2 years on, court acquits accused in POCSO case

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 20

Swati Sehgal, Judge, Fast Track Special Court, has acquitted an accused arrested in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case after the complainant and the prosecutrix turned hostile during the hearings.

The police have arrested the accused on the complaint of the sister of a minor girl around two years ago. The complainant alleged that the accused, who was living in their vicinity, raped her minor sister when she was alone at home. After registering a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the police arrested the accused.

After investigations, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused. The court framed charges against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Manoj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the accused, argued that the prosecution failed to prove charges against him. The prosecutrix had not supported the case of the prosecution during the hearings.

The defence counsel further argued that the prosecutrix had refused for her medical examination. Consequently, there was no medical evidence on record to prove the prosecution case.

Sharma said the testimony of the complainant was hearsay as she was not eyewitness to the occurrence. Similarly, the prosecutrix turned hostile.

Sharma argued that in the absence of direct and substantial evidence, benefit of doubt had to go to the accused and he might be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

On the other hand, the public prosecutor said though the prosecutrix was declared hostile, reliance could be placed upon the part of her deposition in the form of court questions, which were consistent with the prosecution case.

He argued that the complainant had identified the accused in the court and the prosecution had proved its case against the accused and he should be sternly punished.

After hearing the arguments, the judge said the prosecutrix denied giving any statement to the police. She was declared hostile and permitted to cross-examine on behalf of the state. Even in her cross-examination, nothing could be extracted by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix stuck to the stand that the accused had not done any wrongful act with her.

“To prove the guilt of the accused, it was obligatory on part of the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused. The prosecutrix was the best person to prove the same by deposing in the court, but she has categorically denied the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. Apart from the testimony of the complainant and the prosecutrix, who have not supported the prosecution case, no other direct or substantial evidence is available on record to prove the accusation against the accused. Henceforth, all points for determination stand decided against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, discussion and necessary corollary to the findings on the points for determination, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the requisite onus beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 (3) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act,” says the judge in the order.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.