Punjab and Haryana HC acquits accused in POCSO case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted an accused in a POCSO Act case, overturning his conviction and 20-year sentence by a Jalandhar court. The Bench ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. It held that reliance on a school record based on an unverified chowkidar's report did not meet evidentiary standards under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Granting the benefit of the doubt, the court concluded the prosecutrix was likely a major and capable of consenting.

Taking up the appeal, the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari highlighted the decisive role of medical evidence in criminal trials. The Bench emphasised that independent medical testimony served as an objective corroboration tool, often resolving ambiguities in cases reliant on circumstantial or inconsistent evidence. Advocates Rajiv Joshi, Harshit Singla and Nikhil Chopra appeared for the accused in the matter. The Bench was also assisted by Viren Sibal as the amicus curiae.

Referring to the necessity of forensic and medical scrutiny in adjudication, the court made it clear that oral evidence was integral to the trial process. But medical evidence provided a scientific foundation that frequently became the cornerstone for a just determination.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, took note of the Sibal’s contentions that the medical examiner had admitted in her cross examination that the spermatozoa could remain in alive form up to 72 hours, but the victim’s medical examination was done after nine days.

The court referred to the medical observation while nothing that the “victim”, during her cross-examination, admitted to self-cleaning and attending to nature's call after the alleged incident.  The Bench added the prosecution’s inability to substantiate the victim’s age, coupled with contradictions in injury patterns, weakened its case. The court concluded that procedural lapses in verifying records and overreliance on inconclusive documentation undermined the prosecution's claims.

Granting the accused the benefit of the doubt, the court reiterated the necessity of adhering to evidentiary standards, particularly in cases involving severe penalties.