Material contradictions, improvements in testimony, and unexplained delay in filing FIR justify acquittal in POCSO cases.

The State appealed an order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkush Nagar, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 354, 323, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 7/8 and 9M/10 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 22.11.2018, while the 9-year-old prosecutrix was attending the call of nature in a field, the respondent caught her, dragged her, attempted to remove her clothes, and threatened her.

The prosecution examined 9 witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2, PW-3).

The trial court acquitted the respondent based on material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence.

1. Whether the prosecutrix qualified as a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act at the time of the incident.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was reliable enough to overcome the presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal.

3. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.

The court applied Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to define the age of a child.

It relied on the evidentiary standards for criminal trials under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 378 regarding appeals against acquittal).

Principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "legally plausible view," even if a contrary view is possible.

The High Court first confirmed the prosecutrix was roughly 9 years old based on school register Entry No. 214 (Ex. P/5).

However, it found fatal contradictions regarding the occurrence: PW-2 (father) claimed he was irrigating the field and rushed to the spot, but later admitted he was at home when he heard screams.

PW-1 (prosecutrix) provided a version in court—alleging the accused became naked and lay on her—which was missing from the initial written complaint (Ex. P/1) and police statements (Ex. D/1, D/2), indicating significant "exaggeration".

There was an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and medical evidence from Dr. A.K. Nagar (PW-5) failed to corroborate injuries consistent with the alleged "naked dragging" in an agricultural field.

The court noted that PW-6 (grandfather), who was not declared hostile, testified that the prosecutrix sustained injuries by falling while running towards her father, contradicting the claim that the accused caused them.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no ground to interfere with the trial court's findings.