Failure to Prove Age and Material Inconsistencies Lead to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Patna High Court

In a significant verdict that underscores the necessity of strict evidentiary standards in criminal trials, the Patna High Court has set aside a POCSO conviction, acquitting the appellant, Santosh Marandi. A division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Soni Shrivastava ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to sustain a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

A Tale of Two Narratives

The case dates back to June 2020, when the appellant was accused of committing rape against a minor relative. The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered the victim's home while she was sleeping and violated her. While the trial court had initially convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, the High Court found that the trial court’s reliance on the testimonies was misplaced.

Central to the dispute was a three-day delay in filing the FIR, coupled with significant contradictions between the statements of the victim and her parents regarding the registration of the case. Furthermore, the defense produced the victim's grandfather as a witness, who suggested a long-standing familial feud over the appellant’s academic ambitions as the motive for the false accusation.

Arguments at a Glance

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, argued that the prosecution failed on three critical fronts: 1. Lack of Age Proof: No school records or ossification test reports were submitted to prove the victim was a minor, depriving the court of the ability to invoke the mandatory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act . 2. Procedural Lapses: The unexplained non-examination of the victim’s brother—a material witness present in the house during the alleged incident—raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's story. 3. Misapplication of Law: The trial court erroneously categorized a delayed telephone conversation (held the morning after the incident) as res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The State maintained that the victim’s testimony alone should be sufficient as she was a "sterling witness," yet conceded that no formal age documentation was presented.

Legal Analysis: The Bounds of Res Gestae

The High Court’s ruling provides essential clarity on the application of res gestae . The bench observed that the trial court’s decision to treat a call made several hours after the incident as part of the "same transaction" was a "complete misreading" of the law.

Citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of res gestae , the High Court noted that for hearsay evidence to be admissible under , the statement must be substantially contemporaneous with the act. The court concluded that when there is a sufficient time interval for "fabrication," the rule cannot apply. Consequently, the lack of medical evidence corroborating a "forcible" act left the prosecution's case without the necessary bedrock of proof.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the fragility of the prosecution's case with several pointed remarks:

> "The prosecution has failed to lay down basic foundational facts to attract the presumption under Section 29 of the . The charge leveled under Section 4 of the is, therefore, liable to fail."

> "This withholdment of a material witness would result in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution in terms of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

> "By no stretch of imagination, of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted in the present case."

The Final Verdict: Presumption of Innocence

The bench held that the principle of the presumption of innocence is not lost even in POCSO trials, and it is the burden of the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding major flaws in the chain of evidence—specifically the lack of proof regarding the victim's age and the contradictory narratives—the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Santosh Marandi, ordering his immediate release.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to investigative agencies that in cases involving severe penal consequences, the omission of critical testimony and the failure to establish basic qualifying facts cannot be overlooked by the courts.