Materially inconsistent victim accounts rendered her testimony unreliable, requiring acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On 20.11.2021, the ten-year-old differently abled victim was left at the appellant’s house while her parents and brother visited a doctor. The appellant, who was her neighbour, allegedly subjected her to sexual assault.

The victim’s father lodged an FIR, following which the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 376AB of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court framed a charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and examined seven prosecution witnesses, including the victim, as well as one defence witness.

The victim’s birth certificate recorded her date of birth as 25.07.2011, and her father testified that she had 90% locomotor disability.

By judgment dated 18.12.2024 in POCSO Case No. 62/2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The appellant preferred the present appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the charged sexual offence against the minor victim under the POCSO Act

Whether the contradictions and inconsistencies in the victim’s account and the statements attributed to her by other witnesses rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable

The Court applied the statutory provisions under which the appellant was prosecuted and convicted, namely Section 376AB of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and noted the trial conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The governing criminal-law principle applied was that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence may create reasonable doubt and entitle the accused to acquittal.

The Court also considered the evidentiary value of the victim’s testimony in light of the medical evidence and the corroborative statements of other prosecution witnesses.

The Court found two materially different versions of the alleged occurrence: the victim stated that the appellant inserted a finger into her vagina and pressed her breast, whereas PW-5 attributed to her a disclosure that the appellant had inserted his penis, and PW-6 stated that she had disclosed that the appellant removed her pants and touched her vagina.

The Court also noted that PW-5 gave inconsistent descriptions in cross-examination and that the medical evidence disclosed no injuries.

In view of these discrepancies, the Court held that the victim had given different versions before different persons and concluded that her evidence was not sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction.

Since the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court’s finding was held to be erroneous.

The appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the conviction, acquitted him, and directed that he be set at liberty forthwith. The trial court records were ordered to be returned.