Shimla, Dec 6,
In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh overturned the conviction of a man sentenced for sexual assault under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case, drew attention to the procedural gaps in determining the age of victims in criminal trials.
The appellant stood accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor, leading to her pregnancy and the birth of a child. The trial court, relying on the victim’s birth certificate and her initial statements, convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, with a concurrent 7-year sentence under the IPC.
However, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the victim was above 18 years at the time of the alleged incidents and that the relationship was consensual. This set the stage for the High Court to scrutinize the trial court’s judgment.
Central to the prosecution’s case was the claim that the victim was a minor, rendering consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act. The trial court relied on her birth certificate as proof of age. However, the defence raised serious concerns about this approach, pointing to the availability of school records and testimonies suggesting the victim was an adult.
The High Court, while hearing the appeal, emphasized the need to adhere to **Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015**, which prioritizes school records over other evidence in determining age. The Court criticized the trial court for failing to follow this mandatory procedure.
Hostile Witness and Weak Evidence
Another blow to the prosecution was the victim turning hostile during the trial. While her initial statement under Section 164 of the CrPC supported the prosecution’s case, her subsequent testimony refuted the allegations, claiming she was over 18 and the relationship was consensual. The High Court noted that a hostile witness’s initial statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence unless corroborated.
Furthermore, the High Court observed lapses in the forensic and procedural handling of the case. While DNA evidence confirmed the accused’s paternity of the child, this alone was insufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act without proving the victim’s minority.
The Verdict
In its judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor.
The Court directed the police and prosecution to adhere strictly to the Juvenile Justice Act’s guidelines in future cases, ensuring proper evidence collection regarding age determination.
The judgment not only highlights the importance of meticulous evidence collection in sensitive cases but also sets a precedent for the treatment of procedural lapses. By issuing instructions to the Director General of Police and the Director of Prosecution, the Court sought to prevent similar failings in future investigations.
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
