ACQUITTAL UPHELD: VICTIM'S INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY AND PROPERTY DISPUTE RAISE DOUBT.

The State appealed an order dated 26.09.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Shahdara District, acquitting the respondent, Fahimuddin @ Fahim, in Session Case No. 632/16.

This case arose from FIR No. 141/13 under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, registered at Jafrabad Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that on 17.05.2013, at approximately 6:30 AM, the respondent, the victim's uncle's son, entered her room on the first floor, sat between her legs, and touched her private part.

The victim, aged 17, then woke up, and the respondent fled, gesturing for her to remain silent.

The victim reported the incident to her mother, who then brought her to the police station.

The victim was medically examined but refused an internal examination.

Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/B) was recorded on 20.05.2013.

Charges were framed against the respondent on 04.02.2015 for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the victim as PW-1, but the victim's mother was not examined.

The respondent, in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, claimed false implication due to a family dispute aimed at pressuring his family to vacate the premises.

The respondent's uncle, Mr. Naimuddin, was examined as DW-1, corroborating the existence of family disputes.

The Trial Court observed inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the physical layout of the house and the delay in filing the complaint, especially considering the admitted family dispute.

Additionally, the site plan was prepared without visiting the exact location, and the police witness (PW-9), contradicted PW-1 regarding the house structure.

The victim admitted to living with her parents and brother in the same room where the alleged incident occurred, but none of them witnessed it.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the victim's consistent testimony.

2. Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's statement and the existence of a family dispute were sufficient grounds to discard her testimony and find the prosecution's case unproven beyond reasonable doubt.

The court primarily applied the principle that while a victim's statement can be sufficient for conviction, it must inspire confidence and be free from circumstances that militate against its veracity.

This principle was derived from Supreme Court judgments in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21.

Specifically, Rai Sandeep emphasizes that a "sterling witness" must be of high quality, whose version is unassailable, consistent from start to end, natural, and able to withstand strenuous cross-examination, correlating with other supporting evidence.

The Court stated that for a witness to be considered "sterling," their version should have no missing links and should consistently match other evidence, akin to the test for circumstantial evidence.

The Court analyzed the prosecution's case, which relied entirely on the victim's (PW-1) statement.

However, it found significant inconsistencies that eroded the credibility of her testimony, failing the "sterling witness" test.

The victim claimed the incident occurred on the first floor but later admitted there was no first floor in the building.

This specific contradiction regarding the place of occurrence was material.

Furthermore, the victim admitted to an existing property dispute between her family and the respondent's family, which the respondent claimed was the motive for false implication.

The Court noted the victim, her mother, father, and brother were all in the same room at the time of the alleged incident, yet none witnessed it.

The absence of the victim's mother as a witness, despite being the first person informed by the victim, was also considered critical.

The Court observed a delay in reporting the incident to the police, which assumed significance given the inter-family dispute.

Finally, PW-9, the police witness who prepared the site plan, contradicted the victim by initially stating the house had a ground and first floor, but also admitted the plan was made without inspecting the room and that he did not investigate the property dispute.

These discrepancies and the context of the family dispute prevented the court from accepting the victim's testimony without corroboration, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the "sterling witness" test, it concluded that the victim's testimony, despite its consistency, did not inspire confidence due to material contradictions, particularly regarding the place of occurrence, the presence of family members, and the admitted family dispute.

The benefit of doubt must flow to the respondent.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal order of the Trial Court was upheld.

The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled, and his surety was discharged.