Uttarakhand HC Acquits Father Convicted Of Raping Minor Daughter, Citing Uncorroborated Testimony And Conflicting Accounts Of Grandmother’s Absence

The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped his 13-year-old daughter on 19 March 2022.

The FIR was lodged by the victim’s maternal aunt; the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and her medical examination followed.

At trial, the victim testified in support of the allegation, while the informant and several family witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

The appellant denied the allegations and called three defence witnesses.

The trial court convicted him, and he appealed.

The Court considered Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act, under which the appellant had been charged and convicted.

It applied the principle that a conviction may rest on the sole testimony of a victim of sexual assault if that testimony inspires confidence; where it does not, corroboration in material particulars is required and the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In assessing whether testimony is of “sterling” quality, the Court referred to Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 21, including the need for a consistent and trustworthy account capable of acceptance without hesitation, and to Santosh v. State of Maharashtra, 2023:NCBHC-NAG 17605.

The Court found that the victim’s account required corroboration because of inconsistencies concerning where her grandmother was at the time of the incident, and because the grandmother—an important potential witness—had not been examined by the Investigating Officer.

The victim had also testified that she was unhappy with her father and had left home previously.

The aunt who lodged the FIR, the victim’s uncle and aunt, and her grandmother did not support the prosecution case; the uncle to whom the victim said she had first reported the incident also did not corroborate her account.

In the Court’s view, the victim’s testimony was not of sterling quality and lacked corroboration in material particulars, making it unsafe to sustain the conviction on that testimony alone.

It set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act.

As the appellant was in custody, the Court directed his release forthwith unless required in another case, and ordered him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties under Section 437-A CrPC within one month.