Victim’s Testimony Not Wholly Reliable—POCSO Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Without Independent Corroboration: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal

“Consent Irrelevant If Victim Is Minor—But When Victim’s Own Testimony Is Contradictory, Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely on It”: Gujarat High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a high-profile POCSO case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A Bench of Justices A.Y. Kogje and Samir J. Dave ruled:

“The deposition of the victim cannot be made the sole basis for conviction where there is no corroborative medical or forensic evidence, and the testimony is inconsistent and not wholly reliable.”

The judgment reiterates long-settled principles that even in sexual offence cases, particularly under the POCSO Act, a conviction must rest on reliable and corroborated evidence if the sole testimony of the victim is found to be contradictory or doubtful.

The case arose from a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim on 9 February 2021, alleging that her minor daughter (aged 16 years and 11 months) was abducted on the night of 2 February 2021 by one Paras Charola, a resident in the same apartment building. The prosecution alleged that Paras, along with his brother Kishan and sister-in-law Mittal, transported the victim across cities including Surat, Rajkot, Junagadh, Keshod, Amreli, and Chalala, and committed repeated sexual assaults on her. The victim was later found pregnant, and her pregnancy was medically terminated.

The Special POCSO Court acquitted all accused on 23 August 2024, primarily due to the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and lack of corroborative evidence. The State appealed.

High Court’s Analysis of the Victim’s Evidence

The High Court critically examined the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-5), who in her chief examination described being forcefully taken and raped at multiple locations, stating:

“Paras had taken me away by fraud and forcefully committed intercourse with me at Surat, Rajkot, and Keshod.”

However, during cross-examination, she admitted:

“I myself had opened the latch of the house and walked out after Paras called me… We had a love affair, and I was afraid of my parents’ rebuke.”

The Court noted further contradictions regarding locations, dates, and absence of complaints during her alleged captivity. Importantly, the victim’s own statement to doctors, as recorded in medical history (Exh. 80/1), did not match her testimony in court.

“Her deposition in court does not align with what she disclosed in medical history to the treating doctors… raising serious doubts about the authenticity of her claims.”

On Medical and Forensic Evidence: “No Conclusive Link to Accused”

While medical records did confirm the victim was pregnant and underwent termination, the DNA report (Exh. 178) provided no conclusive link between the accused and the conception. The FSL report specifically stated:

“No opinion could be offered on the comparison of the DNA of the accused with the product of conception.”

Moreover, the treating doctors (PW-6 and PW-11) testified that the victim showed no signs of injury on her body or genitalia suggestive of forceful intercourse.

Parents and Other Witnesses Turned Hostile

The mother and father of the victim (PW-3 and PW-4) did not support the prosecution during trial and were declared hostile. Even other witnesses, many of them relatives, offered no evidence supporting the allegations of coercion, kidnapping, or sexual assault.

Conviction Cannot Be Based on Unreliable Testimony Alone

The High Court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra (2018), stating:

“If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal… An appellate court should interfere with acquittal only for substantial and compelling reasons.”

The Court concluded that the victim’s testimony was “not wholly reliable,” lacked corroboration, and did not inspire confidence:

“The Special Court’s conclusion is sound in law and fact… This Court is not inclined to interfere merely on the basis of uncorroborated and doubtful testimony.”

Dismissing the State’s appeal, the High Court upheld the acquittal of all accused and directed that the records and proceedings be returned to the Trial Court. The judgment strongly affirms that while consent is irrelevant under POCSO when the victim is a minor, the prosecution must still prove the offence with credible and reliable evidence.

“Conviction under the POCSO Act, especially in an appeal against acquittal, requires more than a wavering and inconsistent version from the victim.”

Date of Decision: 1 April 2025