The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, finding “a complete failure of the victim to identify the accused-appellant before the Court”, even allowing for her intellectual disability. Combined with an unexplained 10-day delay in the FIR, the absence of scientific corroboration and an unexamined key witness, it held the conviction unsafe.
The prosecution case was that an 11-year-old girl with 40 per cent intellectual disability was sexually assaulted at home on 28 May 2015 by the appellant. She told her teacher on 7 June, and the FIR was lodged on 8 June 2015. The Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills convicted him in December 2021 and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the Meghalaya High Court dismissed his appeal in March 2022.
At trial, neither the victim nor her cousin identified the appellant; both said the mother had supplied his name, and the victim said the Special Public Prosecutor had told her what to say.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a POCSO conviction stand when the victim fails to identify the accused in court and the surrounding evidence is weak?
Identification, Delay and Missing Witnesses
The Court held that the failure of identification, the 10-day delay and the lack of scientific corroboration made it unsafe to rely on the victim's testimony. It observed that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, but omission of a material incriminating fact carries weight (Ram Kumar Pandey).
It held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not shift any burden because “last seen together” was not proved. The teacher whose report triggered the FIR was not examined without explanation, leading to an adverse inference (Takhaji Hiraji). The medical evidence was discarded because the defence had no effective chance to cross-examine, and the alibi had been brushed aside by both lower courts.
What the Court Actually Held
- Conviction and sentence set aside; the appellant acquitted.
- Failure of identification in court was fatal on these facts.
- Section 106 Evidence Act did not apply without proof of last seen together.
- Adverse inference drawn from non-examination of the teacher.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that even in POCSO cases the prosecution must prove identity reliably.
- It flags the risk of tutored testimony.
- It reinforces the need to examine key witnesses and give a real opportunity to cross-examine.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Test identification in court and the source of the accused's name.
- Highlight delay and non-examination of key witnesses.
For Prosecutors
- Examine the first-disclosure witness and secure scientific evidence.
- Avoid any suggestion of tutoring witnesses.
Key Takeaways
- Identity must be proved even in POCSO cases.
- Delay and missing witnesses can make a conviction unsafe.
- Section 106 needs a proved foundation.
- The appellant was acquitted.
Frequently Asked Questions
The victim and her cousin failed to identify the appellant, the FIR was delayed, there was no scientific corroboration, and a key witness was not examined.
No. It said the failure of identification was complete even after allowing for her intellectual disability.
The Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills; the Meghalaya High Court upheld it.
Conclusion
The judgment insists that the gravity of a POCSO charge does not lower the standard of proof on identity.
Practical takeaway: In POCSO trials, the prosecution must build reliable identification and corroboration; the defence should scrutinise both.