‘Evidence points to consensual relation’: Chhattisgarh High Court acquits POCSO convict awarded 20-year term

‘Minor daughter in Hyderabad’

• The survivor’s father filed a complaint with the police in April 2022, stating that his daughter, aged about 15 years, left the house without informing any family member and went missing.
• During the investigation, the survivor was found with the accused in Hyderabad.
• The accused was later arrested and charged under the IPC and the POCSO Act for kidnapping and sexually assaulting the survivor.
• The trial court convicted the accused of rigorous imprisonment of 20 years, along with other sentences in its December 2023 order.

‘Consensual love relationship’

• Appearing for the man, advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav argued that the trial court’s order of conviction is bad both in law and on facts and, therefore, deserves to be set aside since the court failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record in its proper perspective.
• Yadav further submitted that the trial court wrongly relied on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who are close family members of the survivor, and their statements suffer from material contradictions and inconsistencies.
• He also contended that the age determination of the survivor had not been conducted as per the legal principles.
• Yadav pointed out that the survivor and his client were admittedly in a consensual love relationship and were living together as husband and wife after solemnising marriage.
• The state’s evidence, as a whole, does not inspire confidence and is insufficient to establish the guilt of his client beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘No ground for interference’

• On the contrary, government advocate Shaleen Singh Baghel argued the trial court’s order of conviction and sentence was passed after due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record.
• Baghel further emphasised that the order does not suffer from any “illegality or perversity” warranting which requires the interference by the present court.
• It is submitted that the state has successfully proved the age of the survivor through reliable evidence and that the survivor was a minor on the date of the incident.
• He also pointed out that consent is immaterial in cases involving a minor and the alleged love affair or marriage, even if accepted, does not dilute the offences which are dealt under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
• The mere relationship of witnesses with the survivor does not render their evidence unreliable, particularly when their statements are consistent on material particulars.
• It is further contended that consent is immaterial in cases involving a minor and the alleged love affair or marriage, even if accepted, does not dilute the statutory offence under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
• Lastly, Baghel submitted that the state has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no ground to interfere with the trial court’s order.

‘Any ambiguity must go in favour of accused’

• It is proven that the survivor was a minor and below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, the court observed.
• There are contradictions in the statements of the survivor, as she once mentioned that she was married to the accused, which was followed by physical relations. On the other hand, she stated that no marriage took place and that physical relations were established thereafter.
• The contradictions in the statements of the survivor are not minor discrepancies but hit the “very foundation of the case” presented by the state.
• The shifting in the statements provided by the survivor casts a “serious doubt” on the “veracity and reliability” of her testimony.

• The medical and scientific evidence does not significantly support the prosecution’s story.
• The state attempted to project the survivor as a minor, but the manner in which the evidence was collected and presented brings “serious doubt”.
• In criminal jurisprudence, especially in cases under POCSO, the burden lies on the state to prove the minority. If there is any ambiguity, it must go in favour of the accused.
• The conviction for sexual offences can rely on the sole testimony of the survivor. However, such testimony must be of “sterling quality, consistent, and free from material contradictions”.
• The accused cannot be convicted on moral presumptions when the conduct of the survivor, her admissions in cross-examination, delay, inconsistencies and lack of medical evidence cumulatively generate doubt.
• The circumstances around the case are fundamentally incompatible with the state’s theory of rape or kidnapping since the minor neither raised any alarm nor disclosed the alleged offences to anyone during her stay with the accused.
• The survivor even accompanied the accused willingly and resided with him peacefully in Hyderabad.
• The trial court failed to properly appreciate the difference between a consensual elopement arising out of a love relationship and a forcible abduction or sexual assault.
• Criminal courts must pronounce judgments which are based on proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not on conjectures, assumptions or sympathetic considerations.
• When there are two possible views regarding the evidence placed on record, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.
• The state has failed to establish the essential ingredients of sexual assault and kidnapping of a minor beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The evidence placed on record “unmistakably” points towards a “consensual relationship and voluntary cohabitation”.
• The state failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
• The sentence order of the trial court is set aside, and the man is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.