Inconsistent testimony and non-examination of independent witnesses entitle accused to benefit of doubt in POCSO cases.

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, under Section 10 of the POCSO Act (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on July 10, 2021, while traveling on a train, the Appellant caught the hand of the 11-year-old victim (PW-1) and attempted to pull her from her berth to outrage her modesty

The victim’s mother (PW-3) reported the matter to the RPF, leading to an FIR

The Appellant denied all charges, claiming he merely moved the victim’s hand because it was hanging down and obstructing the passage

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in light of contradictions in witness testimonies

2. Whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of independent witness testimonies from co-passengers

The Court applied Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 10 and 42 of the POCSO Act, 2012, regarding sexual assault against children

It relied on the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused

The Court cited Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal (2016) to reiterate that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted

It further referenced Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) regarding the "bounden duty" of the prosecution to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt

The High Court found significant material contradictions between the testimonies of the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-3). While the mother alleged the Appellant scratched the victim and pulled her scarf, these details were absent from the victim’s own deposition and the initial FIR

The victim admitted the Appellant claimed he was only adjusting her hanging hand

Furthermore, the investigation was found deeply flawed as the police failed to examine any independent co-passengers despite the incident occurring in a crowded train coach

The RPF staff’s testimony (PW-5) regarding the victim "screaming" was also unsupported by the victim’s own statement [para. 12]. The Court reasoned that these inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration created a substantial "benefit of doubt"

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 13, 2025

The appeal was allowed, the Appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the Court directed his immediate release from jail