Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence in POCSO Case, Holds Circumstantial Chain Complete

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad heard an appeal by Etwari challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the life sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special POCSO Court, Unnao. The appeal raised contentions about the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, alleged enmity and tainted investigation, and the competency of the minor victim who was described as mentally weak.

The Court dismissed the jail appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court accepted the trial court's findings that medical and testimonial evidence corroborated each other, that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, and that the testimony of the mentally challenged victim was admissible where intelligible answers and video-recorded statements were available. The Court observed that "a person, who is of weak mind, his testimony cannot be ignored only on this ground, if he/she is able to give his/her evidence by any method and same can be understood by the Court." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the- innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

Background The prosecution alleged that on 11 February 2013 the complainant's eight-year-old sister went to defecate and did not return; she was later found in a field in a pool of blood with her mouth tied and severe genital and anal injuries. The complainant and his father lodged a report naming Etwari and another, Ramzan (later deceased). Investigation included medical reports from District Hospital Unnao and G.S.V.M. Medical College Kanpur which recorded extensive lower body injuries and tearing of genital and anal tissues. The prosecution produced eyewitnesses who said they saw the accused go after the child, video-recording of the victim’s statement taken with her father and two witnesses, and testimony from a dog squad handler who traced a scent to the accused’s place, leading to arrest and recovery of clothes. The trial court convicted both accused; co-accused Ramzan later died and his appeal abated. On appeal Etwari contended that the case rested on incomplete circumstantial evidence, reliance on a mentally weak victim aided by her father, and possible police pressure; the State countered that the chain of circumstances, medical evidence and supporting witness testimony were conclusive. The High Court analysed competence of the victim under Sections 118–119 Evidence Act, applied Supreme Court precedents on testimony of disabled witnesses and on the limited role of sniffer-dog evidence, and applied the five golden principles for circumstantial cases in Sharad Sarda. Finding the prosecution evidence consistent only with Etwari’s guilt and noting that the dog-tracking evidence served only to locate the accused, the Court affirmed conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court directed transmission of the trial court record to the concerned court within two weeks.

Case Details: Case No.: Jail Appeal No. - 66 of 2021 Case Title: Etwari Versus State of U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Diwakar Singh, Amicus Curiae (for appellant) For the Respondent(s): Pawan Kumar Mishra, A.G.A.; Government Advocate