Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Madhya Pradesh High Court principal bench at Jabalpur has set aside a trial court order sentencing a man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO )Act and acquitted him of the charges.
Appellant Santosh Yadav, a resident of Narmadapuram, had been awarded 20 years’ RI by the trial court. A HC division bench comprising Justices Vivek Agrawal and Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen allowed the appeal, observing that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the alleged incident and that the medical report did not record any external or internal injuries suggestive of forceful sexual assault.
During the trial, the victim’s father stated that the incident allegedly took place inside his house. He told the court that he was about 50 years old and had married 25 years ago. According to his statement, his eldest son was born a year after marriage and the daughter (the prosecutrix) was born the following year. The victim’s mother corroborated his testimony
A school teacher also admitted before the court that no documentary proof of the victim’s date of birth had been submitted at the time of her admission. The parents were unable to substantiate the date of birth mentioned in school records.
Advocate Smita Verma Arora, appearing for the appellant, argued that as per the testimony of Dr Shradha, who examined the prosecutrix, her vital signs were normal and no external or internal injuries consistent with forcible sexual assault were found.
The defence argued that the victim’s age was doubtful, the DNA report inconclusive, and there was no credible documentary evidence to sustain the conviction, thus the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellant.
The High Court observed that the trial court had overlooked material inconsistencies regarding the prosecutrix’s age, as even school records lacked supporting proof. The medical examination also revealed no internal or external injuries or signs of force.Holding that the conviction could not be sustained in law, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment.
