Alleged ‘Physical Relations’ Cannot Be Automatically Converted Into Sexual Intercourse Let Alone Sexual Assault: Delhi HC Acquits Man In POCSO Case

The Court set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court which convicted the Appellant under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Bench pointed out that the Trial Court had interpreted the phrases "samband" and "physical relation" to imply sexual assault solely factoring in the young age of the survivor and the age difference between her and the Appellant.

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma clarified, “The fact that she voluntarily went with the Appellant is also not disputed. However, the leap from physical relations or samband to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault is one which has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference. In such cases, the benefit of doubt ought to be in favour of the accused. Moreover, the impugned judgment completely lacks any reasoning and also does not reveal or support any rationale for the conviction.”

Advocate Yashvir Sethi represented the Appellant, while APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri appeared for the Respondent.

The FIR was lodged by a mother alleging that her 14-year-old daughter (survivor) was kidnapped. The survivor was later found with the Appellant in Faridabad.

During the trial, the survivor testified that the Appellant was her boyfriend and that she had gone with him voluntarily. She stated in her testimony, that while there was no physical assault, she had made physical relations with the Appellant. The survivor’s medical examination (MLC) also recorded no external injuries or signs of assault.

The High Court noted that the survivor had categorically denied that there was any form of sexual assault on her. “A perusal of the MLC shows that there are no external injuries on the victim. The terminology used in the MLC is not clear and the prosecution has not examined any medical expert/doctor to explain the MLC,” it noted.

“Therefore, the entire case hinges only on the victim’s evidence i.e., her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony in Court which are not sufficient by themselves to convict the Appellant under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act inasmuch as in her testimony or statement under Section 164 CrPC she does not categorically state that there was any sexual assault let alone penetrative sexual assault. Even the MLC does not support a finding of penetrative sexual assault,” the Court clarified.

“The survivor, in fact, used the phrase ‘physical relations’, but there is no clarity as to what she meant by using the said phrase. Even the use of the words ‘samband banaya’ is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 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 Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “Under such circumstances, the judgment is liable to be set aside. The Appellant is acquitted.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Sahjan Ali v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9947-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Yashvir Sethi, Amit Kumar Singh, Saksham Sethi, Pranav Sharma and Manan Soni

Respondent: APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri; Advocates Lalit Luthra and Divya Yadav

Click here to read/download the Judgment