Identification Of Perpetrator Doubtful Owing To Darkness At Time Of Incident: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits POCSO Accused
The Court held that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain how the accused was named in the FIR and later identified when the victim himself stated that it was dark at the time of the alleged incident.
The Uttarakhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after finding serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's case regarding the identification of the accused.
The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish how the accused was identified and named in the FIR when the victim himself admitted that it was dark at the time of the alleged incident.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO), Dehradun, convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
A Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah observed: “The victim has categorically stated that it was dark at the time of the incident. How has the appellant been named in the FIR? How could he be identified in court by anyone when no one had any opportunity to identify him at the time of the alleged incident?”
“In view of all these glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case, the explanation put forth on behalf of the State by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in the month of August, it was possible for the victim to have identified the accused at 6:30 in the evening and that the accused having threatened the victim before and after the incident, hence there was ample opportunity for the victim to identify the accused, is wholly unacceptable for the due identification of the accused”, the Bench added.
Advocate Divya Jain appeared for the appellant, while Deputy Advocate General Manisha Rana Singh appeared for the State.
Background
According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged alleging that the minor victim was returning home from tuition in the evening when the accused forcibly took him on a motorcycle towards a secluded area and committed offences punishable under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The FIR further alleged that the accused threatened the victim with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone.
The accused was arrested the next day and charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 377 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment under the provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC.
Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish proper identification of the accused and that the forensic evidence could not be relied upon.
Court’s Observation
The High Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case relating to the identification of the accused. The Court noted that during cross-examination, the victim admitted that he had seen the accused for the first time on the date of the incident and did not know him previously. The victim also admitted that it was dark at the time of the alleged incident.
The Court further noted that the victim’s father admitted in evidence that the police had shown a photograph to the victim, following which the accused was identified. The witness also admitted that no test identification parade was conducted either before the Magistrate or at the police station.
The Investigating Officer also admitted during cross-examination that the accused was apprehended on the basis of facial features allegedly disclosed by the victim.
After examining the evidence, the Court observed: “Prosecution is not able to even suggest as to how the FIR is named. It doubts the prosecution's case.”
Rejecting the explanation advanced by the State, the Bench observed: “On one hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused/appellant that since it was dark at the time of the incident, hence the victim had no opportunity or occasion to see and identify the accused at the time of the incident.”
The High Court held that the prosecution had utterly failed to satisfactorily explain how the accused was identified and how the FIR came to name him despite the admitted darkness at the time of the alleged incident. The Court observed that these inconsistencies struck at the root of the prosecution's case “at the very inception”.
The Court also examined the forensic evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The Bench noted that the medical examination report of the accused recorded that he had bathed and changed clothes before examination. The Court further noted the defence version alleging coercive collection of semen samples by police personnel.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody regarding the underwear allegedly seized from the accused and further observed that the conclusions of the FSL report had not been put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Holding that the forensic report could not be relied upon against the accused, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Dehradun. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 363, 377 and 506 IPC and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Cause Title: Mohit Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand