The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in a case involving an alleged attempt to commit wrongful acts against a 12-year-old girl. The bench, comprising Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, dismissed two separate appeals filed by the State and the victim challenging the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.
According to the facts presented, on March 5, 2021, at approximately 5:00 pm, the minor victim was alone at her residence, sweeping in the open courtyard just outside her home. The accused, who lived as an immediate neighbour, approached her and allegedly seized her right hand, stating his intention to do ‘something wrong’ with her. He then allegedly dragged her towards a nearby drain and attempted to commit wrongful acts against her will. The victim resisted, managed to free herself, and ran to a hand pump where she informed her brother of the incident. The brother subsequently informed their parents by phone, after which the family contacted the police and lodged a formal complaint. A medical examination was conducted on the same day, and the final chargesheet was filed before the court on March 25, 2021.
The State, in its appeal, contended that the trial court had committed a serious and manifest error by failing to rationally analyse the evidence and had violated principles of natural justice. It argued that the trial court erred in doubting the prosecution’s story based on alleged prior enmity between the families. The State further relied on the precedent of Vijay v State of Madhya Pradesh [2010] to assert that a conviction could be sustained solely on the victim, if her testimony were found to be entirely credible.
In response, the defence maintained that the trial court had correctly identified glaring contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court noted that the trial court had rightly examined whether the First Information Report (FIR) was a product of a prior dispute between the families, particularly referencing a serious verbal altercation between the victim’s father and the accused’s father on the date of the incident. The court also took serious note of the victim’s statement that her father had, a day before the alleged incident, engaged in an altercation with the accused’s father and, out of anger, proceeded to file a formal police report against the accused.
The bench clarified that while a conviction can indeed be based on the sole testimony of the victim, such evidence must inspire unshakeable confidence. It then proceeded to highlight multiple infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the location of the drain, as mentioned in the prosecution’s version of events, was completely absent from the official spot map. Furthermore, it found it implausible that if the accused intended to commit wrongful acts, he would choose to drag the victim through a densely populated, public area when an isolated house belonging to the victim was readily accessible. The bench described this aspect of the prosecution’s narrative as ‘contradictory and unnatural’.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the accused was a physically strong 23-year-old man, while the victim was only 12.5 years old. Given the alleged struggle during which the victim claimed to have freed herself from the accused’s grip, the bench expected to find friction or injury marks on her person. However, the medical report confirmed an absolute absence of any injury marks on the victim’s body. The court also emphasized that the alleged incident occurred in a busy residential area, yet there was no outcry or alarm raised by the victim at any point during the incident.
The bench quoted the trial court’s observation that ‘in a terrifying situation where a woman is allegedly being dragged for a wrongful act, the total failure to shout or scream for help appears completely unnatural and highly improbable’. It further stressed that the glaring lack of any outcry, the absence of physical injuries, the highly public nature of the vicinity, and the failure to produce any independent corroborative witnesses collectively destroyed the foundation of the prosecution’s case.
After careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it upheld the trial court’s judgment of acquittal, dismissing both the State’s and the victim’s appeals.