Madras HC Acquits Man In POCSO Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimony And Failure To Prove Complainant Was A Child

The appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to five years’ simple imprisonment and a fine, for allegedly hugging, kissing, and touching the breasts of a girl staying at a children’s home on 3 and 4 July 2014.

The prosecution relied principally on the victim’s testimony; other witnesses were hostile or recounted information received from others.

The appellant challenged the conviction, disputing the consistency of the victim’s account and proof of her age.

The High Court heard the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The charge was under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and the Court treated proof that the victim was a child at the time of the occurrence as a foundational fact necessary to attract that provision

The prosecution also had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Where the case rests on the victim’s sole testimony, the Court considered it unsafe to convict unless that testimony was of “sterling quality,” particularly where material inconsistencies and the absence or failure of witnesses said to have received an immediate disclosure undermined its reliability

The victim’s examination-in-chief described an incident on 3 July but did not support the alleged incident on 4 July or the allegation that the appellant touched her breasts; her cross-examination referred to that allegation, creating an inconsistency

The witnesses relied on for corroboration either gave hearsay evidence or did not support the prosecution, while a person to whom the victim said she had first disclosed the incident was not examined

The Court therefore found the sole testimony insufficiently reliable to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt

The prosecution also produced no document proving the victim’s date of birth and conducted no ossification test; the Court held that her oral evidence and a witness’s estimate of her age did not establish that she was a child

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, ordered repayment of any fine paid, and discharged any bail bond