POCSO Conviction Set Aside by MP High Court Due to Lack of Corroboration and Contradictory Evidence, Citing it as Based on 'Surmises and Conjectures' - 2025-09-02

MP High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Cites Lack of Corroboration and Contradictory Evidence

Jabalpur, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the conviction and life sentence of a man accused under the POCSO Act and IPC sections for sexual assault, ruling that the trial court's judgment was based on "surmises and conjectures" rather than credible evidence. The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh allowed the criminal appeal, highlighting significant contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of medical corroboration, and a non-conclusive DNA report.

---

Case Background

The appellant, identified as 'X', was convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur, on July 13, 2024. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Sections 5(N) and 5(M) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with convictions under IPC Sections 376AB and 376(2)(f). The appellant challenged this judgment, asserting his innocence and claiming false implication.

Arguments of the Defense

The appellant's counsel, Shri Vishnu Kumar Patel, argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to several critical flaws in the prosecution's case:

* DNA Evidence: The DNA report (Exhibit-P/27) was inconclusive, stating that a "very low and uninterpretable (Y-STR) DNA profile was recovered" from the victim, which could not be matched with the appellant's sample.

* Medical Examination: Dr. (Smt.) Tejasvi Arjaria (PW.9), who examined the victim, testified that there were no injury marks or signs of a struggle on the victim's body. The hymen was intact, and there was no blood loss. She could not give a definite opinion regarding the "violation of privacy."

* Witness Contradictions: The defense pointed to material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the victim, her mother, and her father.

* Prior Enmity: The appellant's counsel suggested a motive for false implication, citing an admission from the victim's mother (PW.1) that the appellant had previously raised concerns about her conduct with her 'Devar' (brother-in-law), leading to an altercation.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence on record and found the prosecution's case to be riddled with inconsistencies.

"We are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court is on the basis of surmises and conjectures without there being any material or evidence or its corroboration," the bench observed.

The court highlighted several key discrepancies:

1. Contradictory Statements: The victim (PW.2) claimed the incident occurred on a hillock. However, the doctor (PW.9) testified that the victim told her the incident happened in a room where her grandfather took her.
2. Lack of Physical Evidence: Despite admissions that it was raining at the time of the alleged incident, no soil-soaked clothes were recovered from the purported scene on the hillock, failing to corroborate the victim's account of the location.
3. Unexplained Delay: The incident reportedly occurred on September 7, 2023, but the FIR was lodged two days later, on September 9, 2023. The explanation for the delay—that the victim was unwell and receiving medical treatment—was found to be unsubstantiated, as the father (PW.4) could not produce any medical documents despite claiming to have spent Rs. 50,000 on treatment.
4. No Medical Corroboration: The court gave significant weight to the testimony of Dr. Arjaria (PW.9), who found no signs of sexual assault. The judgment noted, "...lady doctor has categorically stated that neither there was internal or external injury marks on the body of victim, nor there was any sign of struggle. Hymen was intact. There was no blood loss."

The bench also considered the possibility of false implication stemming from prior enmity, stating, "We are conscious that enmity is a double-edged weapon and it can be used either way." However, when viewed in conjunction with the uncorroborated medical evidence and contradictory witness accounts, the possibility of a fabricated case could not be ruled out.

The Verdict

Finding the prosecution's case unproven, the High Court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained. The court held that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant without sufficient corroborative evidence.

The judgment stated, "...aspect of violation of privacy is not medically corroborated... the conviction of the appellant only to satisfy the case of the prosecution is not made out. Impugned judgment of conviction is set aside."

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, provided his custody was not required in any other case.