Delhi HC Acquits Man in POCSO Case: "Minor's Age Alone Insufficient for Assault Evidence"

The Delhi High Court recently acquitted a man serving a life sentence for alleged rape and sexual assault of a -year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Bench observed that the evidence presented did not substantiate the charges, and the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused.

Observations by the High Court

. Survivor's Statement: The Court noted that the survivor’s statement was unclear and did not indicate sexual intercourse or assault.

• The survivor used the phrase “physical relations” but did not clarify what it entailed.
• Phrases like “samband banaya” were deemed insufficient to establish an offence under Section of the POCSO Actor Section IPC.

"Though consent would not matter if the girl is a minor under the POCSO Act, the phrase ‘physical relations’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse, let alone sexual assault," the Court remarked.

. Lack of Evidence:

• The minor did not categorically state that sexual assault occurred.
• Medical examinations revealed no injuries or signs of assault.

. Voluntary Nature of Interaction:

• The Court observed that the minor’s voluntary departure with the accused was undisputed.
• It ruled that an inference of sexual assault or penetrative sexual assault must be supported by evidence and cannot be presumed.

"In such cases, the benefit of doubt ought to be in favour of the accused," the Bench stated.

Background

• The case originated from a complaint by the minor’s mother, alleging that her daughter had been kidnapped.
• The minor later told the police that she had a "physical relationship" with the accused.
• Based on her statement, the trial court convicted the man and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

High Court's Findings

. Cross-Examination of the Survivor:

• The minor stated during cross-examination that the accused neither assaulted her physically nor committed any wrongful act.

. Trial Court's Rationale:

• The High Court found that the trial court did not provide adequate reasoning for its conviction and sentencing.
• The Bench emphasized that the survivor’s age alone does not automatically establish penetrative sexual assault.

"The mere fact that the survivor is below years cannot lead to a conclusion that there was penetrative sexual assault," the Court stated.

Representation

• For the Accused: Advocates Yashvir Sethi, Amit Kumar Singh, Saksham Sethi, Pranav Sharma, and Manan Soni.
• For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri, along with Advocates Lalit Luthra and Divya Yadav.
• For the High Court: Standing Counsel Dinesh Malik, with Advocates Puneet Jain and Kiffi Aggarwal.

Read Order: