'Disheartening': Allahabad High Court Laments Lapses In POCSO Case As 8 Y/O Victim Shuttled Between Hospitals, Evidence Mishandled
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week expressed serious concern over multiple lapses in the medical examination and preservation of forensic evidence concerning an 8-year-old POCSO victim.
The Court described the situation as "deeply disheartening" as it remarked that the lapses represented a “serious failure” in handling vital evidence involving a minor victim.
The Court noted that the child's precious "golden hour" for collection and preservation of crucial forensic evidence was lost after he was repeatedly made to rush from one hospital to another.
It further noted that the swab kit collected during the medical examination was not properly sealed, due to which DNA analysis could not be undertaken and the corresponding DNA report could not be generated.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti made the observations while granting bail to the accused facing an FIR registered at a Police Station in Lucknow under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 5M/6 of the POCSO Act.
Case in brief
According to the prosecution's case, the 8-year-old victim was allegedly lured to a nearby garden on April 13, 2025, on the pretext of being given a bicycle.
It was alleged that the accused subjected him to an unnatural sexual act, tore his clothes, assaulted him and threatened to kill him. The child allegedly escaped and narrated the incident to his family.
The State's status report showed that the victim was first sent to a Community Health Centre (CHC) on April 14, from where he was referred to a Hospital, but his examination could not be conducted there.
He was again sent to the hospital on April 15 and, from there, referred to Civil Hospital, Lucknow, where also the examination could not be conducted.
On April 17, he was referred to the CHC again, where he underwent a medical examination. He was subsequently sent to Civil Hospital for an internal examination, but this was not conducted on the grounds that there were no internal injuries.
High Court's observations
The High Court took exception to this as it remarked thus:
"…some injuries might not be present on the body of the victim; however, that does not mean that medical examination of the victim could not be conducted solely on that basis".
It further said that if the Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) was unavailable, the Medical In-charge was required to arrange it from the competent authority rather than decline to conduct the examination.
The Court noted that "no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the State for this serious lapse".
The bench further noted that on April 19, the victim was again sent to the CHC, where a swab was collected. The swab kit was subsequently sent to the police station and deposited in the Malkhana.
After the accused was arrested on May 29, 2025, his blood sample was collected for DNA analysis.
However, when the samples were sent to the forensic laboratory for DNA matching, the laboratory could not accept the victim's swab kit because the anal swab was not sealed, which rendered the parcel incomplete.
Taking note of the lapses, the Court lamented thus:
"The victim is a minor child who, instead of being provided prompt, sensitive, and coordinated medical examination, was made to rush from one hospital to another".
It added that the DNA analysis could not be undertaken and the corresponding report could not be generated.
The Court said that forensic evidence depends upon “timely collection, proper preservation, and secure handling” and in the present case, the precious 'golden hour' for the collection and preservation of crucial forensic evidence was lost when the victim was made to rush from one hospital to another for medical examination.
It made clear that the lapses could not be dismissed as routine procedural deficiencies:
"…they represent a serious failure in the handling and preservation of vital evidence in a case involving a minor child".
The Bench also referred to a recent coordinate Bench decision in the case of Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315 wherein the lack of adequate FSL infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh was highlighted. The Court said the present lapses had to be viewed as part of a “larger systemic picture”.
On the merits of the case, the accused relied on the medical report recording no injury, the delay in lodging the FIR, his incarceration since May 29, 2025, and the completion of the investigation. The State counsel, however, opposed bail.
Noting that the accused had been in jail since May 2025, the chargesheet had been filed, further custody was not required for investigation and the requisite FSL report was unavailable, the Court granted him bail.
The bail application was allowed subject to conditions including that the accused would not tamper with evidence or pressurize prosecution witnesses.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the DGP and D.G., Prosecution.
Advocate Jay Kumar Soni, Nevedita Gupta and Santosh Kumar Yadav appeared for the bail applicant
Case title - Jitendra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617