This court case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, revolves around an appeal made by a father, Laxman Das, against his conviction for sexual assault against his daughter. The initial trial court found him guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,
The Allegations and Initial Trial:
The case originated from a written complaint filed on September 12, 2021, by the victim, who was 14 years old at the time of filing the complaint. She alleged that her father, Laxman Das, had sexually assaulted her in September 2018 under the guise of providing medical treatment.
The trial court found Laxman Das guilty of the offenses and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
Inconsistencies and Doubts Arise:
However, the case presented several inconsistencies that led the High Court to question the validity of the conviction.
-
Initial Statements: Notably, in her initial statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the victim denied being sexually assaulted by her father.
Instead, she stated that the case was filed due to her father's abusive behavior, aiming to keep him away. Her mother and brother also gave similar statements, with the brother attributing the FIR to marital discord between his parents. -
Contradictory Testimony: At the trial, the victim, her mother, and her brother changed their stance, supporting the prosecution's case and accusing the father of sexual assault.
The victim claimed that their initial statements were made under duress and threats from the appellant. -
Police Testimony: The police officer who registered the FIR and recorded the initial statements contradicted the victim's trial testimony.
She denied that the victim had described the alleged sexual assault in detail or mentioned that her father used his actions under the pretense of medical treatment. -
Delayed Reporting: The alleged incident occurred in 2018, but the FIR was not filed until 2021, raising questions about the delay in reporting.
Arguments and High Court's Analysis:
The High Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides.
-
Appellant's Counsel: The appellant's counsel argued that the case was a result of marital discord and an attempt to prevent the appellant's abusive behavior.
They questioned the credibility of the witnesses' claims of being threatened, pointing out the lack of evidence and the appellant's imprisonment during the period when the initial statements were recorded. The counsel also highlighted the inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements and the investigating officer's testimony. -
Informant's Counsel: The informant's counsel argued that the trial court correctly analyzed the evidence and that the delay in reporting was justified due to social stigma.
She emphasized that the law allows for conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, which in this case was supported by her mother and brother.
The High Court, however, was not convinced by the prosecution's arguments. The court acknowledged the delay in filing the case and the fact that the appellant had remarried, which could have been a motive for the allegations.
The High Court also considered the fact that the appellant did not reside with the victim and her mother all the time, providing them with opportunities to report the alleged incidents earlier if they were true.
High Court's Decision and Rationale:
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the evidence presented did not inspire confidence in the truthfulness of the accusations.
In this case, the High Court found the evidence to be unreliable and overturned the appellant's conviction, acquitting him of all charges.
Key Takeaways:
This case highlights the critical importance of evidence evaluation in criminal trials, especially in sensitive cases like sexual assault. It underscores that:
-
Consistency and Credibility: The consistency and credibility of witness testimonies are paramount. Contradictory statements and doubts about the witnesses' reliability can significantly weaken the prosecution's case.
-
Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does not meet this threshold, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
-
Judicial Scrutiny: The judiciary plays a crucial role in scrutinizing evidence and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and trustworthy accounts.
-
Balancing Sensitivity and Justice: While being sensitive to the plight of victims of sexual offenses, courts must also uphold the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that the accused is not wrongly convicted.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that courts must strike between protecting victims of sexual crimes and safeguarding the rights of the accused. It emphasizes the need for a thorough and impartial assessment of evidence to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM0OTAjMjAyMyMxI04=-7tDJYay33n0=
0 Comments