Patna High Court Overturns 20-Year POCSO Conviction, Cites 'Tutored' Child Witness and Contradictory Medical Evidence

Patna, Bihar – The Patna High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to 20 years in prison under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing significant flaws in the prosecution's case, including the "tutored" testimony of the child victim, glaring contradictions in witness statements, and medical evidence that ruled out penetrative sexual assault.

A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey set aside the November 2022 conviction and sentence of Jai Krishna Yadav, holding that it would be "unsafe to convict the appellant" based on the unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed on August 24, 2020, by the mother of a five-year-old girl. She alleged that the appellant, Jai Krishna Yadav, a Homeguard, had lured her daughter into his room and sexually assaulted her. The trial court, relying on the testimonies of the victim and her parents, convicted Yadav under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sentenced him to 20 years of simple imprisonment.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant, represented by Amicus Curiae Mr. Md. Irshad, challenged the conviction on several grounds:

• Unreliable Child Witness: The defence argued that the victim, a child witness, admitted during cross-examination that she was "taught by her mother and father" and told what to say by the police officer ("Daroga Ji") before deposing in court. Furthermore, the trial court had failed to test her competency to understand the questions and the importance of speaking the truth before recording her statement.
• Contradictory Testimonies: The initial complaint alleged that the appellant had rubbed his penis on the victim's anus. However, during the trial, the victim's parents embellished the story, claiming there were abrasions on her vagina and that she was bleeding—a version not supported by medical evidence.
• Lack of Medical Corroboration: The medical examination report was a cornerstone of the defence. The doctor found no external or internal injuries on the victim's vaginal or labial regions. While there was "redness and swelling" near the anus, the doctor testified that this could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface and explicitly opined that an "opinion about attempt of rape cannot be given."
• Motive for False Implication: The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed prior enmity with the victim's father, stating he had complained about the father's misconduct to their employer. The court noted that the victim herself admitted that her father was often scolded by his employer.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the victim's testimony alone was sufficient for conviction and that the minor injuries found corroborated her statement.

Court's Scrutiny and Reasoning

The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies and doubts.

On the Testimony of the Child Witness

The bench found the victim's testimony unreliable, particularly due to her admission of being tutored. The court emphasized the procedural lapse by the trial judge in not assessing the child's competence, a critical step for ensuring the reliability of a child witness.

> "On complete reading of the evidences available on the record, we are of the considered opinion that the victim cannot be put in the category of sterling witness especially for the fact that she has admitted in her deposition that she was tutored by her parents to depose before the Court..."

On Medical and Forensic Evidence

The court gave significant weight to the medical report, which directly contradicted the prosecution's narrative of penetrative assault.

> "We are of the view that in the present case the medical evidence rules out a case of rape and hence it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the basis of sole testimony of the child witness (P.W. 2)... the Trial Court has grossly misdirected itself in treating external rubbing as 'penetrative sexual assault' as defined under Section 3 of the POCSO Act."

The court also noted that the FSL report on the victim's clothes was inconclusive, and no semen was detected on the clothing of either the victim or the appellant.

The Limits of Presumption Under Section 29 POCSO Act

A key legal principle discussed was the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The court clarified that this presumption is not automatic. It can only be invoked after the prosecution has successfully established the foundational facts of the case through cogent and reliable evidence. Citing precedents, the bench held:

> "In the context of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the foundational facts through cogent evidence and the defence has been able to prove its case by preponderance of probability..."

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment and order of the trial court were set aside, and Jai Krishna Yadav was acquitted of all charges. The court ordered his immediate release from incarceration.