On 23rd December, Delhi High Court overturned the life imprisonment sentence of a man convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused in the case, Sahjan Ali, was 22-year-old and the victim was only 14 years old at the time of the incident. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma. The court cited a lack of evidence against the petitioner in the case as merely mentioning ‘physical relation’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse let alone sexual assault.
Background of the case
On 18th March 2017, the mother of the minor girl filed a complaint at Madhu Vihar Police Station alleging that her daughter was kidnapped. The complainant stated that the minor girl was last seen at her home and later it was discovered that she was missing. The next day, the minor girl was located in Faridabad with Sahjan Ali. He was promptly arrested by the police.
In her initial statement, the minor told the police that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and described him as her boyfriend. She further claimed that they stayed together in a rented room. However, as the girl was minor, Ali was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape and Section 4 of the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault. He was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court asserted that his actions constituted an offence irrespective of the consent given by the minor girl.
What the victim and witnesses said
Ali filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s judgment. In its judgment, the High Court stated that the statements given by the victim cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. In the initial testimony, she identified the accused as her boyfriend and stated she had known him for over a year before the incident.
The victim told the court that she had left her home voluntarily to meet Ali and travelled with him to Faridabad via public transport. She further added that they had stayed in a rented room where they engaged in what she described as “physical relations”. However, the victim never told the court in detail or clarified the nature of those physical relations.
During cross-examination, she explicitly denied any use of force or coercion by the accused. The victim told the court, “During my stay with the accused, he did not commit any physical assault upon me, nor did he commit any wrong acts with me.” Furthermore, the victim added that she left the home because her parents opposed the relationship between her and Ali as he belonged to a different religion.
The complainant, the victim’s mother, who filed the initial complaint in the matter, stated that her daughter did not inform her of any incident of sexual assault. She said, “It is correct that my victim daughter did not tell me that the accused has ever sexually assaulted her or committed rape upon her.” The testimony by the victim and her mother weakened the prosecution’s case as it contradicted the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault.
Furthermore, the accused also claimed in his statement in the court that the victim willingly accompanied him. He categorically denied any intent to harm her and asserted the allegations against him were fabricated due to the opposition from the family of the victim who were not in the favour of their interfaith relationship.
What medical report said
Shortly after the incident, the victim was sent for a medical examination. The medical examination report (MLC) presented in the court revealed that there were no external injuries or evidence of physical or sexual assault. The MLC further noted that the victim reported having consensual physical contact with the accused. However, there were no signs of force or penetration. The MLC stated, “No history of physical/sexual assault as stated by her. Examination of injuries – no external injuries seen.” The court in its judgment highlighted that the MLC did not support the prosecution’s claims of penetrative sexual assault.
What law says
Section 375 of the IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act categorically state that consent for sex is immaterial when the girl is a minor. However, the High Court emphasised that the prosecution must establish clear evidence of penetrative sexual assault or other acts defined under these sections.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed, “The survivor, in fact, used the phrase ‘physical relations,’ but there is no clarity as to what she meant by using the said phrase. Even the use of the words ‘samband banaya’ is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 IPC. Though consent would not matter if the girl is a minor under the POCSO Act, the phrase ‘physical relations’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse let alone sexual assault.”
How the judges reached the conclusion
The High Court noted that the trial court failed to provide any substantial reason for the judgment delivered against the petitioner Ali. Justice Singh, writing for the Bench, said, “It is thus unclear as to the manner in which the trial court came to the conclusion that there was any sexual assault by the Appellant. The mere fact that the survivor is below 18 years cannot lead to a conclusion that there was penetrative sexual assault.”
The judgment further stated, “The fact that she voluntarily went with the Appellant is also not disputed. However, the leap from physical relations or ‘samband’ to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault is one which has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference. In such cases, the benefit of doubt ought to be in favour of the accused.”
Because of the inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of clarity in the statements given by the victim, the High Court acquitted Ali. The court further stated that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench also criticised the trial court as it failed to analyse the evidence in a comprehensive manner.
