By Niyati Dhiman<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In October 2019, a mother filed an FIR alleging sexual assault against her 5-year-old daughter. The accused was charged under IPC Section 376 and POCSO Section 6. Despite pleading false implication, he was convicted based on evidence, including testimony from a child witness, and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a \u20b91 lakh fine. The trial court, however, failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act to assess the child\u2019s competence to testify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The appellant filed an appeal before the Patna High Court, contending that the prosecution failed to establish his involvement in the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense argued that the foundational facts necessary to support the charges were not proven and highlighted procedural lapses, including the failure to assess the child witness\u2019s competency to testify. Furthermore, the defense presented testimonies from three witnesses who claimed that the appellant had been falsely implicated due to extraneous considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its review, the Patna High Court identified significant shortcomings in the prosecution\u2019s case. It observed that the testimony of the child witness was unreliable due to the trial court\u2019s failure to assess the witness\u2019s capacity to testify. Additionally, the victim and her parents did not provide any incriminating evidence against the appellant. Although medical reports confirmed an injury to the victim\u2019s private parts, the prosecution could not conclusively link the injury to the appellant\u2019s actions. The defense witnesses also supported the argument of false implication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, overturning the trial court\u2019s conviction and sentence. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove the foundational facts of the alleged offences under both the IPC and the POCSO Act beyond a reasonable doubt. Highlighting the procedural lapses and lack of substantial evidence, the Court directed the release of the appellant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This case highlights the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements, particularly the mandatory assessment of a child witness\u2019s capacity to testify. It also underscores the burden on the prosecution to establish allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases under stringent statutes like the POCSO Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n