Case Title: State v. Sunil & Ors.
Date of Decision: September 11, 2023
Case Number: CRL.L.P. 680/2019
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Factual Background
The petitioner, the State, filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated August 7, 2019, issued by the trial court. The trial court had acquitted the respondents, Sunil and others, who were accused of various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), based on the benefit of doubt.
The case revolved around the disappearance of a 12-year-old girl in September 2014, and the subsequent allegations of sexual assault against Sunil. The victim girl was found and reported sexual assault on October 1, 2014. Charges were framed against the accused, including Sunil, and the trial court acquitted them due to insufficient evidence.
During the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondents, Saroj, passed away. The appeal against Saroj was abated, and the petition was considered only against Respondents No. 1 and 3.
Legal Issues
The main legal issues revolved around the prosecution’s ability to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The age of the victim was a critical element in the case, and inconsistencies in her statements were raised as a concern. The defense argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s guilt, while the prosecution contended that the victim’s testimony and DNA evidence were sufficient.
Contentions
The prosecution argued that the trial court’s judgment was flawed, and that the accused should not have been acquitted, given the evidence on record. They emphasized the consistency of the victim’s testimony and the DNA report as proof of the accused’s guilt. The defense, on the other hand, maintained that the trial court’s decision was justified and should not be overturned.
Observation and Analysis
The court noted several inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, particularly regarding her age. The victim had provided varying ages in different statements. Additionally, her behavior, such as not seeking help despite the opportunity, raised doubts about her testimony. While a DNA report established sexual contact between the accused and the victim, it did not prove force or non-consensual activity.
Decision and Conclusion
The High Court found that the trial court had made a reasonable decision based on the evidence presented. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the lack of conclusive evidence of force or non-consensual activity. Therefore, the petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s acquittal of the accused.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Ananya Chaudhary
