Back
Why Acquitted 80-Year-Old Swamideen in POCSO Case: of Eye Treatment
The has set aside the conviction of an 80-year-old man in a POCSO case, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its charges and that an — he was undergoing eye treatment 150 kilometres away — entitled him to the . Justice Santosh Rai, sitting singly, delivered the judgment on , allowing the criminal appeal preferred by Swamideen against a trial court order that had sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under .
A Conviction Overturned
In , the , held Swamideen guilty of sexually assaulting a four‑year‑old neighbour girl. He was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and handed the maximum possible sentence. Swamideen, however, maintained his innocence throughout, claiming he was not even in the village on the day of the alleged incident. The High Court’s ruling now declares that the trial court’s findings cannot survive legal scrutiny.
The Case That Led to the Trial
The prosecution’s case began on , when the child’s mother, Smt. Rani Prajapati, lodged an FIR at , District Hamirpur. She alleged that five days earlier, on , her four‑year‑old daughter was lured by Swamideen with the promise of a toffee, taken inside his house, and subjected to obscene acts on her private parts. The initial FIR invoked only (outraging modesty) and (aggravated sexual assault). Later, during investigation, the police obtained a birth certificate that placed the victim’s age at about four to five years, and charges were upgraded to Section 376‑AB (rape of a child below twelve years) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Swamideen was arrested on , and eventually committed for trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the child (then about six years old), her mother, the medical officer, and the investigating officer. The defence, in turn, presented two witnesses and documentary evidence to prove that Swamideen was miles away, undergoing eye treatment at Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya in Chitrakoot, from December 5 to .
Cracks in the Prosecution’s Case
The High Court’s scrutiny of the evidence revealed multiple infirmities that, taken together, destroyed the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Unexplained Delay and Shifting Charges
The FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident. The reasons given by the informant for this delay were inconsistent — at one point she told the doctor she learned of the matter two days later, and her husband’s supposed unavailability was never reliably established. As the Court noted, “where the delay is sought to be explained by shifting and mutually inconsistent versions, it cannot be said to have been ‘duly explained’.” Moreover, the original written report did not allege any penetrative sexual assault; the graver charges were added only during investigation — a fact the trial court had overlooked.
Contradictions in the Mother’s Testimony
The child’s mother, PW‑2, gave conflicting accounts about whether she saw the victim go towards the appellant’s house, the precise time of the occurrence, and even whether she was present during the recording of the child’s statement under The record of that statement showed she was present, contradicting her denial. This opened a real possibility of .
The Child’s Ambiguous Statement
The victim, examined twice — first at the age of four and again at six — used the word “Musanna” to describe the act, a term that was never clarified during the trial. Furthermore, her statement named a different person (“Suraj, grandson of Baladeen”) and gave inconsistent versions about the time of day. Justice Rai observed that such discrepancies, especially when the child’s statement is the sole direct evidence, cannot be brushed aside. Citing the ’s decision in
, the Court held that a genuine Section 164 statement that detracts from the prosecution cannot be discarded merely because it is inconvenient.
Medical and Forensic Evidence Offered No Support
Dr. Anshu Mishra (PW‑3), who examined the victim, found no injury or swelling and a normal hymen. The report similarly failed to corroborate the prosecution’s version. While the absence of injury is not fatal in every POCSO case, in the present matter, combined with other weaknesses, it assumed significant weight. As the Court put it, “sympathy for a child victim, however natural, cannot substitute for proof ,” echoing the ’s caution in
.
The That Stood Unrebutted
Perhaps the most decisive circumstance was Swamideen’s defence of . He produced out‑patient registration records from Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot, showing that he was under the care of the eye hospital from December 5 to . Two defence witnesses — the village pradhan and Swamideen’s daughter‑in‑law — corroborated this. Significantly, even before his arrest, several villagers sent a representation dated , to the police station asserting his absence on the date of the incident. The distance between Hamirpur and Chitrakoot is about 150 kilometres, making his presence at both places practically impossible.
The High Court found that the trial court had not independently evaluated this documentary evidence at all. Stating the law, the Court observed:
“The documentary evidence produced by the defence … establishes a plausible and unrebutted case that the appellant was away from the place of occurrence, undergoing eye treatment at Chitrakoot, on the date of the alleged incident.”
Since the prosecution led no rebuttal and the defence evidence remained unshaken in cross‑examination, the rendered the prosecution version doubtful.
Legal Principles Guiding the Court
Justice Rai relied on a chain of recent rulings that set the standard for evaluating child witnesses and require that the testimony of a minor victim be of “” to sustain a conviction of this gravity. In particular, in , the apex court had held that a conviction cannot rest on a witness’s testimony that is riddled with material contradictions, flaws, and lacunae. The High Court found that the cumulative effect of the unexplained delay, the contradictions in the informant’s evidence, the unclarified description of the act, the absence of medical corroboration, and the meant that two views were reasonably possible, and the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.
The Verdict: and Acquittal
Ultimately, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge . The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment were set aside. Swamideen was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed his immediate release if not wanted in any other case. The fine, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded.
This judgment serves as a reminder that even in the most sensitive of cases, the criminal standard of proof remains unchanged. While courts must be sensitive to the trauma of child victims, they cannot overlook glaring gaps in evidence. When an accused puts forward a cogent, supported by contemporaneous documents, the must necessarily follow.
