Karnataka HC Acquits Man Convicted In POCSO Case Over Alleged Chocolate Lure Of Two Girls To Burial Ground, Citing Unexplained Delays

Facts

The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured two children to a burial ground with the promise of chocolate and sexually assaulted them.

Source reference: pp. 3–7, paras. 3–7

The trial court acquitted him of the charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but convicted him under Section 363 IPC and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines.

Source reference: pp. 3–7, paras. 3–7

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending, among other things, that one child and the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution, and that delays and medical evidence undermined the case.

Source reference: pp. 6–10, paras. 8–10

Issues

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence

Source reference: p. 9, para. 12

Whether the prosecution evidence, considered as a whole, was sufficient to sustain the convictions under Section 363 IPC and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the POCSO Act

Source reference: pp. 15–18, paras. 26–28

Law Applied

The Court considered Section 363 of the IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted, and Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, concerning the alleged aggravated sexual assault and its punishment.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 7; p. 10, para. 15

It also referred to Section 164(5) of the CrPC and Section 25 of the POCSO Act in assessing the failure to have the child’s statement recorded before a Magistrate.

Source reference: pp. 16–17, paras. 26–27

The Court applied the general evidentiary requirement that a conviction be supported by cogent and convincing evidence, finding that material gaps and unexplained delays created reasonable doubt.

Source reference: pp. 17–18, paras. 27–28

No judicial precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation

Reasoning

The Court noted that the second child and the alleged eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution, including during cross-examination after being treated as hostile.

Source reference: pp. 14–15, paras. 19–21

It also considered the delay in lodging the complaint, forwarding the FIR, and medically examining the child, together with the absence of an explanation for those delays; the investigating officer’s failure to have the child’s statement recorded before a Magistrate; and the lack of corroboration for the principal child witness’s account.

Source reference: pp. 15–18, paras. 26–27

Taken together, these circumstances led the Court to find that the evidence did not establish guilt to the required standard.

Source reference: p. 18, para. 28

Holding

The Court answered the issue of interference in the affirmative, allowed the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence.

It acquitted the appellant of the offences under Section 363 IPC and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the POCSO Act, and directed his release forthwith if he was not required in any other case.

Source reference: p. 19, para. 29