Man acquitted in POCSO case after Madras High Court says drunken fall onto disabled child could not be ruled out

The prosecution alleged that on 18 October 2018, the appellant squeezed the right breast of the ten-year-old victim, who had a disability arising from a brain tumour.

The victim testified to the assault; her brother also testified to witnessing it, while the accompanying neighbour, examined as P.W.10, did not support the prosecution.

The victim’s parents were not eyewitnesses.

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Sections 9(k) and 9(m), read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were sustainable on the evidence, including in light of the victim’s statement that the appellant was intoxicated and the possibility that he had accidentally fallen against her.

The Court considered Sections 9(k) and 9(m), read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, under which the alleged conduct was charged and punished.

It also considered the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alongside her trial testimony.

The judgment cites no precedent or separately states a broader evidentiary doctrine; its stated basis for decision was whether the possibility of accidental contact could be ruled out and whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The victim identified the appellant and described the act in her trial testimony, and her brother gave supporting eyewitness evidence; the accompanying neighbour, however, did not support the prosecution.

The Court noted that the victim’s Section 164 statement said the appellant was tottering under the influence of alcohol, although she had not mentioned this in her examination-in-chief.

No medical examination established whether he was intoxicated at the time.

Given that evidence and the circumstances of the incident, the Court considered it possible that the appellant had fallen against the victim and that the contact had been misunderstood.

It held that this possibility could not be completely excluded and extended the benefit of doubt.

It directed that any fine paid be refunded and that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in another case; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.