Conflicting Versions Cannot Sustain Custodial Prejudice: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Case

“Prosecutrix gave two totally conflicting versions… Forensic evidence does not support the allegations.” - In a significant judgment Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused booked under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, primarily on the ground of inconsistent statements of the prosecutrix and absence of supporting forensic evidence.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasized that while the charges are grave, “the law does not permit incarceration when the allegations suffer from serious internal contradictions.”

“There are conflicting statements of the prosecutrix at this stage… The forensic evidence is not supporting the version of the prosecutrix.”

From Accusing Father to Neighbour—Prosecutrix Altered Her Allegations Twice

The FIR was originally lodged by the 10-year-old prosecutrix, naming her own father as the offender. She provided a detailed narrative of the alleged rape on 02.09.2023, reiterated in her medical examination and Section 164 CrPC statement:

“Her father lifted her, threatened her and raped her. She reiterated this before the doctor and the Magistrate.”

However, the situation took a drastic turn when the mother of the victim submitted a fresh complaint on 20.10.2023, stating that her daughter had now revealed Monti, a neighbour and barber by profession, was the real assailant, and she had falsely accused her father due to threats.

Subsequently, in a new Section 164 CrPC statement, the prosecutrix alleged that Monti raped her in winter 2022, contradicting her earlier version. Later again, in her supplementary complaint, she returned to the 02.09.2023 timeline.

“There is also contradiction with regard to the date of the incident—whether it was in September 2023 or during winter of 2022.”

No DNA Match, No Medical Corroboration—Court Cites Evidentiary Vacuum

The Court took serious note of the forensic findings, which failed to match the prosecutrix’s account:

“Vaginal swab and smear of the victim along with her underwear was sent to FSL… However, no male DNA profile could be generated.”

The absence of any DNA evidence, coupled with the fluctuating timeline and identity of the accused, led the Court to question the basis for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

Balancing Accusation with Constitutional Protections—Court Allows Bail With Conditions

While observing that no final determination on guilt can be made at this stage, the Court stressed the right to liberty in the face of serious contradictions:

“It may not be apposite at this stage to make any observation on the merits… however, conflicting versions and absence of forensic support are material considerations for bail.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea, directing that in the event of arrest:

“Petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety… He shall not contact or threaten the prosecutrix or her family and shall cooperate with the investigation.”

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing the sensitivity of POCSO cases with the constitutional mandate of fair process. The High Court’s nuanced approach reflects a clear message: “Where allegations shift and evidence falters, liberty must not be sacrificed at the altar of presumption.”

“Any observation made is only for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.”

Date of Decision: 21 May 2025