POCSO law being misused in matrimonial cases to settle scores: Kerala High Court

“Particularly when the wife is in loggerheads with her husband, the wife not only files litigation before the Family Court as well as the Magistrate court concerned for getting the reliefs from the said courts, to put the husband under stress and fear and also to avoid custody of child to be given to the husband, false allegations of sexual molestation by the father against his on child and stepfathers against the child born to their second wives etc. could be noticed,” it added.

According to the prosecution, the man, the stepfather of the child sexually assaulted her between late 2014 and 2018 at their residence. Following this, she approached the police with the allegations on January 13, 2020, when she had turned 18 and the case was registered under POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the IPC.

Justice A Badharudeen examined the evidence before setting aside the POCSO conviction, citing serious doubts in the prosecution case. (Image enhanced using AI)

40-year sentence

The trial court convicted the man and sentenced him to 40 years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a relative or a person in a domestic relationship with the child’s parent). It also awarded another 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed repeatedly).

He challenged the conviction in the POCSO case, stating that the allegations were false and had emerged after his relationship with the child’s mother deteriorated. The defence submitted that there was a gap between the alleged incidents and the January 2020 complaint.

The child’s mother had stated that she stopped speaking to the accused around June-July 2019 and returned to India in December that year. The judgment also records that other proceedings were initiated between the parties.

Inconsistencies

The high court, after examining the evidence of the child in the POCSO case, the principal prosecution witness, took note of the inconsistencies regarding the period of the alleged incidents. It said that according to her evidence, the alleged incidents took place between 2014 and 2018, but the examining doctor referred to alleged sexual assault between 2015 and January 2019. The court also noted that specific dates of the alleged incidents were not given.

The court also noted that the accused had accessed the child’s chats with a person she was in a relationship with and shared them with her mother. The relationship ended after the mother came to know about it. The high court considered this circumstance while examining the defence argument that the child may have been upset with the accused over the incident.

Another circumstance considered by the court was the child’s failure to disclose the alleged incidents during a month-long stay in Kuwait with her mother in 2019. The high court noted that the accused was absent during that period and said the child had an opportunity to disclose the allegations to her mother. It also considered evidence from another witness who said the child had not disclosed any allegation of sexual assault by her stepfather.

Stating that these circumstances had to be assessed along with the other evidence, the court said that the inconsistent versions regarding the period of alleged molestation and the failure to disclose the alleged overt acts before the magistrate. The court concluded that the prosecution case was coupled with several doubts.

Medical evidence

The doctor’s examination found signs consistent with the history of sexual assault but the high court said those findings alone could not prove that the accused was responsible for the alleged acts. After considering the other evidence in the case, including the child’s relationship with another person, the court said the medical evidence could not by itself link the accused to the alleged assault.

It ultimately held that the prosecution evidence was “riddled with serious doubts” and that the accused’s guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court further stating that the benefit of doubt must definitely go to the accused said that the trial court had erred in finding the man guilty. Allowing the appeal, the high court set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered the accused to be set at liberty.

It said, “False implication of innocent persons in POCSO Act offences is not uncommon on other circumstances and is not exhaustive, as pointed out. Therefore, the courts have a duty to look into the evidence in each and every case with an element of insight in mind, to ascertain whether there is any likelihood of false implication could be found from the evidence available, particularly when false implication is the prime contention raised by the accused to get acquittal.”