The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday suspended the sentence of a man accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after the alleged victim - his wife - fervently pleaded for his release [Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand].

The victim told the Court that she is undergoing trauma “on account of the application of law." She submitted that she was living alone and working as a housemaid to financially support herself and fund the legal battle for her jailed husband. She added that she has been reduced to a hapless state due to the conviction and sentencing of her husband by a trial court.

In 2022, the accused man had been booked on a complaint by the victim's father, who claimed that the accused had enticed her away. 

Following his arrest, the accused man was charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(I) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. The trial court in January 2024 found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

However, on appeal, the Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra found that it was not a case of insufficient evidence but “a case of no evidence” at all. 

“In the absence of critical evidence relating to the place of commission of offence, or any forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, we find the judgment of conviction more than shocking, and that too a judgment of conviction under Section 5 of the POCSO Act,” the Court said.

It noted that the victim had turned hostile during the trial itself and denied any wrongdoing on the part of the accused, but that the trial court had gone on to convict the accused on the basis of inferences.

“The fact remains that the victim turned hostile and denied any wrongdoing on the part of the appellant/ applicant. The Trial Court, in paragraph no. 27, has placed reliance upon the victim’s statement, recorded under Section 164 CrPC. On perusal of the exhibits, marked in the course of trial, we find that the statement of the victim, said to be recorded under Section 164 CrPC, is not an exhibit. Though, the victim has been subjected to detailed cross-examination, nothing incriminating against the appellant has been elicited. Despite the statement, not being marked as an exhibit, and not being made part of the record, we find it strange that the Trial Court has placed reliance on the same,” the High Court noted.

The Court also found it strange that the trial court did not note contradictions in the victim's statement and cross-examination during the trial and her earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

“In fact, the victim has, in her evidence, denied having had physical relationship with the appellant. 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,” it said. 

The Court proceeded to question the seizure of clothes, including undergarments, in the case when there was no statement on there being any physical relationship with the accused by the victim.

“Even more surprising is the finding of the FSL, that has recorded an opinion, that traces of 'human semen' are found on the Exhibit-3, i.e. the innerwear of the victim. There is no finding by the FSL that the traces of semen found on Exhibit-3 (FSL Report) is that of the appellant/ applicant,” it added.

Considering its findings, the Court proceeded to suspend the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court. The Court ordered the immediate release of the convict on a personal bond of ₹10,000

“At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant would submit that the appellant/ applicant is virtually an orphan, as his father died when he was 2½ years old and his mother abandoned him when he was about 5 years old; and that initially he grew up with some of his relative, who thereafter have abandoned him, and that he was eking out his livelihood as a driver. In that view, the counsel prays that security may be directed under the provisions of Section 445 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the appellant/ applicant shall be released on deposit of a sum of Rs. 10000/- in terms of Section 445 of the CrPC,” it ordered.

Pertinently, the High Court, along with the criminal appeal in this matter, is also seized of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks directions against the arrest of teenagers (aged 16-18 years) in consensual relationships.

Advocate Priyanshu Gairola represented the appellant/ accused.

Advocate Manisha Bhandari, with advocates Shashwat Sidhant and Ishita Dhalia, appeared in the PIL filed by her related to the POCSO Act and consensual relationships.

Deputy Advocate General JS Virk, with advocate Rakesh Joshi. appeared for the State.

Advocates Siddhartha Bankoti and Divya Jain represented the alleged victim.  

[Read Judgment]