Back
Acquits Ratan Mahto in POCSO Case as Lacked
In a significant ruling that underscores the enduring strength of the , the has set aside the conviction of Ratan Mahto, who was sentenced to 20 years of under the . A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential to trigger the under the Act and that the trial court had fundamentally misapplied these provisions.
The Allegations and a Flawed Trial
The case originated from a written application lodged on , by the mother of an 11-year-old girl. She alleged that the appellant, a neighbour, had raped her daughter on the morning of , at her maternal grandparents' house. The convicted Mahto under , sentencing him to 20 years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, while acquitting him of charges under for lack of evidence.
When the Victim Denies the Offence
The prosecution's case unravelled when the victim (PW-7) during the trial. She unequivocally stated that no occurrence had taken place and expressed ignorance about the reason her mother had lodged the complaint. She also denied making any statement to the police accusing the appellant. The investigation officer (PW-4) failed to prove any prior statement of the victim that supported the prosecution.
The medical evidence was equally inconclusive. Dr. Kanak Ranjan (PW-1) found no injuries on the victim's body, the hymen was intact, and no spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal swab. The doctor's opinion that
"attempt of sexual intercourse might have been done"
was clarified in cross-examination as meaning
"may or may not be done."
" is Not Lost"
The High Court meticulously examined the trial court's reliance on . The Bench observed that while these sections raise presumptions regarding the commission of the offence and the , such presumptions cannot be invoked without the prosecution first proving the .
The court noted with disapproval that the victim herself, who was the star witness, had not supported the case. Yet the trial court, citing the victim's young age and an alleged compromise, chose to disbelieve her testimony and rely on and a weak medical report. The High Court found this approach fundamentally flawed.
"While this Court is aware of the presumptions under , the Court is also reminded of the which is not lost in cases under the POCSO Act."
The Bench further held:
"Once the victim herself says that she was not aware of the reason behind the lodgement of the case and she had not made any statement before police, this Court is unable to understand as to how the learned trial court can reach to a conclusion that the basic are available."
Contradictions in the Prosecution Story
The court unearthed critical contradictions. The maternal grandmother (PW-5) testified that she left home at 10 a.m. on the day of the occurrence, meaning she was present at 7 a.m. when the rape was allegedly committed. This directly contradicted the prosecution's claim that the victim was alone. The mother (PW-6) claimed to have learned about the incident from neighbours by telephone but could not name the caller. The court concluded that the case appeared to be concocted for extortion.
"We are of the considered opinion that it is a case of . We are also of the opinion that the case was lodged for purpose of extortion of money."
An Error in Sentencing
The High Court also pointed out a significant legal error in the sentence. The offence occurred in , before the 2019 amendment to , which increased the minimum sentence from seven years to 20 years. The trial court, appearing "totally unaware" of the amendment's effective date, erroneously imposed the enhanced sentence.
The Final Decision and Wider Implications
The allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction, and acquitted Ratan Mahto of all charges. It directed his immediate release unless required in another case. Notably, the court granted the appellant liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under , which punishes false complaints and false information intended to humiliate, extort, or defame.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that special statutes like the POCSO Act, while designed to protect vulnerable victims, do not displace the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. The remains a bedrock, and convictions must rest on substantive evidence, not on presumptions alone. The decision is likely to be cited in numerous cases where trial courts have mechanically applied without demanding foundational proof.
