Lack of evidence: HC acquits man in Pocso case
Bhopal: A division bench of the MP High Court acquitted a person sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by a Bhopal court on charges of sexual assault on his one-year-and-a-month-old daughter.
The court, while setting aside the order of the Bhopal POCSO court, said that under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the 'burden of proof' can't be entirely shifted onto the accused in POCSO cases.
According to the prosecution, the wife of the accused, in her report lodged with the police, said that she went to the bathroom, and when she came back, she saw her husband sexually assaulting their daughter. She took her daughter to a doctor the next day, who found the private part of the baby reddish.
She informed him of what she saw her husband doing to the baby the previous day. The doctor advised her to seek help from the Child Helpline.
She subsequently reported the matter to the police.
In the medical examination of the girl, rashes were found on her private part, its peripheral area, and the waist. The doctors opined that the marks were not created by diapers, paper napkins, or things like that. Samples of the accused's nails and fingers were sent for FSL examination, but they didn't match the samples of his daughter.
Hearing the criminal revision petition of the father, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice D N Mishra said that sections 29 and 30 (2) of the POCSO Act don't absolve the prosecution from the 'burden of proof' as specified under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. An accused would carry the burden to prove himself innocent only if the prosecution is able to establish the charge against him prima facie "by adhering to the standard of proof of preponderance of probability.
It's only then that the accused has to displace the presumption of guilt," the judges said.
The division bench said that witnesses in the case have stated that the wife of the accused, who is the complainant in the case, told them about the incident. The statements of the wife recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and her statement in the court are contradictory. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge of sexual assault on the accused, and he is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt, said the court while setting aside the POCSO court order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC upholds gang rape convictions; emphasizes need for greater protection of minor victims
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed that acts of sexual assault or harassment against children must be dealt with stringently, leaving no room for leniency under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court made this observation while upholding the conviction and sentence of three men involved in a gang rape case in Makdi village, Kondagaon district. The court observed that a minor subjected to sexual abuse requires greater protection than an adult victim, as an adult may still be able to endure social ostracism and mental harassment inflicted by society, whereas a minor is far less equipped to cope. Most crimes against minors often go unreported, as the perpetrator is frequently a family member or a close acquaintance. Therefore, a child victim needs special protection, and no leniency can be extended to an accused found guilty under the POCSO Act , 2012, especially when the offence is proven by adequate evidence before a court of law. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered a common judgment on three criminal appeals filed by three accused. The appellants challenged the judgment dated August 25, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon. The Special Judge convicted them under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing each to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000, with an additional three years of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brazilian Bikinis 2025 Expertinspector Click Here Undo The case dates back to April 26, 2019, when the victim, a minor, and her friend went to a field near a wedding venue in Makdi village. Four boys gagged and dragged the victim to a field, where they sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her. The victim identified the accused with the help of mobile torchlight. Following her complaint, a case was registered under Sections 376(D), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act. The court verified the victim's age, based on her father's statement and school records, confirming she was 13 years old at the time of the incident, falling under the definition of "child" as per Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. Medical evidence also corroborated that sexual intercourse occurred within 24 hours of her examination. The court reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offence cases does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence, citing previous Supreme Court rulings. The victim's consistent account to her parents, villagers, and the trial court, along with the corroborating statements of an eyewitness and other prosecution witnesses, were key to the conviction. The FSL report also confirmed the presence of semen stains, supporting the sexual assault. The High Court observed that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault by gang-raping her. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were upheld.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Mohali police nabs ‘most wanted' fugitive after 8-round gun battle
A hot pursuit on Lakhnour Road erupted into gunfire Sunday night when CIA Kharar officers cornered Sandeep Kumar, the fugitive named in seven serious cases, including the 26 May Phase-1 murder (FIR 155/2025). SSP Harmandeep Hans said the encounter began around 8 pm, directly opposite the Mohali SSP headquarters. 'Kumar fired four shots at our team and drove into the roadside thicket. We returned fire eight rounds in total and hit him in the leg. No police personnel were injured.' SSP Hans said, 'Police believe Kumar had come to supply narcotics.' A .32-bore pistol and live cartridges were recovered; the .315-bore weapon used in May's homicide is still missing. Paramedics moved Kumar to Mohali Civil Hospital, where he remains under guard. Hans added that Kumar already faces charges of murder, rape, POCSO offences, kidnapping, arms violations and drug trafficking. His alleged getaway rider in May's killing, Bablu, was captured in Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, earlier this week. Because Kumar opened fire on officers, a fresh FIR at Sohana Police Station now lists Sections 109, 132, 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alongside the Arms Act. 'Given the gravity of the case, special teams were formed under SP Investigations and SP Operations,' Hans said. 'We tracked Kumar's movements for days and finally pinned him down. The hunt for his associates and additional weapons continues.' Investigators describe Kumar as a habitual offender previously arrested in Phase-1 and Balongi (Punjab) and Swarghat (Himachal Pradesh) on counts ranging from theft and kidnapping to drug smuggling. SSP Harmandeep Hans said Saturday's operation struck 'a major blow to organised crime in the region'.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
16 years on, former station master acquitted in bribery case
Thane, A special CBI court in Maharashtra's Thane district has acquitted a former station master in a bribery case of 2009, observing the complainant's testimony is not corroborated by any evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Additional Sessions Judge Suryakant S Shinde, in the order on June 9, said the prosecution "miserably failed to prove any of the charges" against Ramkaran Panchuram Meena, who was accused of demanding a bribe from a fruit vendor. A copy of the order was made available on Sunday. According to the prosecution, Vendor Sonu Rashid Raeen had alleged that on June 13, 2009, Diva railway station master Meena demanded a bribe of ₹1,000 per month and an additional ₹5,000 for previous months to allow him to sell fruits in trains and on the station premises in Thane district. The Central Bureau of Investigation laid a trap the same day and claimed to have caught Meena accepting an installment of ₹2,500. Based on the vendor's complaint, Meena was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies of the complainant and a panch witness, and electronic evidence in the form of voice recordings. The court, however, observed the primary proof was the oral testimony of the complainant, which was not supported by any other credible evidence. It also noted that the panch witness never entered the station master's cabin during the alleged demand or the trap, making his testimony unhelpful. The electronic evidence, which could have corroborated the demand and acceptance of the bribe, was found to be unreliable. "After hearing the conversation recorded in the memory card before the court, no conversation is appearing in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance there of. The conversation is not clearly audible," the judge said. The court also highlighted that the transcripts noted "voice not clear", "train sound" and "noise of train" at several points. Furthermore, the court took a dim view that a certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act, essential for admitting electronic evidence, was not filed by the prosecution. The judge also cast doubt on the complainant's credibility. "The complainant was having a grudge against the accused, therefore, implicating of accused in false case cannot be ruled out," the court said. "To sum up the above discussion, from the above observations, it is clear that the oral testimony of the complainant in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of it is not corroborated by any evidence brought on record by the prosecution," it said.
