Uttaranchal High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the accused seeking the suspension of his sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (‘POCSO’) and bail, a Division Bench of G. Narendar, CJ*, and Alok Mahra, J., suspended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and allowed the bail application. The Court held that the conviction, particularly under the POCSO was based on no evidence at all, observing that the victim had turned hostile and denied a physical relationship, the medical report showed no signs of forceful sexual assault, and the forensic evidence did not establish any link between the traces of semen found and the accused. The Court observed that the victim had fervently pleaded for the accused’s (victim’s husband) release.
Background
The matter originated from a written report filed by the victim’s father (the complainant). On 01-01-2022 at 10:00 P.M., the victim had left her house, stating her intent to go to her grandfather’s house to sleep, but it was found in the morning that she never reached her destination. Based on information from people that the accused had come to the village with his car and the victim had absconded with the accused.
The police registered a case and commenced an investigation. The victim was subsequently found in the company of the accused who was arrested. The victim was subjected to medical examination, and her date of birth was affirmed based on a school’s birth certificate. A charge-sheet was filed, charging the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363 & 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(l) of the POCSO. The appellant was convicted by the Court of Special Sessions Judge. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that this was not a case of insufficient evidence, but a case of no evidence at all.
The Court observed that the Trial Court’s judgment did not record any proof demonstrating the place of residence, whether in the form of a residential house or a hotel accommodation where the crime was committed. Hence, prima facie, there was no evidence as to where the crime was committed.
The Court further observed that the victim turned hostile and denied any wrongdoing on the part of the accused. Furthermore, the victim, in her evidence, denied having had a physical relationship with the appellant. The Trial Court’s own record indicated that the victim submitted that she did not meet the accused in the village.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had placed reliance upon the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). However, upon perusal of the exhibits marked during the trial, the Court found that the statement of the victim, said to be recorded under Section 164 CrPC, was not marked as an exhibit and was not made part of the record. The Court expressed its surprise that the Trial Court relied on this un-exhibited statement. The Court noted that on the mere fact that the clothes worn by the victim were taken by the Doctor, and she was subjected to medical examination, the Trial Court appears to have presumed commission of an offence under Clause (l) of Section 5 of the POCSO Act.
The medical expert recorded that there was no sign of injury anywhere on her body or private parts, and specifically that there was no swelling, bruises or cuts on or around the genitals. The Doctor’s final opinion was that there were no signs of forceful sexual assault. While the FSL report recorded that traces of human semen were found on the innerwear of the victim, the Court noted that there was no finding by the FSL that the traces of semen found were that of the accused.
The Court held that in the absence of critical evidence relating to the place of commission of the offence, or any forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, the judgment of conviction was more than shocking, and the finding of guilt, particularly under Section 5(l) of the POCSO was unsustainable.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2055, addressed a POCSO case where the victim, an adolescent, was failed by the State and society, leading her to seek shelter with the accused and subsequently form a family unit. The legal battle caused more trauma than the crime, and to prevent further injustice to the victim and her child, the Supreme Court invoked its special power under Article 142 to reduce the accused’s sentence. The judgment asserted the State’s failure to perform its constitutional obligation under Article 21 of the Constitution to provide immediate care and rehabilitation to adolescent victims, thereby necessitating compliance with Section 19(6) of the POCSO, and further called for a nuanced approach by the High Courts when dealing with adolescent relationships under the POCSO.
The Court noted that the victim fervently pleaded to positively consider the bail application of the accused. Further, the victim was currently working as a housemaid, earning Rs. 12,000/-, living alone to financially support herself and finance the legal battle on behalf of the accused, who is undergoing incarceration. The victim expressed that the trauma she was undergoing was on account of the application of the law, as she was reduced to a hapless position due to the judgment of conviction and sentencing of the accused.
The Court observed that the accused had made out a case for the grant of bail. The Court allowed the application and suspended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge. The accused was directed to be forthwith set at liberty. Given the submission that the accused is virtually an orphan and was only eking out his livelihood as a driver, the Court directed that the accused shall be released on deposit of a sum of Rs. 10,000 in terms of Section 445 of the CrPC instead of furnishing a surety, upon executing a personal bond for the same sum.
[Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Utt 3615, decided on 17-10-2025]
*Judgment by Justice G. Narendar, Chief Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Priyanshu Gairola
For the Petitioner: Manisha Bhandari, petitioner-in-person with Shashwat Sidhant and Ishita Dhaila
For the State: J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder.
For the Complainant: Siddhartha Bankoti and Divya Jain
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
