Karnataka HC Acquits Man Convicted In POCSO Case After Complainant Turned Hostile And FSL Could Not Link Semen Stain To Him

The prosecution alleged that on 11 October 2014 the appellant kidnapped the complainant, a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, assaulted her sister when she tried to intervene, and raped the complainant.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366, 355, 324 and 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, with fines.

The appellant appealed under Section 374 CrPC.

At trial, the complainant, her sister, and other material witnesses did not support the prosecution and were treated as hostile; the FSL report detected seminal stains on one item of clothing but did not identify them as the appellant’s.

The appeal was considered under Section 374 CrPC.

The charges arose under Sections 366, 355, 324 and 376(2) IPC, Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

The Court applied the criminal-law requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It assessed the evidence as a whole, including the testimony of witnesses who had turned hostile, the medical evidence and the FSL report.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the complainant denied that the appellant had harmed her or that she had made the complaint, and that the other principal witnesses did not support the prosecution.

The complaint’s scribe testified that it had been drafted at the police’s direction.

The FSL report showed a seminal stain on one garment but did not establish that it belonged to the appellant; the medical evidence also did not firmly establish sexual assault by him.

The Court further noted that the Trial Court relied on evidence from panch witnesses who had turned hostile and had not properly assessed the record as a whole.

It therefore held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It ordered that any deposited fine be refunded on due identification, that the material objects be destroyed after the appeal period, and that any pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.