Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya
Background
A man was convicted by a POCSO trial court in Meghalaya for sexually assaulting his niece, an 11-year-old girl with a 40% intellectual disability, while she was alone at home in May 2015. The FIR was lodged nearly ten days after the alleged incident, after the child reportedly disclosed the assault to her school teacher. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the Meghalaya High Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.
Lesson Learnt
In serious criminal cases, especially those relying on a child witness, courts must carefully scrutinise identification evidence, unexplained delays in lodging an FIR, and withheld material witnesses before sustaining a conviction: the benefit of any genuine doubt must go to the accused, however grave the allegation.