Gauhati High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Citing Victim's 'Improbable' Conduct and Contradictory Evidence

Guwahati, Assam – The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction and 8-year sentence of a man under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution's case was undermined by "improbable" conduct of the victim, major contradictions in witness testimonies, and an overall failure to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria , the court acquitted Ashraful Sheikh, who had been convicted by the Special Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri, for the alleged rape of a minor in 2019.

Case Background

The prosecution's case originated from an FIR lodged on February 13, 2019, by the victim's father. He alleged that on the night of February 7, 2019, at around 2:00 a.m., Ashraful Sheikh dragged his minor daughter to a nearby jungle and committed rape. The FIR was filed six days after the alleged incident, a delay the prosecution attributed to a failed attempt at a village settlement ( bichar ) where the appellant refused to marry the victim.

Following the trial, the Special (POCSO) Court in Bilasipara convicted Sheikh under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. This conviction was challenged before the Gauhati High Court.

Arguments in the High Court

Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. R. Bora , argued that the conviction was flawed due to: - An unexplained six-day delay in lodging the FIR, which suggested deliberation and false implication. - The FIR was filed only after the appellant refused to marry the victim, pointing to a motive for revenge. - Serious contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents regarding the time, place, and sequence of events. - The victim’s testimony was unreliable and not of "sterling quality" as she admitted to not raising an alarm while being dragged away. - The medical report did not corroborate the allegation of rape, showing no signs of recent sexual assault.

The State and the Amicus Curiae for the victim , on the other hand, maintained that: - The delay was reasonably explained by the common practice of attempting village-level settlements. - The victim's testimony was consistent and trustworthy, and a conviction could be based on her sole statement. - The absence of medical evidence was understandable as the examination was conducted eight days after the incident.

Court’s Scrutiny and Rationale for Acquittal

Justice Mitali Thakuria conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, concluding that the prosecution's narrative did not inspire confidence. The court highlighted several critical inconsistencies and improbabilities.

pivotal_excerpts

"It is improbable that a girl being forcefully taken from her house to a distant jungle and subjected to sexual assault would remain completely silent during the entire incident. This part of evidence is totally unbelievable and does not inspire confidence."

The judgment pointedly questioned the victim's conduct. She had deposed that she was dragged from her house to a jungle but only raised an alarm after the accused had already fled the scene. The court found this behavior to be unnatural and inconsistent with the actions of a person under attack.

Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions between the testimonies of the key witnesses—the victim and her parents (PW-2 and PW-3). While the parents claimed they rushed to the spot upon hearing her cries from a "jungle far away from their house," the court found it "quite improbable" that they would hear cries from a distant location but not from their own premises when she was allegedly being abducted.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court's definition of a "sterling witness" from the Rai Sandeep v. State case, stating:

"But, here in the instant case, from the discussions made above, it is seen that the prosecutrix cannot be considered as sterling witness to base conviction solely on the basis of her statement."

The court found that the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimonies of the key witnesses created a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case.

Final Decision

Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal.

"The judgment and order dated 29.08.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Special (POCSO) Case No. 38/2019, stands set aside," the court ordered, acquitting Ashraful Sheikh of all charges and directing his immediate release. The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae, Mr. A. Phukan.