Delhi High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Rape, Citing Lack of Evidence

Ambiguous terminology and delay in reporting lead to acquittal in a high-profile POCSO case

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted Rahul, also known as Bhupinder Verma, who was previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The conviction had stemmed from allegations made by a minor who claimed that Rahul had established "physical relations" with her under the false pretext of marriage. The High Court, however, found that the vague terminology used by the complainant and the absence of corroborative evidence were insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, underscored the importance of clear and explicit testimony in cases involving allegations of penetrative sexual assault. The court noted that terms like "physical relations" do not automatically imply penetrative sexual assault, especially in the absence of medical or forensic evidence. The child victim was medically examined after a substantial delay, and no forensic evidence was available to support the allegations.

The case had garnered attention due to its sensitive nature, involving a minor who alleged that her distant relative, Rahul, had promised to marry her, thereby establishing "physical relations" over a period of one and a half years. The FIR was lodged after a significant delay of one and a half years, which the prosecution attributed to the victim's inability to speak following her attempt to consume poison. However, the court found no concrete evidence to substantiate this claim of speech impairment.

Justice Ohri highlighted the duty of the trial court to seek clarification on ambiguous terms used by witnesses, especially vulnerable ones, to ensure the establishment of foundational facts required for the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The judgment cited previous cases, including those from the High Courts of Delhi and Sikkim, which emphasized that ambiguous terms like "physical relations" or "sambandh" cannot lead to a conviction without clear evidence of penetrative sexual assault.

The court's decision to acquit Rahul was based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, which revealed a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judicial system's obligation to base decisions on concrete evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies, rather than presumptions or ambiguous terminology.

The acquittal has sparked discussions on the challenges in prosecuting cases under the POCSO Act, particularly the need for precise language and corroborative evidence. Legal experts have lauded the judgment for reinforcing the principle that convictions must be based on clear and irrefutable evidence, ensuring justice and fairness in the judicial process.

As a result of the judgment, Rahul has been released from jail, with instructions for the judgment to be communicated to the concerned trial court and jail superintendent. The case highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals accused of serious offences, while also upholding the integrity of the legal process.

Bottom Line:

Use of ambiguous terms like "physical relations" without sufficient supporting evidence cannot establish elements of penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 165, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 168

Rahul @ Bhupinder Verma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796315