Madras HC Upholds POCSO Acquittal, Citing Contradictory Accounts, Delayed Complaint And Father’s Grievance Over Alleged Affair

The prosecution alleged that the first respondent hugged and groped the minor victim, the daughter of the second respondent, on 19 June 2018.

The victim’s father complained on 1 July 2018, alleging the incident and that the respondents had administered sleeping medicine to the victim.

The case was investigated under Sections 9(m) read with 10 and Sections 16 read with 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the complaint motivated and belated, and identifying contradictions in the victim’s accounts and a lack of evidence supporting the allegation of sleeping medicine.

The State appealed under Section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on findings so perverse as to warrant appellate interference.

2. Whether the victim’s testimony, considered alongside the inconsistencies, medical evidence, delay, and circumstances of the complaint, established grounds to overturn the acquittal.

The appeal was brought under Section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against an acquittal.

The prosecution had proceeded under Sections 9(m) read with 10 and Sections 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court applied the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal where the trial court’s view is plausible and its findings are not perverse.

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory interpretation.

The victim’s trial evidence that the first respondent hugged her repeatedly and pressed her hands differed from her statement to the Magistrate, which described an attempt to hug and kiss her; the investigating officer confirmed the account in the Section 164 CrPC statement.

The medical examination recorded no external injuries and “No clinical evidence of recent sexual contact”.

The father’s trial claim that the victim had been injured was not reflected in his complaint or police statement, while the allegations about sleeping medicine were unproved.

The Court considered these matters, the delay in reporting, and the evidence that the father was aggrieved by the respondents’ relationship, and held that the trial court’s assessment was plausible and not perverse.

It also directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay the scheduled fee to the respondents’ Legal Aid Counsel.