Delhi High Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case, Says Alleging 'Physical Relations' Without Evidence Doesn't Establish Rape
While acquitting a man in a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that mere use of the term “physical relations” without supporting evidence is insufficient to establish rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said that it was an unfortunate case where the victim's parents repeatedly stated that “physical relations” were established however, there was no clarity as to what was meant by the expression.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the use of the term "physical relations‟, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant‟s conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act is unsustainable,” the Court said.
The judge allowed the convict's plea challenging his conviction for the offences under 376 of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He also challenged his sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.
The case was registered in 2023. It was the victim's case that in 2014, the convict, her cousin, made sexual relations with her on false pretext of marriage for more than a year.
Allowing the plea, the Court observed that the prosecution‟s case hinged only on the oral evidence being the testimony of the child victim and her parents and that there was no forensic evidence on record.
Justice Ohri noted that the expression “physical relations” is not used or defined either under the IPC or POCSO Act. The Court said that it was not explained as to what the child victim meant by the term “physical relations” and whether it fulfilled the ingredients of penetrative sexual assault.
“If it appears that the testimony of the child witness is lacking in essential details, it is the statutory duty of the Court to ask certain questions to discover or obtain proper proof of the relevant facts and to first satisfy itself as to the competence of the child victim to testify and thereafter to ensure that the complete testimony is brought on record,” the Court said.
It added that if the prosecution is not doing their part in the requisite manner, the Courts cannot remain a mute spectator and have to take a participatory role in the trial.
It was also observed that the Court, while not remaining a mute spectator, has to ensure at the same time, that the vulnerable witnesses are not overwhelmed by the process and that the relevant guidelines are followed in their true spirit.
“In the present case, the testimony of the child victim or her parents would show that it has been repeatedly stated that “physical relations” were established however, there is no clarity as to what was meant by the expression “physical relations”. No further description of the alleged act has been given. Unfortunately, no questions have been put to the victim by the prosecution or Trial Court to gain some clarity as to whether the essential ingredients of the offence the appellant was charged with, have been made out or not,” the Court concluded while ordering release of the convict.
Title: RAHUL @ BHUPINDER VERMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)