A man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), was exonerated by the Delhi High Court, stating that solely the term “physical relations” without supporting documentation is insufficient.
The court was considering a criminal appeal against the trial court’s decision to convict the defendant in accordance with section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The decision was pronounced by single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri. The man’s plea contesting his conviction and ten years of harsh imprisonment was accepted by the judge.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the use of the term ‘physical relations’ unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is unsustainable,” he conveyed.
He described it as an unfortunate instance in which the victim’s parents frequently claimed that “physical relations” had been formed, although it was unclear exactly what they meant by that statement. The court pointed out that the reporting of the occurrence has been delayed significantly.
The court noted that there was no forensic evidence on file and the prosecution’s case depended on the child victim’s and her parents’ oral testimony. According to the justice, neither the POCSO Act nor the IPC use or define the term “physical relations.” He added that there was no explanation of what they meant by “physical relations” or if it met the requirements for penetrative sexual assault.
The court highlighted, “The prosecution’s case hinges only on the oral evidence i.e., the testimony of the child victim and her parents. During the medical examination, internal examination has been refused. Notably, there is no forensic evidence on record.”
“No further description of the alleged act has been given. Unfortunately, no questions have been put to the victim by the prosecution or trial court to gain some clarity as to whether the essential ingredients of the offence the appellant was charged with, have been made out or not. In a given case, the court can still be guided by other attending circumstances to reach a conclusion, however, in the present case the MLC of the child victim also does not lend any help in this regard as the medical examination was admittedly conducted after one and half years of the alleged incident. An internal medical examination was refused. Further, there is no forensic material on record,” the court stated.
As a result, the high court granted the appeal, overturned the contested judgement and acquitted the accused.
Background of the matter
The case was submitted in 2023. The victim filed a written complaint stating that she was 16 years old and enrolled in school in 2014. The accused, her cousin (aunt’s son) used to come to their home and she became friends with him which eventually turned into a ‘romantic relationship’. He allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her in the name of marriage. Additionally, it was charged that he blatantly refused to wed her when she proposed.
She reportedly ingested poison and received treatment for approximately a month, as a result of her unstable mental state. She further mentioned that the accused ‘used her’ and formed ‘physical relations’ with her for about one and a half years under the false pretence of marriage. An FIR was launched, and the accused cousin was found guilty of rape by the trial court and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment alongside a fine of Rs. 500. He then went to the high court against the verdict.
