Courts Must Examine Evidence With Insight In POCSO Cases When False Implication Over Matrimonial Dispute Is Pleaded: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Pathanamthitta, by which the sole accused had been convicted for offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act on allegations of repeated sexual assault against his stepdaughter.

A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “... The prime area where one could find false implication of innocent persons/persons in POCSO cases is when there is matrimonial discord in between two spouses. Particularly when the wife is in loggerheads with her husband, the wife not only files litigation before the Family Court as well as the Magistrate court concerned for getting the reliefs from the said courts, in order to put the husband under stress and fear and also to avoid custody of child to be given to the husband, false allegations of sexual molestation by the father against his on child and stepfathers against the child born to their second wives etc. could be noticed.

The Bench added: “False implication of innocent persons in POCSO Act offences is not uncommon on other circumstances and is not exhaustive, as pointed out. Therefore, the courts have a duty to look into the evidence in each and every case with an element of insight in mind, to ascertain whether there is any likelihood of false implication could be found from the evidence available, particularly when false implication is the prime contention raised by the accused to get acquittal.”

Advocate Johny K. George appeared for the appellant; Public Prosecutor Sajeev P.K. appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution case was that the accused, who was the second husband of the victim’s mother, committed repeated sexual assault on the victim between 2014 and 2018 and threatened her against disclosure. The Special Court convicted him under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) IPC, and under Sections 4 read with 3, 6 read with 5(l), and 6 read with 5(n) of the POCSO Act.

The accused argued that the First Information Statement was lodged only after the victim had attained majority and after the relationship between him and the victim’s mother had broken down. He relied on the mother’s admitted family litigations, the victim’s earlier relationship with another person, and the allegation that he had informed the mother about that relationship, to contend that the case was an afterthought.

The prosecution opposed the appeal and argued that the victim’s testimony regarding repeated sexual assault was supported by other evidence, including medical evidence, and that the defence of false implication could not be accepted.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the prosecution relied on the evidence of the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the birth register extract to establish that the victim was a child during the alleged period of occurrence. It also recorded that her status as a child under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act was not disputed.

The Court observed that the crucial prosecution evidence came from the victim, her mother, doctors, police witnesses and other supporting witnesses. However, it proceeded to test that evidence against the defence case of false implication.

The Court found inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s version regarding the alleged period of molestation. The Court observed: “Regarding period of molestation, PW1 had inconsistent versions and she did not speak about any molestation specifically on any dates.”

The Court further noted that before the Magistrate, the victim had not given details of sexual molestation in the same manner. The Court recorded: “At the same time, PW1 had given evidence that when she had given statement to the Magistrate, she stated that her stepfather disturbed her and she did not state anything more.”

The Court considered the explanation for delayed disclosure and found it difficult to accept in the facts of the case. The Court observed: “Even though the evidence of PW1 is that her stepfather had sexually molested her in between 2014 and 2018, her explanation that she had no occasion to disclose the incidents during that period, the same cannot be believed without a pinch of salt.”

The Court also relied on the circumstance that the victim and her mother had stayed away from the accused for about a month, but no disclosure was made even then. The Court observed: “If really there occurred the sexual assault during the period 2014 and 2018, as stated by the victim, she had the best opportunity to tell this matter to PW6, her mother, when the accused was absent for a period of 30 days.”

The Court noted the evidence that the victim’s mother had stopped talking to the accused before the complaint was lodged, and that several proceedings were later filed against him. It also recorded the defence argument that the accused had informed the mother about the victim’s relationship with another person, leading to its collapse.

The Court observed that the evidence indicated the victim had discontent about the collapse of that relationship. It also noted that the family dispute between the mother and the accused appeared to have arisen before the criminal case was registered.

On the medical evidence, the Court held that it could not by itself corroborate the allegation against the accused in the surrounding facts. The Court observed that the prosecution case had to be assessed as a whole and remarked: “Reading the circumstances as a whole, as discussed herein above, where PW1 had inconsistent versions regarding the period of molestation and also failure to disclose the actual overt acts of sexual molestation before the Magistrate, the prosecution case is coupled with many doubts, and in such a case, it is not safe to hold that the prosecution succeeded in proving guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.”

The Court held that the benefit of doubt had to go to the accused. It observed: “When prosecution evidence is found to be riddled with serious doubts, the benefit of doubt must definitely go to the accused.”

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Special Court. It held that the Special Judge had erred in finding the accused guilty under the IPC and POCSO Act provisions.

The Court directed that the accused be set at liberty forthwith and ordered the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, to issue his release order immediately. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Additional Sessions Judge and the Superintendent of the prison concerned for information and immediate release.

Cause Title: X v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:63013)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Johny K. George, Manu Ramachandran, M. Kiranlal, R. Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M. Nair and Sailakshmi Menon

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sajeev P.K.

Click here to read/download Judgment