Patna HC Acquits Man Serving 20-Year POCSO Sentence, Calls It “Case Of No Evidence” [Read Judgment]

Patna: The Patna High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, holding that the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot sustain a conviction where the prosecution has failed to establish the basic foundational facts of the offence, and where both the child victim and the informant turned hostile at trial.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya was hearing a criminal appeal against a judgment of conviction and an order of sentence. The prosecution case, based on a written application by the mother of the then eleven-year-old victim, alleged that the appellant, a neighbour of the child's maternal grandfather, had entered the informant's father's house on 09.04.2015 and raped the child while she was alone, threatening to kill her if she disclosed the occurrence. An FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed additionally invoking Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court acquitted the appellant of the IPC charges for want of evidence but convicted him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, reasoning that the child and her family had “compromised” and that the victim was therefore unlikely to speak the truth in evidence.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant, assisted by an Amicus Curiae, submitted that the victim herself had turned hostile and denied any occurrence, that her testimony falsified the prosecution case, and that the medical report was inconclusive, with no spermatozoa found and no injury noted on the appellant. The State and the informant's counsel opposed the appeal, contending that the witnesses' testimonies were consistent and that the medical examination report corroborated the prosecution case.

Examining the trial record, the Bench found that the victim, who was not even named as a witness in the chargesheet, denied in her examination-in-chief that any occurrence had taken place and stated she did not know why her mother had lodged the case; despite being declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, she maintained that no rape had occurred and that she and her mother had “willfully compromised the matter.” The Court noted that the investigating officer's own testimony contained no suggestion that the victim or her mother had supported the prosecution version during investigation. It further found the medical opinion that an attempt at intercourse “might have been done,” which the doctor herself clarified in cross-examination meant it “may or may not be done”  to be inconclusive.

The Bench also flagged significant timeline and factual discrepancies: although the alleged occurrence took place at 7:00 a.m. on 09.04.2015, the written information was lodged only at 8:00 p.m. the next day; the victim's maternal grandmother, a prosecution witness, testified that she had left the house only at 10:00 a.m. that morning, contradicting the prosecution's claim that the child was alone in the house at the time of the alleged offence; and the informant could not recall who had telephoned to inform her of the incident, while separately admitting in cross-examination that she had entered into the compromise on her own volition after learning that nothing had happened.

Holding that the presumption of innocence survives even in POCSO prosecutions absent proof of foundational facts, and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ramanand vs. State of U.P., the Bench concluded that this case was concocted for purpose of extortion of money, and that the trial court had misapplied the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act to a charge under Section 376 IPC where no such statutory presumption exists. We are of the considered opinion that it is a case of no evidence, the Court observed, adding that the appellant should be at liberty to pursue a complaint of false implication under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

The Bench separately noted that the trial court had erred in law on sentencing: Section 4 of the POCSO Act was amended with effect from 16.08.2019 to introduce a minimum sentence of twenty years, whereas the alleged offence in this case occurred on 09.04.2015, when the provision prescribed a minimum of seven years' imprisonment extendable to life. The trial court, the Bench observed, appeared unaware of the amendment's effective date while imposing the twenty-year sentence.

Setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and directed his release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, while granting him liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Keshari, Amicus Curiae; Ms. Priya Kumari, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate.

For the Respondent No. 2 (Informant): Mr. Balram Kapri, Advocate.

Case Title: Ratan Mahto vs. The State of Bihar and Another, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 383 of 2023

[Read Judgment]