Himachal Pradesh HC Rejects State’s Appeal Against POCSO Acquittal

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reinforced the 'double presumption of innocence' in cases of acquittal, ruling that a minor’s voluntary elopement and lack of resistance during extensive travel negates charges of kidnapping and forcible sexual assault. The court emphasized that while the testimony of a prosecutrix is of a 'higher pedestal,' it cannot sustain a conviction if it is riddled with material contradictions that belie logic.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma heard an appeal filed by the State against a trial court judgment that acquitted an accused of charges under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The State contended that the trial court ignored the consistent testimony of the victim and the medical evidence.

Key Takeaways

Strengthened Presumption of Innocence

An order of acquittal reinforces the initial presumption of innocence, creating a 'double presumption' that appellate courts should be slow to disturb unless the trial court's view is palpably wrong.

Voluntary Elopement vs. Kidnapping

If a minor leaves her guardian's custody voluntarily, uninfluenced by inducement or threat, the accused cannot be held guilty of kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Medical Corroboration in Delayed Reporting

In cases involving a significant delay in filing an FIR, the absence of fresh medical injuries and inconclusive forensic reports can significantly weaken the prosecution's claim of 'forcible' assault.

Limits of Statutory Presumption

The statutory presumption of guilt under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not absolute and cannot override significant gaps or logical inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

Court's Rationale on Witness Credibility and Consent

The Court observed that the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completely at variance with her oral evidence before the trial court. It noted that the victim traveled extensively in public transport without offering any resistance or attempting to contact her parents, which indicated her voluntary participation.

The Court has following directions:

"In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Registrar Judicial within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A copy of this judgment along with the record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required... However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony."

Ratio

An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal merely because a different view is possible upon re-appreciation of evidence; interference is only warranted if the trial court’s conclusion is perverse or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the evidence of a victim of sexual assault must be evaluated on the principle of probabilities, and if the story projected is improbable or contradicts foundational facts, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.

Background

The case originated from an FIR registered in July 2015, where it was alleged that the accused kidnapped a 16½-year-old girl and subjected her to repeated sexual assault over four days. The victim's father filed the complaint twenty days after the incident. The trial court acquitted the accused in 2019, citing contradictions in the testimony of the victim and her parents, as well as the delay in reporting.

In the present appeal, the High Court relied on Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnatka ( "(2014) 5 SCC 730": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 95) and Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 354) to define the scope of appellate powers in acquittal cases. Citing S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras ( "AIR 1965 SC 942": 1964 CaseBase(SC) 99), the court noted that if a minor leaves home due to her own desire, no inference can be drawn that the accused 'took' her. The court also referenced Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) regarding the 'Sterling Witness' requirement. Concluding that the medical reports failed to corroborate 'forcible' intercourse and the victim appeared to be a 'consenting party' as per State of H.P. vs. Harinder Pal ( "2010 (2) Him. L.R. (DB) 625": 2010 CaseBase(HP) 87), the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 242 of 2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:42217
Case Title: State of H.P. Versus Desh Raj
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yashwardhan Singh Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hitesh Khajuria, Advocate, vice Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9424