Doubtful Testimony and Valid Alibi Lead to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has fortified the principle that the double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases cannot be easily displaced when a victim's testimony is marred by material inconsistencies and the accused establishes a plausible alibi. Affirming the trial court's decision, the Court emphasized that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be of 'sterling quality' to survive judicial scrutiny in the face of conflicting defense evidence.

In a recent appellate proceeding, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha heard an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of a coaching centre operator. The State sought to overturn the lower court's judgment which had cleared the accused of charges involving the sexual harassment of a minor student, arguing that the victim's testimony remained consistent and sufficient for conviction.

Analyzing Inconsistencies in the Prosecutrix's Version

The Court scrutinized the testimony of the minor victim, noting significant variations between her initial statement in the FIR, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and her deposition before the trial court. While the initial reports suggested the accused grabbed her hand and sought a kiss in an open area, her court testimony introduced a new narrative involving a private cabin and detailed dialogue regarding her consent.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of PW5, the alleged victim. It is a settled position of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be of sterling quality and inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. (See Ganesan v. State ( "(2020) 10 SCC 573": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1831)). However, where such testimony suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements, the Court is duty bound to seek corroboration before sustaining a conviction."

The Impact of Animus and Alibi

Adding complexity to the prosecution's case were admissions that the accused had frequently complained to the victim's parents about her poor academic performance. The Court found that this established a possible motive for false implication. Furthermore, the defense successfully presented witnesses to establish a plea of alibi, suggesting the accused was providing home tuitions at a different location during the time of the alleged incident.

The Court has following directions:

"In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed."

Background:

The case originated from an incident alleged to have occurred on August 29, 2013, where the accused, a tuition teacher, was alleged to have molested an 11-year-old student. The State filed a chargesheet under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial court, after noting that the victim's father was unsure of his daughter's tuition schedule and acknowledging the defense witnesses who placed the accused elsewhere, acquitted the respondent in 2014.

In reviewing the acquittal, the High Court relied on Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka ( "(2007) 4 SCC 415": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 278) and Babu Sahebogouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka ( "(2024) 8 SCC 149": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 191) to define the scope of its appellate powers. The Court also referred to Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala regarding the procedural necessity of Section 232 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Finding no perversity in the trial court's logic, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 789/2016
Case Title: STATE v. RAKESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. J.P. Singh, Mr. Ajay Mayer and Ms. Mehakpreet Kaur, Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 1827