Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case

"It is well settled that defence evidence is not to be viewed with suspicion or treated as inherently inferior to prosecution evidence; where it is cogent, reliable, and unshaken in cross-examination, it must be weighed on the same footing as the evidence led by the prosecution." High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that evidence adduced by the defence cannot be treated with inherent suspicion or deemed inferior to the prosecution's case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that an accused setting up a plea of alibi is not required to prove it to the hilt, and it is entirely sufficient if such evidence successfully renders the prosecution's version doubtful.

The appellant, an eighty-year-old man, challenged his conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was accused of sexually assaulting a four-year-old girl in December 2021. During the trial, the appellant took the specific defence that he was undergoing medical treatment at an eye hospital in Chitrakoot, approximately 150 kilometres away from the alleged place of occurrence. The trial court, however, discarded his defence and convicted him based on the testimony of the minor victim and her mother.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court committed a legal error by failing to independently evaluate the documentary and oral evidence of alibi presented by the defence. The court was also called upon to determine whether the prosecution's evidence was of the requisite "sterling quality" to sustain a severe conviction in the face of such unrebutted defence evidence.

Trial Court Failed To Evaluate Defence Of Alibi

Delving into the evidentiary value of the appellant's alibi, the High Court strongly criticised the trial court for not according due consideration to the defence evidence. The bench noted that the defence had produced out-patient registration records and medical treatment papers from Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot, which clearly established a plausible case that the appellant was away receiving eye treatment between December 5 and December 10, 2021.

Standard Of Proof For Establishing Alibi

The court emphasised that the standard of proof required from the defence is not as stringent as that demanded of the prosecution. Justice Rai clarified that when defence evidence is unshaken in cross-examination, it commands equal footing with prosecution witnesses. The court observed that the prosecution had led absolutely no evidence to rebut the documentary medical material produced by the appellant to prove his presence 150 kilometres away.

"It is enough if it renders the prosecution version doubtful, without the defence being required to prove the alibi to the hilt."

Contemporaneous Documents Support Defence Version

The bench found further merit in the alibi by highlighting a representation made by the residents of the appellant's village to the Station House Officer prior to his arrest. This representation explicitly asserted the appellant's presence at Chitrakoot on the date of the occurrence and alleged false implication. The court noted that being a contemporaneous document created before the arrest, it could not be dismissed as post-facto fabrication and constituted a serious infirmity in the trial court's judgment which had completely ignored it.

Absence Of Medical Corroboration Strengthens Alibi

The court held that in cases where an unrebutted alibi is set up, the absence of objective corroboration for the prosecution's claims assumes considerable weight. The bench noted that the internal medical examination of the victim disclosed no injury or swelling, and no corroborative forensic report was produced. In this context, the court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar, holding that gaps in the prosecution's evidence cannot be filled merely by the gravity of the accusation.

Contradictions In Prosecution Evidence

Evaluating the prosecution's case against the robust defence, the court found severe contradictions that destroyed the prosecution's credibility. The bench pointed out a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, which was inconsistently explained. Furthermore, the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC contained a glaring discrepancy regarding the identity of the accused, naming one "Suraj, grandson of Baladeen" instead of the appellant, Swamideen.

Child Witness Testimony Must Be Of Sterling Quality

Relying on landmark Supreme Court decisions, including P. Yuvaprakash and Nirmal Premkumar, the court held that a minor victim's testimony must be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction without corroboration. The High Court observed that the real possibility of the child witness being tutored by her mother, combined with shifting narratives regarding the time of the incident, stripped the prosecution's case of the absolute trustworthiness required in criminal jurisprudence.

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court ruled that the cumulative effect of the unrebutted alibi, the lack of medical corroboration, and the material contradictions entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026