Deepu @ Deepak vs. State
Background
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in Kalyanpuri, Delhi in July 2014, and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 342, 363, 377, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The child reported the incident about a week after it allegedly happened, saying he was threatened into silence, and named the accused as a neighbourhood tea-shop worker.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court found multiple serious inconsistencies undermining the prosecution's case: the child's FIR, his Section 164 statement, and his court testimony gave three different accounts of when and why he disclosed the abuse; the medical examination (conducted about a week after the alleged assault) showed no injury, bleeding, or tenderness at all, which was hard to reconcile with a described half-hour assault causing "severe pain"; the anal swab taken was never sent for forensic (FSL) testing, and no explanation was given; and the child's own family had a bitter quarrel with the accused (over a theft accusation and eviction of a mutual acquaintance) on the very day of the alleged incident, raising a real possibility of false implication. The Court also found unexplained contradictions about how and when the accused was arrested. Given this combination of doubts, the Court held the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction, especially in a serious case involving a child victim, cannot rest merely on an emotionally compelling allegation; if the medical evidence, forensic evidence, and witness accounts are materially inconsistent or unsupported, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on appeal.