Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Minor's Father Booked After Failed Prosecution, Says Purpose Of POCSO Act Not To Discourage Victims

The Bombay High Court recently observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not meant to discourage victims from registering complaints due to the fear that they may be prosecuted for false evidence if the prosecution fails to prove its case.

Justice MS Karnik, while quashing a complaint against father of a minor victim booked for giving false evidence, observed –

“The object of the POCSO Act is to ensure justice to the victims who have suffered the offence...The purpose is to obligate reporting of cases and recording of offences and not to discourage victims with a sword of a prosecution hanging over them in case the prosecution is not successful in establishing the offence against the accused person/s. Section 22 provides for punishment for false complaint or false information. The present is not a case of making false complaint or providing false information. This is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused.”

The court held that merely victim and her father turning hostile in a case under the POCSO Act does not mean that they gave false evidence and are liable to be prosecuted under section 22 (punishment for false complaint or false information) of the Act, as there can be many reasons for a victim’s change in stance.

“Merely because the victim and her father turned hostile is not sufficient to conclude that the appellant has intentionally given false evidence. The perpetrators are scot free and it is the victims who find themselves in the dock. It is not as if the complaint against the accused was false. The victim and her family suffered the trauma. The victim’s mother did stand up against the accused. For whatever reasons, the victim and her father gave up their fight for justice, surely, they do not deserve facing accusations of giving false evidence”, the court said.

Background

The case revolved around an incident that occurred on January 9, 2017, involving a minor victim girl and two accused individuals. The accused faced trial for offenses under Sections 354A, 324, 323, 427 read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The victim's mother lodged the FIR with Bharti Vidyapith Police Station in Pune, alleging that her daughter had been subjected to sexual assault by the accused.

The prosecution's case was based on the victim's account, claiming that she was sexually harassed by one of the accused. When the victim returned home from school on the day of the incident, she was in a frightened state, and she reported the alleged assault. According to the girl’s mother, when she questioned the accused, they assaulted both her and her husband, the father of the victim.

The trial court, in its judgment, acquitted the accused of the charges.

The Trial Court's Decision

While the trial court acquitted the accused, it accused the father of the girl of giving false evidence in court and of compelling the victim to depose falsely. The trial court directed the Office Superintendent of the District and Sessions Court, Pune, to lodge a complaint against him under Section 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the IPC within two months from the date of the judgment. Thus, the appellant filed the present writ petition challenging clause (vi) in the trial court's order directing the registration of the complaint.

The High Court's Verdict

The court opined that the victim and her family had already suffered due to the assault, and the appellant and the victim should not be subjected to further trauma through a prosecution that might be perceived as oppressive.

The court highlighted that the trial court had found that the incident alleged by the prosecution did occur, and the victim's mother had supported the case. However, the victim and her father, the appellant, had not supported the prosecution's case during the trial, leading to their classification as hostile witnesses. The trial court did not find that the accusations are absolutely false or that the accused were falsely implicated, the court noted.

The court emphasized that the victim and her father could have a number of reasons for this change in stance, ranging from fear for their safety to concerns about their future or even external pressure. Therefore, the court held that it was unjustified to assume that the accused and the victim settled the case outside the court and there for the victim and her father are giving false statements.

The court further explained that the purpose of the POCSO Act was to protect and ensure justice for victims of sexual offenses, particularly children and not to discourage victims from seeking justice due to the threat of prosecution.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside clause (vi) of the trial court's judgment directing the registration of complaint against the appellant. Consequently, the complaint initiated against the appellant under Section 193 of the IPC was quashed.