, we find that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the 1st accused."

> "A conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of presumptions or moral considerations in the absence of legally admissible evidence; relying on such grounds amounts to a complete departure from established principles of criminal jurisprudence."

> "Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot substitute proof."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The High Court allowed Crl. A. No. 274 of 2021, acquitting the 2nd and 3rd accused, while ordering the immediate release of the 4th accused. The primary conviction against the 1st accused remains intact, with the court observing that the heinous nature of his actions—utilizing blackmail against a minor—justified the life sentence.

This ruling serves as a vital safeguard in the judicial process, reaffirming that even in the most sensitive cases involving minors, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt must be maintained. It draws a clear line between the culpability of a proven offender and the vulnerability of co-accused to unsubstantiated allegations, ensuring that the judicial system remains anchored in evidence rather than presumption.