The Allahabad High Court has acquitted an 80-year-old man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, setting aside a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and an unrebutted defence of alibi supported by contemporaneous medical records. The judgment underscores the stringent standard of proof required in POCSO cases and the need for corroborative evidence beyond the victim's testimony.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The appellant, Swamideen, an 80-year-old resident of Para Raipura, Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh, was convicted by the trial court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The conviction arose from an incident allegedly occurring on 05.12.2021, where the appellant was accused of committing obscene acts upon a four-year-old victim, the daughter of his neighbour, Smt. Rani Prajapati (PW-2).
Key Facts
- The FIR was lodged on 10.12.2021 at 10:48 a.m. at Police Station Sumerpur, alleging that on 05.12.2021 at about 12:00 noon, the appellant lured the victim with a toffee, took her inside his house, bolted the door, and committed obscene acts upon her private parts.
- The victim, aged approximately four years, returned home and informed her mother, who then lodged the FIR.
- The initial FIR invoked Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault), but during investigation, the charge was amended to include Section 376-AB IPC (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
- The appellant was arrested on 28.12.2021 and committed to trial.
- The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the victim (PW-1), the informant (PW-2), medical officers (PW-3 and PW-5), the scribe of the FIR (PW-4), and the Investigating Officer (PW-6).
- The defence examined two witnesses, including the Village Pradhan (DW-1) and the appellant's daughter-in-law (DW-2), and produced documentary evidence to support the appellant's alibi, including medical treatment records from Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot, dated 05.12.2021 to 10.12.2021.
Procedural History
- 10.12.2021: FIR lodged at Police Station Sumerpur (Case Crime No. 417 of 2021).
- 28.12.2021: Appellant arrested.
- 2022: Charge-sheet submitted under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
- Trial Court Proceedings: The trial court convicted the appellant on 09.12.2025 and sentenced him to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
- 10.12.2025: Order of sentence passed.
- Present Appeal: Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act despite the graver charge under Section 376-AB IPC not being substantiated. The defence highlighted:
- Material contradictions in the prosecution's case, including inconsistencies in the FIR, the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the testimony of PW-2.
- Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, with shifting and mutually inconsistent explanations.
- Absence of medical or forensic corroboration.
- Unrebutted defence of alibi, supported by contemporaneous medical records and a representation dated 12.12.2021 from villagers asserting the appellant's presence at Chitrakoot on the date of the alleged incident.
- Possibility of tutoring of the child witness and a plausible motive for false implication due to a prior confrontation with the informant over an alleged illicit relationship.
For the Respondent
The State's counsel supported the trial court's judgment, arguing that the testimony of a child victim of a sexual offence cannot be discarded merely due to minor discrepancies. The State relied on the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the material contradictions in the evidence, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the unrebutted defence of alibi.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant's counsel relied on recent Supreme Court judgments to argue that the testimony of a minor victim must be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act. The counsel highlighted:
- The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contained material discrepancies, including a conflicting description of the act and the identity of the accused.
- The FIR initially invoked only Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, with no allegation of penetrative sexual assault.
- The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's case, with the internal genital examination disclosing a normal hymen and no injury or swelling.
- The defence's alibi was supported by contemporaneous medical records and a representation dated 12.12.2021 from villagers, which could not be dismissed as a post-facto fabrication.
For the Respondent
The State's counsel argued that the trial court, having observed the witnesses' demeanour, was best placed to assess their credibility. The State relied on the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the trial court's findings that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidence in detail, including the depositions of PW-1 to PW-6 and DW-1 and DW-2, the documentary exhibits, and the medico-legal and forensic material. The Court noted the following infirmities in the prosecution's case:
- The delay of five days in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. The prosecution's own witnesses gave inconsistent and irreconcilable accounts of when and by whom information of the incident was received and communicated.
- The FIR, as originally lodged, invoked only Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, with no allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The graver charge was added only during investigation.
- The testimony of PW-2, the informant, was riddled with material contradictions and improvements. She gave conflicting accounts of the time of occurrence, her own presence at the recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the victim's whereabouts during the alleged incident.
- The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contained a material discrepancy regarding the identity of the accused and the time of occurrence. The word used by the victim to describe the act was never clarified in evidence.
- The medical evidence of PW-3 did not corroborate the prosecution's case. The internal genital examination disclosed a normal hymen with no injury or swelling, and the forensic report was neutral.
- The defence's alibi was supported by contemporaneous medical records and a representation dated 12.12.2021 from villagers, which the trial court failed to consider.
The Court relied on recent Supreme Court judgments to hold that the testimony of a minor victim must be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act. The Court noted:
"The common thread running through these decisions is that the testimony of a minor victim, and the statements of witnesses relied upon to corroborate it, must be of 'sterling quality' to sustain a conviction of the gravity contemplated by Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB IPC; that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where genuine, cannot be brushed aside merely because it does not suit the prosecution; and that the benefit of any real and unresolved contradiction must enure to the accused, however grave the offence alleged and however natural the court's sympathy for the victim."
The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the unexplained delay, the material contradictions, the absence of medical corroboration, and the unrebutted defence of alibi led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded in the appeal. The Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.12.2025 and the order of sentence dated 10.12.2025. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The fine of Rs. 10,000, if already deposited, was ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The Court directed the trial court to release the appellant forthwith if he was in custody and not required in any other case. The trial court was directed to submit a compliance report within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Credibility of Child Witnesses Must Meet the "Sterling Quality" Standard
- The testimony of a child victim in POCSO cases must be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction.
- Minor discrepancies in the testimony of a child witness cannot be brushed aside, but material contradictions and improvements must be carefully evaluated.
- The prosecution must examine the Magistrate who recorded the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to dispel any doubt about tutoring or coercion.
Unexplained Delay in Lodging FIR Raises Substantial Doubt
- Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in POCSO cases cannot be overlooked, especially when the prosecution's own witnesses give inconsistent accounts.
- The Court must critically evaluate the explanation offered for the delay, ensuring it is not based on shifting or mutually inconsistent versions.
Alibi Defence Must Be Evaluated on Its Own Merits
- Defence evidence, including documentary evidence, must be evaluated on its own merits and not viewed with suspicion.
- Contemporaneous documentary evidence, such as medical records or representations from villagers, can lend substantial support to an alibi defence.
- The prosecution must lead evidence in rebuttal to challenge the alibi, failing which the defence must be given due weight.
Medical Corroboration Is Crucial in POCSO Cases
- While the absence of injury is not, by itself, destructive of a POCSO prosecution, the medical evidence must be carefully evaluated in the context of the case.
- The prosecution must ensure that forensic evidence, such as DNA profiling, is preserved and examined to provide objective corroboration.
Sympathy for the Victim Cannot Substitute for Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
- The Court must guard against allowing sympathy for the victim to substitute for the rigorous standard of proof required in criminal cases.
- The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the benefit of doubt must enure to the accused.
