POCSO Act Cannot Be a Weapon of Personal Vendetta: Telangana High Court Acquits Father Accused of Sexual Assault by Estranged Wife

“Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Be Dressed Up as Sexual Offence Allegations”, In a judgment carrying significant repercussions for matrimonial dispute-driven criminal prosecutions, the Telangana High Court allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant xxx of all charges under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution case was a “textbook example of how the POCSO Act was misused to settle matrimonial scores”.

Delivering a scathing verdict , Honourable Justice K. Sujana minced no words in condemning the tendency to invoke the POCSO Act in the context of failed marital relationships. The Court observed, “The evidence on record paints a troubling picture of a father falsely implicated by his estranged wife, with allegations fuelled by property disputes and personal revenge rather than any genuine instance of sexual assault.”

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9(1)(n) and 10 of the POCSO Act, based on accusations made by his minor daughter at the instigation of her mother (PW-1). The Trial Court, disregarding defence submissions, had convicted the appellant relying predominantly on the victim's testimony.

However, the High Court reversed the conviction after a detailed scrutiny of evidence, especially focusing on two key pieces of defence evidence—Exhibit D1 (WhatsApp conversations between the complainant and the accused) and Exhibit D2 (the victim’s own social media post admitting habitual lying). Justice Sujana observed, “The trial court committed a manifest error by glossing over Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which fundamentally altered the credibility landscape of the case.”

The High Court noted a series of contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative. “The complainant admitted to prolonged financial disputes, including demands of ₹5 crore to settle property issues, and documented meetings with the accused in hotels and restaurants even after the alleged sexual assaults,” the Court recorded, expressing skepticism over the genuineness of the allegations.

Justice Sujana remarked on the questionable timing of the complaint: “The complaint was lodged after unsuccessful extortion attempts, following continued interaction with the accused, including the daughter’s birthday celebration with her father just a day before filing the FIR. Such conduct is inconsistent with the natural behavior of a victim and her mother in a case of genuine sexual abuse.”

The Court also noted that the alleged victim, in her social media activity (Ex.D2), candidly confessed to a habit of lying, stating she “lied a million times to teachers” and “saw nothing wrong in lying.” The Court emphasized, “This damaging admission on a public platform severely undermines the credibility of PW-2 and raises a legitimate concern of tutoring and manipulation.”

In regard to the legal presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court delivered a crucial observation: “The presumption under POCSO Act is rebuttable. The accused, through cogent documentary and circumstantial evidence, has effectively discharged the burden. Presumptions cannot operate to uphold patently fabricated cases driven by mala fide intentions.”

Referring to landmark decisions, including Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2008) 14 SCC 763 and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, Justice Sujana reiterated, “When the foundational credibility of the prosecution case collapses under the weight of contradictions and ulterior motives, courts must intervene to prevent the miscarriage of justice.”

In conclusion, the High Court declared: “The material on record establishes not a genuine grievance but a calculated misuse of legal provisions to harass the accused. The continuation of conviction would amount to perpetuating injustice under the garb of protecting child rights.”

Allowing the appeal, the High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges under the IPC and POCSO Act, setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The Court also ordered closure of all pending applications, directing immediate release of the appellant.

This ruling sends a strong message against the misuse of special statutes like POCSO in matrimonial battles and reiterates the judiciary’s responsibility to guard against malicious prosecutions.

Date of Decision: 7th March 2025