Material Contradictions in Testimonies Lead to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Teachers
In a landmark judgment dated 11th March 2024, the Supreme Court of India acquitted two teachers previously convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court’s decision hinged on the insufficiency of evidence and substantial doubts raised by inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Facts and Issues:
The case involved allegations against two teachers (appellants) for sexually harassing a minor girl on Valentine’s Day, marked by gifting flowers and chocolates, followed by threatening remarks. The High Court had upheld their conviction. However, the appellants contested the findings, highlighting contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence and the lack of corroborative witnesses.
Court Assessment:
Justice Dipankar Datta, in a detailed judgment, underscored numerous discrepancies, including:
- Contradictory accounts of the complaint filing process.
- Inconsistencies in the victim’s statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition in court.
- Unexplained failure to examine other classroom students who were potential eyewitnesses.
- Irrelevant emphasis on Valentine’s Day in the context of the case.
Justice Datta noted, “Material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version.”
Conclusion and Acquittal:
The Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution inadequate for conviction, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The inconsistencies and contradictions led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision:
The convictions under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC against the appellants were set aside, leading to their acquittal and immediate release from custody.
Date of Decision: 11th March, 2024.
Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police,
