Delhi High Court overturns conviction in POCSO case: 'physical relations cannot be automatically interpreted as sexual assault', read judgment

"The leap from physical relations or samband to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault is one which has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference."- Delhi HC

The Court addressed the validity of a conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the POCSO Act in a case involving a 14-year-old girl. The Court examined the Trial Court's reasoning and highlighted the lack of substantive analysis in convicting the Appellant. The Court noted that the survivor's testimony, along with other key pieces of evidence, failed to establish a clear case of sexual assault. This observation raises important questions about the standards required to prove such charges in similar cases.

A complaint was filed on 18th March 2017 by the mother of a 14-year-old girl (Ms. X), alleging that she had been lured and kidnapped by an unknown person from their home on 17th March 2017. Ms. X was found later that day in Faridabad with the Appellant, who was arrested. A medical examination found no external injuries, but Ms. X’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., on 20th March 2017 indicated she had a physical relationship with the Appellant. The Appellant was charged under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant based on the survivor's testimony.

The Appellant's counsel argued that the Trial Court's judgment lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the survivor's testimony, such as the fact that she had known the Appellant for over a year and had voluntarily gone with him. The survivor had also stated during cross-examination that she was not subjected to any assault by the Appellant.

The Court noted that the impugned judgment lacked reasoning, with the Trial Court only paraphrasing the evidence without any analysis. The Court highlighted key parts of the survivor's testimony where she referred to the Appellant as her boyfriend and stated that she voluntarily went with him to Faridabad. She did not inform her family and described the encounter as consensual. In cross-examination, she confirmed that the Appellant did not assault her and that they had a physical relationship with her consent.

The mother of the survivor also testified that her daughter did not mention any sexual assault. The Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., reiterated that the survivor went with him willingly, and he was unaware of her age.

The Court observed that the MLC did not show any external injuries, and the survivor denied any physical or sexual assault. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court had misinterpreted the survivor's statement and used terms like "samband" and "physical relations" to imply sexual assault without evidence. It further noted that the survivor's use of the phrase "samband" was not clear and could not be automatically interpreted as sexual assault.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court failed to establish that a penetrative sexual assault had occurred, noting that the mere fact of the survivor’s age and the absence of clarity in her statements could not lead to a conviction. The Court stated, "The leap from physical relations or samband to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault is one which has to be established on record by means of evidence, and the same cannot be presumed or deduced as an inference." The Court also criticized the Trial Court for its lack of reasoning in the conviction.

Picture Source :