[POCSO Act] Highly Improbable That Minor Who Is Sexually Abused By Her Teacher Would Not Complain To Her Parents/ Friends: P&H High Court

Issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the sole testimony of the minor would be sufficient to implicate the appellant in the instant case for which there is a delay of 6 months in lodging of the FIR.

The court noted that the testimony of the victim is not to be discarded and should be appreciated keeping in mind the principles of probabilities. However, the consequences of false allegations of rape should also be kept in mind. Therefore, it becomes pertinent to carefully examine whether the story set out by the prosecution at the instance of the victim and her parents, and whether it is improbable and belies logic or not.

"One cannot lose sight of the fact that false allegations of rape can cause extreme distress and humiliation to the accused apart from the consequences of such a conviction which in the present case would be of dismissal from service. Therefore, one has to further carefully examine whether the story set out of the prosecution at the instance of the victim and her parents is improbable and belies logic or not."

For this reason, the court noted that the discussion as to how and in what manner the whole incident has unfolded has to be considered, more so in the present case where there has been a delay of 6 months in lodging of the FIR and no specific instance has been given regarding date and time of the incident.

Regarding delay in lodging of the FIR, the court noted that the same is acceptable on account of protection of family prestige but the said delay factor is also to be examined on account of the medical evidence that would have totally diminished by then and the Courts are left grappling with only the ocular version of the parties.

It is in such circumstances the Courts have heavily led to granting the benefit of doubt if the victim's testimony does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the court noted that there is an unexplained delay of 6 months regarding the incident for which no plausible explanation has been given. Moreover, court noted that delay in the FIR has led to the absence of medical evidence to connect the appellant with the crime beyond a shadow of doubt.

It also noted that the alleged incident was not a case of solitary abuse on a particular day when she had been called and rather it was her case that it happened on 2-3 occasions when she was called to the house where she had voluntarily gone and returned on an auto. The factum of being disturbed by such incident apparently never showed up at any point of time which is highly strange, court remarked.

Regarding the age of the victim, the court noted that the Trial Court was not justified placing reliance upon the Secondary Examination Certificate as there was no official record of the State to prove her age and even the board of Doctors opined that her age could be between 16-18 years and the principles which have to be kept in mind is that there can be a great variation on the basis of which presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act could be raised against the appellant.

For the reasons stated above, the present appeal was allowed.