The Patna High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, holding that the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act cannot sustain a conviction when the prosecution has failed to establish the basic foundational facts of the offence.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya observed that the presumption of innocence is not lost merely because a prosecution is under the POCSO Act. It found that the trial court had been “completely swayed away” by a misunderstanding of the statutory presumptions while convicting the appellant.

The appeal arose from the appellant's conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had sentenced him to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000. The prosecution case was that in April 2015, the appellant entered the house where an 11-year-old girl was staying with her maternal grandparents and sexually assaulted her while she was alone. The case was lodged by the victim's mother the following day.

However, when examined during the trial, the victim denied that any such occurrence had taken place. She said that she did not know why her mother had lodged the case and denied having made any statement to the police accusing the appellant of rape. She was thereafter declared hostile by the prosecution.

The High Court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's purported earlier statement through the investigating officer. The investigating officer did not state in her evidence that either the victim or her mother had supported the prosecution case during investigation.

The medical evidence also did not establish the prosecution case. The doctor found no injury on the victim's body, the hymen was intact and no spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal swab. The doctor's opinion was that an attempt at sexual intercourse “might have been done”. Dealing with the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, the Bench observed:

“While this Court is aware of the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court is also reminded of the presumption of innocence which is not lost in cases under the POCSO Act.”

The Court further found that the “basic foundational facts in this case are lacking” and questioned how the trial court could invoke the presumptions when the victim herself stated that she did not know why the case had been lodged and had made no statement to the police.

The Bench also found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's version. While the prosecution alleged that the victim was alone when the offence occurred, her maternal grandmother's evidence showed that she was present in the house at the relevant time. The victim's mother, meanwhile, claimed to have learnt about the incident from neighbours over the phone but could not identify the neighbour who had informed her.

The Court ultimately described it as a “case of no evidence” and said it had reason to believe that the complaint had been lodged for the purpose of extorting money. It granted the appellant liberty to take appropriate steps under Section 22 of the POCSO Act concerning false complaints.

The High Court separately found an error in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The alleged offence was from 2015, when Section 4 prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years. The 20-year minimum was introduced only through the 2019 amendment. The Court observed that the trial court appeared to be “totally unaware” of the date on which the amendment came into force.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and directed his immediate release if he was not required in any other case.

Case Title: Ratan Mahto v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 383 of 2023

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Keshari, Amicus Curiae; Ms. Priya Kumari, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate

For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Balram Kapri, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order