Back
Minor Failure to Raise Alarm Deemed Unnatural Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case
Indore, Madhya Pradesh – The has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of attempting to commit wrongful acts with a minor girl, observing that the child's failure to raise an alarm and the absence of injuries made the prosecution story "."
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, presiding over a division bench dealing with two appeals—one by the victim and another by the State—affirmed the trial court's decision to acquit the accused, identified as JS. The High Court found no in the lower court's appreciation of evidence.
The Incident and Trial
According to the prosecution, on , around 5 PM, the 12-and-a-half-year-old victim was alone at her home in Shujalpur. While sweeping the courtyard, the accused, a 23-year-old neighbor, caught her hand and allegedly said he wanted to "do something wrong" with her, attempting to drag her toward a nearby drain. The victim stated she freed herself, hit the accused with a broom, and rushed to a hand pump where her brother was fetching water. The brother informed their parents, and a police complaint was lodged.
The trial court, however, disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted the accused on . The victim and the State appealed, arguing that the acquittal was based on a flawed assessment of evidence. The State contended that prior enmity between families does not necessarily make witness testimony unreliable, citing Karu Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2020). They also argued that the absence of physical injuries on the minor is immaterial under the Vijay alias Chini vs State of MP (2010) precedent.
'False Report Filed Out of Anger' – Key Admissions
The High Court highlighted crucial admissions extracted during cross-examination. The victim herself conceded that a day before the incident, her father and the accused's father had a heated verbal altercation over a job dispute involving a person named AP. She further admitted that the police report was filed by her father
"out of sheer anger and a fit of rage"
after that fight. The victim's father also acknowledged the pre-existing dispute, noting that the accused's father was upset because he stopped working for the same employer.
Justice Pillai observed that this
"undeniable existence of prior intense rivalry"
weighed heavily against the prosecution's case.
Unnatural Conduct and Missing Evidence
The court found several aspects of the prosecution's story unnatural. Firstly, the location of the alleged drain—the destination where the accused supposedly dragged the victim—was completely absent from the official spot map. Secondly, the court reasoned that if the accused intended to commit a wrongful act, dragging a victim through a public area to a drain, when the isolated house was available, appeared "contradictory."
Most critically, the medical report showed no injuries on the victim's hands despite the alleged forceful dragging.
"Given this stark physical disparity, if the accused forcefully dragged her to commit a crime, she would have naturally sustained some defensive or friction injuries,"
the court noted.
The victim also admitted she did not raise any alarm or shout while being held. The High Court agreed with the trial court that
"in a terrifying situation where a woman is allegedly being dragged for a wrongful act, the total failure to shout or scream for help appears completely unnatural and highly improbable."
No Independent Witnesses in Open Area
The incident allegedly occurred around 5 PM in a dense residential area. The victim acknowledged that 6-7 women were fetching water at a nearby hand pump, and a higher secondary school with students present until 6 PM was opposite her house. Yet, no independent witness was examined. The investigating officer conceded the spot was busy, but no local residents were questioned.
"The glaring lack of any outcry, the absolute absence of physical injuries, the highly public nature of the immediate vicinity, and the prosecution's failure to produce any independent corroborative witnesses collectively destroy the foundation of the prosecution's story,"
Justice Pillai emphasized.
Legal Precedents Distinguished
While acknowledging that a conviction can be based on the of a victim if it inspires "," the court found the evidence in this case lacked that quality. The reliance on Vijay alias Chini was misplaced because here the testimony was not entirely credible due to the admitted animosity and unnatural conduct.
Final Order
The High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the acquittal. The judgment underscored that the trial court's assessment was
"well-reasoned, highly logical, and strictly based on the
."
The accused remains free. The court ordered the record to be sent back to the lower court for compliance.
The ruling reinforces the principle that in sensitive cases under the , while victims' rights are paramount, the prosecution must present a consistent, credible, and natural narrative to establish guilt . The decision is published under Neutral Citation No. .
