-
by kapil
19 October 2026 8:36 PM
"The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused." High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in an authoritative pronouncement, held that while a conviction for sexual offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act can theoretically rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such testimony cannot be acted upon when it suffers from material omissions, discrepancies, and lacks medical corroboration.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma upheld the acquittal of two men accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, observing that when the account given by a victim child is contradicted by objective medical evidence and unexplained improvements, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
The prosecution alleged that on September 16, 2022, the accused persons entered the house of a nine-year-old child victim in Kangra district, wrongfully confined her, and committed penetrative sexual assault while her mother was away. Following an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, both accused were tried by the Special Court. Vide judgment dated October 30, 2024, the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kangra at Dharamshala acquitted both accused after finding the victim's testimony unreliable and unsupported by medical evidence, prompting the State of Himachal Pradesh to prefer an appeal against the acquittal.
The primary question before the High Court was whether the trial court erred in discarding the sole testimony of the child victim to record an acquittal under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal when the view taken by the trial judge was a reasonably possible one based on the evidence on record.
Appellate Jurisdiction In Appeals Against Acquittal Is Restrained
The High Court began by examining the parameters of appellate review in challenges against acquittals, noting that the presumption of innocence is reinforced rather than weakened by an acquittal. The Bench observed that unless the trial court’s judgment is palpably perverse or founded on impossible conclusions, the appellate forum must exercise significant restraint and not substitute its own view merely because an alternate conclusion could be drawn.
Judicial Slowness In Reversing Acquittals Firmly Established
Tracing the judicial doctrine governing Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bench placed reliance on the foundational Privy Council ruling in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, subsequently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Kanu v. State, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, and M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra. The court highlighted that proper weight must be accorded to the evaluation of the trial judge who had the distinct advantage of observing witness demeanor.
Appellate Court Cannot Disturb Possible View Of Trial Court
The Bench underscored that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Muralidhar alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, and Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, firmly dictates that the appellate court’s powers are not unbridled. When the view arrived at by the trial court is a plausible one borne from the trial record, it cannot be upset on appeal.
Burden Of Proof In Criminal Trials Never Shifts To The Accused
Reiterating fundamental tenets of criminal justice, the bench observed that the degree of proof required is directly proportional to the gravity of the punishment attached to the alleged offence. The Court stressed that moral conviction or strong suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially when statutory presumptions are sought to be invoked without first proving primary facts.
Sole Testimony Of Prosecutrix Requires Confidence-Inspiring Credibility
Addressing the evidentiary weight of a prosecutrix’s deposition, the High Court surveyed extensive Apex Court rulings, including Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus, and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. The Bench reaffirmed that a sexual assault victim is not an accomplice and her testimony requires no automatic corroboration, standing on a higher pedestal than ordinary witnesses.
Court Must Seek Assurance When Victim's Testimony Appears Improbable
However, citing Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Bench noted that where the narrative presented by the prosecutrix does not inspire absolute confidence or presents severe improbabilities, the court of facts is duty-bound to look for evidence that lends assurance to the prosecution version. If reading the evidence in its totality reveals glaring inconsistencies, the case must crumble.
"In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix case becomes liable to be rejected."
Material Inconsistencies Discredit Victim's Version
Evaluating the deposition of the child victim alongside her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the High Court observed substantial omissions and later-stage improvements. Crucial details, such as the accused allegedly giving money to the victim's brother to send him away, were missing from the Section 164 CrPC statement, and the brother was never examined by the prosecution to substantiate this entry into the house.
Investigating Officer Contradicts Victim Regarding Prior Acquaintance
The Court further identified a material discrepancy concerning the prior acquaintance of the parties, noting that while both the victim and her mother claimed that the accused persons were complete strangers, the Investigating Officer candidly admitted in court that the accused were already well known to the complainant. Such contradictions cast a shadow of doubt over the origin and genesis of the prosecution's case.
Non-Examination Of Independent Material Witness Creates Fatal Lacuna
The Bench took serious note of the prosecution's failure to examine the tenant neighbour who was allegedly the first person to whom the child disclosed the incident immediately after escaping. Emphasizing that this neighbour set the entire narrative into motion by contacting the landlord, the Court observed that omitting this key independent witness deprived the record of vital post-incident res gestae corroboration.
Objective Medical Findings Completely Rule Out Penetrative Assault
The High Court scrutinized the medical record, concluding that the expert evidence rendered the allegations of digital penetration scientifically untenable. Both the examining Medical Officer and the Gynecologist confirmed that there were no external or internal injuries, no tears, no abrasions, no bleeding, and no tenderness anywhere on the body or genitalia of the child victim, directly falsifying the allegations of penetrative violence.
Forensic Reports Inconsequential And Second Accused Introduced As Afterthought
The Bench observed that the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory reports yielded nothing to connect the accused to any sexual act, and the second accused was not even named in the initial written complaint lodged by the mother. Holding that his implication appeared to be a subsequent embellishment, the Court found that the prosecution had completely failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to trigger statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
Affirming the trial court's order of acquittal, the High Court held that the findings did not suffer from any perversity or procedural illegality. The appeal preferred by the State was accordingly dismissed, and the Bench directed that the first accused, who remained incarcerated, be set free forthwith.
Date of Decision: 16 October 2026
