Srinagar: A court in Kupwara has acquitted three persons accused in a rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that material inconsistencies in the evidence rendered the case unsafe for conviction.
In a 49-page judgment, Principal District and Sessions Judge Kupwara Manjeet Singh Manhas acquitted Brij Mohan Prasad of rape and POCSO charges and cleared co-accused Hussain-ul-Amin Bania and Rehana Begum of allegations relating to trafficking, exploitation and abetment.
The case arose from FIR No. 14/2022 registered at Police Station Kupwara under Sections 376, 370, 370-A and 109 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
“The prosecution has failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to benefit of doubt,” the court said in its judgment, a copy of which was accessed by Kashmir Dot Com.
The court observed that while the testimony of a prosecutrix can form the sole basis of conviction, such testimony must inspire confidence and remain free from material inconsistencies on core aspects of the prosecution case.
A major inconsistency noted by the court related to the location of the alleged offence. The judgment recorded that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, referred to Kolkata as the place where the alleged incidents occurred. Witnesses associated with counselling proceedings before the Child Welfare Committee also referred to Kolkata. During trial, however, the prosecution projected Assam as the place of occurrence.
Calling it a “material and unexplained variation”, the court held that the inconsistency went to the root of the prosecution case as the place of occurrence was a foundational fact rather than a peripheral detail.
The court also found contradictions regarding the frequency of the alleged assaults. While one version suggested the abuse continued for approximately six months, another stated that the prosecutrix did not know how many times she had been assaulted. During trial, she testified that the assaults occurred approximately six times. According to the court, these were not minor discrepancies but inconsistencies touching upon a central aspect of the allegations.
Another factor weighed by the court was the manner in which the prosecutrix’s initial account was recorded. Referring to the investigating officer’s testimony, the court noted that the officer had spoken to the child witness alone in a private room before her formal statement was recorded. While clarifying that it was not attributing any deliberate misconduct to the officer, the court observed that the procedure raised concerns regarding the process through which the prosecutrix’s account evolved prior to the recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
On medical evidence, the court held that the findings relied upon by the prosecution did not independently establish the identity of the perpetrator. The judgment observed that medical material indicating prior sexual activity could not, by itself, connect a particular accused to the alleged offence. The court also noted the absence of forensic evidence such as a semen analysis report despite recommendations for such testing.
Addressing the prosecution’s reliance on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court clarified that the presumption becomes relevant only after the prosecution first establishes foundational facts through credible evidence. Given what it described as material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, the court held that the threshold for invoking the statutory presumption had not been crossed.
With regard to the two co-accused, the court noted that the prosecutrix, while deposing before the trial court, stated that they had no knowledge of the alleged incident and had treated her well. The court found no independent evidence corroborating allegations of trafficking, exploitation or abetment against them.
Summarising its conclusions, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against Brij Mohan Prasad beyond reasonable doubt because of material inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration and investigative deficiencies. It further held that the charges against Hussain-ul-Amin Bania and Rehana Begum were not established in view of the prosecutrix’s exonerating testimony, absence of corroborative evidence and failure to prove allegations of abetment or trafficking.
Consequently, the court acquitted all three accused of the charges framed against them and ordered their discharge from bail and personal bonds.
The prosecution was represented by Public Prosecutor Hilal Ahmad Bhat, while the accused were represented by Advocates Gulzaar Ahmad Bhat, Maria Jan and Mir Mushtaq. (KDC)
