UP HC Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case After Victim Retracts Rape Allegation and Uncle Admits Tutoring Her

In brief

The question

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, illegal, or otherwise based on an unsustainable assessment of the evidence so as to warrant appellate interference

The court held

The High Court held that no ground for appellate interference with the acquittal had been made out.

It also directed

It dismissed the State’s appeal summarily and directed that the trial-court record, if any, be returned in accordance with the rules.

01Facts

The State appealed the acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2017, arising from charges under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶ 2

The prosecution alleged that the victim was accosted while returning from school and that the accused attempted to take her to an orchard; she later made a statement under Section 164 CrPC alleging rape.

¶ 13–15

At trial, the victim’s maternal uncle (PW-1) said he had tutored her and that the FIR arose from a dispute with the accused.

¶ 16–18

The victim (PW-2) testified that her bicycle had collided with the accused’s motorcycle, that he had not misbehaved with her, and that her earlier statement was made out of fear.

¶ 16–18

The trial court acquitted the accused; the State’s appeal was dismissed summarily.

¶ 2, 26

02Issues

i.Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, illegal, or otherwise based on an unsustainable assessment of the evidence so as to warrant appellate interference

¶ 10–12, 19–23

ii.Whether the prosecution evidence established the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt despite the testimony of PW-1 and the victim’s retraction at trial

¶ 16–22

03Law Applied

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must give due weight to the trial court’s assessment and the strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed absent perversity, material misreading of evidence, or other compelling grounds (Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka; Babu v. State of Kerala; Jayamma v. State of Karnataka; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat; Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras).

¶ 4–9, 24

The prosecution was required to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 22

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341 Section 504 Section 506 Section 376

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3 Section 4

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 164

04Reasoning

The High Court found no reliable evidence requiring reversal of the acquittal.

PW-1’s evidence undermined the prosecution account: he admitted tutoring the victim, described the FIR as arising from a prior dispute, and contradicted the allegation that she had been cycling to school.

¶ 16, 18, 20

The victim did not support the essential allegations at trial and instead described an accidental collision and argument, denied wrongdoing by the accused, and explained her earlier statement as having been made out of fear.

¶ 17, 21

In light of this evidence, the trial court’s view was at least a reasonable one and was neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

¶ 22–25