Convicted In POCSO And Rape, Acquitted After 9 Years Upon Improper Identification And No Forensic Material. Justice Is Served But At What Cost.
“….. This Court is not expected to remain a mute spectator where an aspect of evidence bearing directly upon the guilt or innocence of the accused is left unattended. …..”
~ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a
remarkable decision in criminal appeal case and acquitted the accused-appellant
from all the charges of IPC and POCSO Act 2012, in the premise of
irregularities in investigation and no corroborative and scientific evidence of
forensic nature to prove the alleged sexual assault. The prosecution case
completely relied on ocular and testamentary evidence which was erringly
affirmed by the Trial Court and the High Court, caused a man to spend 9 years in
custody.
An FIR was registered against unknown under
S.376, 376(2)(i)(j), 363, 323 and S.3/4 POCSO Act 2012 for an alleged offence
of sexual assault to a five-year girl. The police arrested the
accused-appellant only after 2 months of the incident. It was alleged that the
police told the victim that the perpetrator’s name is Dhanraj. The police
report said that in Test Identification Parade (TIP), the victim identified the
accused.
The Trial Court convicted the man for life
imprisonment for rest of his life with fine which was affirmed by the High
Court upon appeal raised by the accused-appellant. Aggrieved by this judgment,
the appellant reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court took note of multiple flaws
in the prosecution case. The Court said that while the victim, in her examination
in chief, gave statement, “I can identify the accused Dhanraj if he comes in
front of me.” later in her cross examination, she swayed from her statement and
said “It is correct that the police told me Dhanraj’s name. The suggestion that
I mentioned Dhanraj’s name in my chief examination is false.” The Court sighted
material infirmity bearing directly upon the identification of the accused. Also,
while making the deposition at the trial stage, she failed to distinctively
identify the accused in the Trial Court. The Supreme Court relied on Rameshwar
Singh v. State of J&K (1971) 2 SCC 715, which says, “….. Before dealing
with the evidence relating to identification of the appellant, it may be
remembered that the substantive evidence of a witness is his evidence in Court
..…”
Also, The Court said that when the sketch of
the accused had been prepared, then failure to submit the sketch at the Trial
Court is harmful for the prosecution case since it was a primary check for the
Trial Court that the purpose of justice is served and the person alleged to
have committed the offence is the same person or not.
The accused had taken plea of alibi at the
trial stage, which was not given proper consideration by the presiding judicial
officer. It was contented by the accused and his family members that they have
given an objection to the Investigation Officer that the accused has been
falsely implicated in this case upon a political rivalry with a local MLA, but the
I.O. did not investigated the same, and submitted his report raising a doubt as
to propriety of his report.
The medical officer who examined the victim
submitted in her report that there was an injury of one inch length stretching
from her perianal region to her vagina, which seemed to 5 to 7 days old and had
pus and maggots around it. Thus, it did not warrant the timeline of allegations
by the informant itself.
The prosecution had not submitted any
corroborative and scientific evidence of forensic nature to proof that organic
material found at the victim’s clothes was anyhow related to the accused. No
serological report, DNA profiling or any other forensic evidence was submitted
by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to establish the nexus of
relationship between the victim and the accused as alleged.
The Court said that S.311 of CrPC and S.165 IEA
provides extensive powers to the Trial Court and the Judges to call for
evidence and submissions subjected to examinations to serve the purpose of
justice. But the Courts failed to avail these options in this case. the Court
said “….. The Courts are not expected to work as mere recording machines. ….. ”
The Court concluded with, “The trial court as
well as the High court fell in grave error in convicting and affirming the
conviction of the accused-appellant.” The Court noted the fact that the accused
had already remained in custody for more than nine years. The Court was not of
opinion to remand the case to the Trial Court for de novo trial and believed
that the fatal flaw on aspect of identification cannot be cured at this belated
stage. Hence the Court acquitted him from all charges.
Legal Citation: Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan
(2026 INSC 958)
Comments