POCSO Conviction Set Aside Due to Contradictory Child Testimony & Unproven Foundational Facts Despite Sec 29 Presumption: Madras High Court - 2025-04-28

Court Cases & Legal News.

Madras High Court Acquits Teacher and Neighbour in POCSO Case, Citing Unreliable Child Testimony and Lack of Corroboration

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant judgment, has acquitted a former teacher and her neighbour who were previously convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged rape and abetment of rape of a minor student. The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N. Senthilkumar overturned the trial court's verdict, citing major contradictions in the victim's testimony, lack of corroborating evidence, defective investigation, and an unexplained delay of 1.5 years in lodging the complaint.

Case Background

The appellants, Sanjana (A2), the victim's former class teacher, and Balaji (A1), a neighbour, challenged the judgment of the Special Court for POCSO cases, Chennai, dated 18.07.2022. The trial court had sentenced Balaji (A1) to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sanjana (A2) to the same term for abetment under Section 376(3) read with 109 IPC, among other concurrent sentences for kidnapping, extortion, and criminal intimidation.

The prosecution's case alleged that A2, taking advantage of the affection the victim (PW1, aged 14 at the time) had for her, facilitated and abetted the rape committed by A1 in a hotel room on 10.07.2018. It was further alleged that A2 threatened PW1 and subsequently extorted money and jewellery from her over a period, leveraging the victim's emotional dependence and threats of suicide or exposure. The complaint was filed on 05.11.2019, nearly 1.5 years after the alleged incident.

Key Arguments

Appellants' Defence: - Mr. R. John Sathyan (Senior Counsel for A2) and Mr. V. Neeranjan (Counsel for A1) argued that the victim's (PW1) testimony was unreliable and riddled with contradictions, particularly between her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition in court. - They highlighted PW1's continued affectionate behaviour towards A2 even after the alleged assault (addressing her as 'Amma' and 'Akka' in letters - Ex.D1, D2), which they argued was unnatural conduct. - The defence stressed the lack of evidence proving the date (10.07.2018) and place (hotel) of the alleged occurrence, noting that hotel staff (PWs 7-9) did not identify the parties. - The significant delay of 1.5 years in filing the complaint remained unexplained and was fatal to the prosecution's case. - They pointed to inconsistencies in the evidence of the parents (PW2, PW3) regarding missing valuables and the disclosure of the incident. - Defective investigation, including the failure to recover PW1's mobile phone (allegedly containing messages from A1) or take PW1 to the alleged scene, was also raised. - A2 provided a plausible explanation in her Section 313 CrPC statement for pledging the recovered jewels (M.O.1), claiming she did it for PW1's mother (PW3).

Prosecution's Stand: - Mr. S. Raja Kumar (Additional Public Prosecutor) maintained that PW1's testimony was credible and the delay was explained by A2's threats. - He argued that the parents' evidence (PW2, PW3) corroborated PW1's account and the recovery of pledged jewels (M.O.1) based on A2's confession supported the extortion charge. - The prosecution relied heavily on the statutory presumption against the accused under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analysed the evidence and found several grounds to allow the appeals:

Credibility of Child Witness (PW1): The Court found PW1's evidence did not inspire confidence due to "major contradictions," particularly regarding a trip to Urapakkam to meet A1. PW1 gave different versions of this event (whether it happened before or after the alleged rape, and whether she went voluntarily or under threat) in her 164 statement versus her court testimony. Her continued association and affection towards A2 post-incident were deemed "unnatural" and "abnormal."

Lack of Corroboration & Delay: The prosecution failed to establish the crucial date (10.07.2018) and place (hotel) of the alleged rape. The 1.5-year delay in lodging the FIR was not adequately explained. The Court found the father's (PW2) reason of being unwell unconvincing for such a serious allegation.

Inconsistent Parental Testimony (PW2, PW3): The evidence of the parents was deemed hearsay and suffered from inconsistencies regarding the quantum of missing cash and jewels, and the circumstances under which PW1 disclosed the incident.

Defective Investigation: The failure to recover the mobile phone containing alleged messages from A1, not taking PW1 to the scene of the crime for identification, and inconclusive medical evidence (PW4 admitted hymen tear could result from sports) weakened the prosecution's case.

POCSO Presumption Not Applicable: While acknowledging the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court held it was rebuttable and not applicable here as the prosecution had "miserably failed to establish the foundational facts" of the crime. The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Just Rights For Children Alliance (2024) , stating the presumption cannot operate before foundational allegations are duly established.

Defence Evidence Creates Doubt: The Court considered the letters written by PW1 (Ex.D1, D2) showing affection for A2 and the plausible explanation offered by A2 regarding the pledged jewels in her 313 CrPC statement, finding they created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's narrative.

The Bench extensively discussed principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the evaluation of child witness testimony, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny and corroboration when the evidence is inconsistent, tutored, or fails to inspire confidence.

Final Decision

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable testimony, lack of corroboration, unexplained delay, and defective investigation, the High Court allowed both criminal appeals. The conviction and sentence passed by the Special POCSO Court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.