Complete Failure Of Victim To Identify Accused Before Court: Supreme Court Acquits POCSO Accused
The Court acquitted man in a POCSO case, noting that where a circumstance subsequently relied upon constitutes a material incriminating fact forming the very foundation of the prosecution case, its omission from the earliest version assumes considerable significance.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that, even after extending due latitude to a mentally challenged child victim, her complete failure to identify the accused before the Court makes it unsafe to sustain a conviction, especially where no scientific corroboration is available.
Setting aside a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift to an accused unless the victim and the accused are shown to have been last seen together. It also drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the teacher, whose disclosure led to the FIR.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…even after giving due deference to her weak mental disposition we find that there was a complete failure of the victim to identify the accused-appellant before the Court. Admittedly, the prosecution could not present any scientific corroboration for the incident as the FIR itself was lodged after 10 days of the incident. In such a situation, it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the victim so as to sustain the conviction of the accused”.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared for the appellant and Advocate General Amit Kumar appeared for the respondent.
“It is trite that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia. However, where a circumstance subsequently relied upon constitutes a material incriminating fact forming the very foundation of the prosecution case, its omission from the earliest version assumes considerable significance. A material improvement made during the course of trial, particularly on a circumstance sought to connect the accused with the alleged occurrence, necessarily calls for closer judicial scrutiny. If such omission remains unexplained, the subsequent version may lose much of its evidentiary fervour”, the Bench noted.
The prosecution alleged that an 11-year-old girl with 40% intellectual disability was sexually assaulted at her home on May 28, 2015 by the appellant, said to be her uncle. The victim stayed overnight with her cousin, who allegedly told the victim’s mother the next day. The matter was reported only after the victim disclosed the incident to her teacher on June 07, and the FIR was lodged on June 08, 2015.
The Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills, convicted the appellant on December 07, 2021 and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. A Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court dismissed his appeal on March 29, 2022, and he approached the Supreme Court.
The Court found the informant’s conduct unnatural, as she did not check her disabled daughter or approach the police after the cousin’s disclosure. Both the victim and the cousin failed to identify the appellant in Court and said his name was supplied by the mother. The victim also admitted she had been told by the prosecutor what to say, which led the Court to doubt that she had been tutored. The accounts of the appellant’s relationship with the family were also inconsistent.
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Section 106, noting that the mother saw the appellant only plucking leaves in the garden, not with the victim. It also found that this “last seen” theory was missing from the FIR. The testimony of both medical witnesses was held inadmissible because the defence had no effective opportunity to cross-examine them. The Court further noted that the defence had credibly proved its alibi, which the courts below had brushed aside.
Cause Title: Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1102)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal.
Respondent: Advocate General Amit Kumar.