Gujarat HC Upholds Relative’s Acquittal In Case Alleging 10-Year-Old’s Molestation, Citing Contradictions And Four-Day Delay

The State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent’s acquittal by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Jamnagar, in Special POCSO Case No. 16 of 2014.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had touched a ten-year-old girl, removed or loosened her lower garment, and threatened her family; the complaint was lodged four days after the alleged incident.

At trial, the complainant, the victim and the victim’s father gave evidence, but their accounts contained omissions and inconsistencies concerning the alleged acts and prior incidents.

The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State challenged that decision.

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits an appellate court to review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, the appellate court has full power to reconsider the evidence, but must account for the double presumption of innocence following acquittal; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The prosecution must prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court also considered Section 29 of the POCSO Act, observing that a statutory presumption does not dispense with establishing the foundational facts necessary to trigger it.

On reappreciation, the Court found material discrepancies between the witnesses’ trial testimony and the earlier accounts, including omissions concerning the removal of the victim’s lower garment and the alleged request that she bend over.

The victim’s account that no similar incident had occurred previously conflicted with the accounts attributed to her parents.

The four-day delay in reporting, considered cumulatively with those inconsistencies and the surrounding relationship and transactional circumstances, contributed to reasonable doubt; the Court did not treat either the delay or the failure to record a Section 164 CrPC statement as independently fatal.

The Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonably possible view and that the evidence did not warrant appellate interference.

Finding no perversity, illegality or material misappreciation of evidence, it dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the acquittal.

It directed that the bail bond be cancelled and the record and proceedings be returned to the trial court.