Absence Of Witness Identification In POCSO Trial And Unexplained Delay In FIR Filing Fatal To Prosecution Case: Supreme Court

"The cumulative effect of unnatural conduct of victim’s mother coupled with the significant delay in lodging the FIR; failure of the victim and her cousin to identify the accused-appellant before the Court; [and] contradictory versions regarding the relationship of the accused-appellant with the victim’s family... creates serious doubt on the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution allegations." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated October 9, 2026, held that the failure of material witnesses to identify the accused in court, compounded by an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, renders a conviction under the POCSO Act unsustainable.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while courts must extend latitude to child victims with intellectual disabilities, this cannot bridge fundamental gaps in the prosecution's evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator.

The case involved an allegation of sexual assault against an 11-year-old specially-abled minor. The incident purportedly occurred on May 28, 2015, but the FIR was only registered on June 8, 2015, following a disclosure made by the victim to her school teacher. The trial court convicted the appellant, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court of Meghalaya, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of identification of the accused by the victim and her cousin during trial. It also considered the impact of a 10-day delay in filing the FIR, the non-examination of a pivotal school teacher witness, and the weight of the appellant's plea of alibi.

Requirement Of Reliable Identification

The Supreme Court noted that the victim, when examined as a witness, failed to identify the accused, explicitly stating she had forgotten his face. The court remarked that this inability was not merely an outcome of her mental disability but was worsened by the fact that the prosecution made no effort to conduct a Test Identification Parade or properly establish the identity of the offender through the victim.

Prosecution Witness Failure To Identify

The testimony of the victim's cousin, who claimed to have seen the accused at the residence on the date of the incident, was found to be entirely discredited. During cross-examination, she admitted she did not know the accused by name or face and revealed that the information regarding the perpetrator’s identity had been supplied to her by the victim's mother.

Material Discrepancies And Tutoring

The bench expressed grave concern that the victim admitted she had been instructed by the Public Prosecutor on what to state before the court. The court observed that such admissions, combined with the failure of the star witnesses to recognize the accused in the court dock, fundamentally undermined the prosecution's case.

"The admission that she had been instructed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor on what to state before entering the witness-box also assumes significance while appreciating the evidentiary value of her deposition."

Impact Of Unexplained Delay In FIR

The court underscored that the delay of ten days in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained. Crucially, the prosecution relied on the mother’s version that she had seen the accused in the garden before the incident, a detail completely absent from the initial FIR. The court held that such material improvements during trial invite closer judicial scrutiny.

Adverse Inference Against Prosecution

The bench further criticized the prosecution for withholding the school teacher, Ms. Princely, who was the first person to receive the victim's disclosure. The court held that where a material witness, capable of unfolding the genesis of the incident, is withheld without explanation, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution's narrative.

"Where a material witness, capable of throwing light on the genesis of the occurrence is withheld without any plausible explanation, the Court would be justified in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution."

Defense Of Alibi Ignored

The Supreme Court found that the appellant had presented credible documentary and oral evidence to establish a plea of alibi. The court noted that the lower courts had ignored this evidence without providing adequate reasoning, failing to perform their duty in appreciating the defense's case with the same rigor as that of the prosecution.

Acquittal

Concluding that the evidence fell woefully short of the standard required for a criminal conviction, the bench set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and ordered his immediate release from custody, thereby allowing the criminal appeal.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026