Benefit of the doubt granted to the accused as the prosecutrix's testimony was inconsistent and influenced by parental disputes.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of Sheel Kumar, who was accused of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that the prosecutrix's testimony was exaggerated and inconsistent, largely motivated by domestic disputes between her parents.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix's mother in June 2014, alleging that Sheel Kumar, her husband, engaged in inappropriate conduct with their 13-year-old daughter. Following the complaint, an FIR was lodged, and charges were framed against Kumar under Section 323 IPC and Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act. However, the trial court acquitted Kumar, leading to an appeal by the State.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, noted that the prosecutrix and her mother had provided conflicting testimonies. The prosecutrix's initial statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were consistent, yet she turned hostile during cross-examination, revealing discrepancies. Furthermore, her mother, the primary complainant, also contradicted her earlier allegations, undermining the prosecution's case.
The court highlighted that the allegations appeared to be influenced by ongoing disputes between the prosecutrix's parents, particularly concerning domestic violence and the potential eviction from their home. The prosecutrix's testimony was found to be exaggerated, with claims that lacked corroboration and specific details.
The judgment pointed out the inherent contradictions in the testimonies, noting that the prosecutrix's allegations were not supported by medical evidence or consistent witness statements. The court underscored that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of the doubt rightly favored the accused.
The court also referenced the precedent set in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that the testimony of a hostile witness can be considered if it is found dependable through careful scrutiny and corroboration. However, in this case, the lack of corroboration rendered the testimony unreliable.
The Delhi High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must lead to an acquittal. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of credible evidence and the impact of personal disputes on legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Testimony of prosecutrix, if exaggerated, inconsistent, and motivated by disputes among parents, cannot form the basis for conviction. Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 8/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
- Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State NCT of Delhi v. Sheel Kumar, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838797
