Use Of Term ‘Physical Relations’ Unaccompanied By Evidence Not Sufficient: Delhi High Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case
The Delhi High Court said that there has been significant delay in reporting the incident.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), saying that the use of the term ‘physical relations’ unaccompanied by evidence is not sufficient.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Trial Court, which convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the use of the term ‘physical relations’, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant’s conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is unsustainable.”
The Bench said that there has been significant delay in reporting the incident.
Advocate Vinayak Bhandari appeared for the Appellant/Accused, while APP Pradeep Gahalot appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
A complaint was given in writing by the victim, wherein it was stated that in the year 2014, she was studying in school and her age was 16 years. Her Bua’s son (accused) used to visit their house and during his visit, she developed friendship with him which converted into love affair between them. The accused allegedly promised her to marry and during that period he made physical relations with her. It was further alleged that when the victim asked the accused to marry, he clearly refused to marry her.
Due to her upset mental state, she allegedly consumed poison and got treatment from hospital for about one month. She further alleged that on the false pretext of marriage, the accused made physical relations with her for about 1.5 years and used her. Based on this, an FIR was registered against the accused. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence of rape and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The prosecution’s case hinges only on the oral evidence i.e., the testimony of the child victim and her parents. During the medical examination, internal examination has been refused. Notably, there is no forensic evidence on record.”
The Court further remarked that while not remaining a mute spectator, it has to ensure at the same time, that the vulnerable witnesses are not overwhelmed by the process and that the guidelines are followed in their true spirit.
“In the present case, the testimony of the child victim or her parents would show that it has been repeatedly stated that “physical relations” were established however, there is no clarity as to what was meant by the expression “physical relations”. No further description of the alleged act has been given. Unfortunately, no questions have been put to the victim by the prosecution or Trial Court to gain some clarity as to whether the essential ingredients of the offence the appellant was charged with, have been made out or not. In a given case, the Court can still be guided by other attending circumstances to reach a conclusion however, in the present case the MLC of the child victim also does not lend any help in this regard as the medical examination was admittedly conducted after one and half years of the incident and records that internal medical examination was refused. Further, there is no forensic material on record”, it noted.
The Court also said that this is an unfortunate case, however, the Court is bound to decide the case on its own merits and the evidence that has surfaced on record as well as the precedent of the Division Bench.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9279]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Vinayak Bhandari, Teestu Mishra, and Jaisal Singh.
Respondent: APP Pradeep Gahalot and Advocate Tanya Agarwal.
