Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

A Child Abuser In The Eventuality Of False Implication Continues To Suffer A Blot Of Social Stigma - Much More Painful Than  Imprisonment – Delhi High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted an appellant, Veerpal @ Titu, previously convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court underscored the importance of consistent and credible testimony in cases involving sexual offences, especially under the stringent POCSO Act.

The appeal, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, centered around key legal discussions on the credibility of the child victim’s testimony, the impact of discrepancies in statements, and the effects of delays in filing FIRs.

The appellant challenged his conviction by the Trial Court on the ground that the victim’s testimonies were fraught with inconsistencies and that there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR, which undermined the prosecution’s case. Initially, the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC, among others. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of the child victim, who alleged sexual assault by the appellant.

Credibility of Testimony: The Court noted the victim’s varying accounts of the incident over different occasions, from the initial complaint to her statements under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C., and her testimony in court. Each version presented discrepancies concerning the sequence of events and specific details of the alleged assault.

Delay in FIR: The Court highlighted the delay in filing the FIR, stating that the victim reported the incident five days after the alleged occurrence. This delay was critical given the absence of immediate reporting to the police when they visited the victim’s residence on the day of the incident for a related quarrel.

Context of Matrimonial Dispute: Observations were made about the potential motive for false implication stemming from existing familial and matrimonial disputes, which could have influenced the allegations against the appellant.

Presumption under POCSO Act: Justice Mendiratta discussed the application of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which involves the presumption of guilt. The court concluded that the foundational facts necessary to trigger this presumption were not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

Decision: The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant due to “major gaps in the prosecution’s presentation and credibility issues with the victim’s account.” The Court remarked on the gravity of wrongfully convicting someone under POCSO, highlighting the enduring social stigma faced by individuals even falsely accused of child abuse.

Date of Decision: April 15, 2024

Veerpal @ Titu vs. State

 

Similar News