Madras HC Acquits Father Of POCSO Charge After Daughter And Grandmother Say Family Left Home A Week Before Alleged Assault

The prosecution alleged that on 7 July 2023 the appellant sexually assaulted his 15-year-old daughter and later attempted to assault her again.

Following a complaint by the child’s mother, the appellant was charged under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 506(i) of the IPC.

The trial court convicted him under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, and acquitted him of the IPC charge.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of the survivor’s testimony, relying, among other things, on evidence that she and the other children had left with their mother after a quarrel about a week before the alleged incident.

The High Court also noted the subsequent execution of a sale deed and the return of compensation, while expressly declining to rely on the survivor’s appellate affidavit.

A conviction under the POCSO Act may rest on the sole testimony of the child victim if it is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; the court referred to Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011 INSC 437), and Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573.

Under Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, a “sterling witness” must give a version of very high quality and calibre that is unassailable; the court also cited Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260.

The Section 29 POCSO presumption arises only after foundational facts are established and is rebuttable; the prosecution’s burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt remains throughout.

The prosecution case rested solely on P.W.2’s testimony; P.W.3, who was in the house, did not speak to the alleged occurrence.

In cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that her mother had taken the children to their grandmother’s house on 30 June 2023 after a quarrel, and P.W.4 gave corroborating evidence that the mother had taken the children away after a quarrel.

The court considered this evidence, the timing of the complaint, and the absence of an explanation for the sequence to create doubt about the circumstances of the alleged occurrence and lend plausibility to the defence theory of a domestic and property dispute.

It treated the subsequent sale deed and return of compensation as supportive circumstances, not independently decisive, and excluded the survivor’s affidavit from its assessment because it had not been tested by cross-examination and was not part of the trial record.

In view of these infirmities, the survivor’s testimony did not meet the standard required to sustain a conviction on sole testimony.

It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, acquitted the appellant, allowed the appeal, closed the connected miscellaneous petition, and ordered refund of the fine paid.