In a recent development, the Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court overturned the judgment and order of the Trial Court, citing inconsistencies in the statements given by the prosecutrix.
The appellant was initially sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulations.
The bench, headed by Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, observed that the prosecution evidence failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with criminal intent. The bench further noted that the prosecutrix appeared to be a consenting party to the act of the appellant.
The Court analyzed the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and found that it indicated her consent to the act. However, during the trial, the prosecutrix testified that the appellant had forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her and had confined her to the room, threatening her with dire consequences if she raised an alarm.
The Court highlighted the discrepancies between the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony in court, stating that her evidence failed to inspire confidence. It suggested that the prosecutrix might have embellished her testimony to ensure the appellant's conviction after he refused to recognize her.
Senior Advocate HRA Choudhury represented the appellant, while Addl. P.P. P. Borthakur appeared for the respondent.
The appeal was filed under Section 374 CrPC challenging the conviction judgment dated April 30, 2019, and the sentencing order dated May 3, 2019, issued by the Special Judge in Barpeta for the POCSO case.
According to the allegations, an FIR was lodged, claiming that the accused-appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old prosecutrix under the pretext of marriage. The prosecutrix's statements made before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC revealed that she had known the appellant for a year before the incident. She also mentioned that the appellant refused to recognize her after the sexual encounter.
However, during cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she had not informed her father, who was present in the house, about the incident. Furthermore, she had not mentioned in her statements to the police and the Magistrate that the appellant had confined her to the room or threatened her.
Taking into account these inconsistencies and the overall prosecution evidence, the bench concluded that the trial court had wrongly evaluated the evidence and arrived at an incorrect finding. The prosecution failed to prove the offense against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.
Picture Source :
