High Court overrules judgment and order of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Darbhanga, appellant acquitted of charges

In Vidya Das Vs. State of Bihar, Patna High Court's bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar overruled the judgment dated August 25, 2023 and the order of the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Darbhanga. The latter had convicted the appellant has under Sections 376 (AB) and 341 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. By order dated August 29, 2023, Vidya Das was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Sections 376 (AB) of the IPC. For the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one week. For the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant has again been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months.

The High Court "found that initially the case was lodged only with the accusation of attempt at molestation. The victim was examined medically after a long time. In the medical examination, the torn hymen was opined to have been caused a couple of days earlier. That apart, we have taken due notice of the fact that the allegation of the appellant having committed sexual misdemeanor with the victim on the rooftop in the night of a winter month. The victim herself has stated something which makes her entire deposition untrustworthy. According to her, the mother was present all through when she was subjected to sexual intercourse. This does not appear to be possible, especially when the appellant is related to the victim and the informant. If the victim is to be believed, then perhaps the mother did not make any attempt to stop the appellant or to apprehend him for his having committed such an offence with her minor daughter." 

The Court observed: "It thus appears that the accusation have been levelled for some ulterior purposes. Though it could not be deciphered during Trial but from a close look at the deposition, it appears that there was some dispute with respect to a parcel of land near the temple and graveyard in the village." It wondered as to whether "this allegation because of that". 

It has recorded that the victim is a minor but that itself would not be sufficient to invoke the mischief of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution will have to prove that "the offence had taken place and that appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim." As a consequence, the Court gave benefit of doubt to the appellant. The order of the Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar reads: "The appellant is in jail. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted or detained in any other case." The order was authored by the former.