Court emphasizes the need for concrete evidence and proper age determination in cases under POCSO Act
The Delhi High Court, under the judgment of Justice Amit Mahajan, overturned the conviction of Mohd. Faisal who had been previously sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, for offences under Sections 342/376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court found significant gaps in evidence and questioned the foundational facts presented by the prosecution.
The case stemmed from an FIR filed in 2014 by a 17-year-old victim who accused Faisal of rape and unlawful confinement. The trial court had convicted him based on DNA evidence and witness testimonies, despite inconsistencies. However, upon appeal, the High Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, a crucial aspect under the POCSO Act.
Justice Mahajan emphasized that the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act should not be invoked routinely without establishing foundational facts. The court noted discrepancies in the victim's testimony and contradictions among witnesses, including the victim's family members who failed to identify Faisal as the perpetrator.
The judgment also pointed out the lack of documentary evidence to confirm the victim's age and criticized the reliance on school admission records without corroborative documentation like a birth certificate. The court underscored that the DNA evidence alone was insufficient to prove rape without establishing the absence of consent.
In light of these findings, the court acquitted Faisal, extending the benefit of doubt due to the prosecution's failure to meet the standard of proof required in such cases. The decision reinforces the importance of thorough evidence and proper age verification in cases involving sexual offences against minors.
Bottom Line:
In cases under POCSO Act and IPC, the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act cannot be invoked as a routine matter. Prosecution must establish foundational facts, including the victim's age, beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 342, 376, 506 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act, Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, Section 164 of CrPC, Section 374 of CrPC, Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Mohd. Faisal v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2827819
