The Supreme Court has acquitted a man serving a 10-year sentence under the POCSO Act for the alleged sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, who has an intellectual disability, because the prosecution never proved that he was the person who committed the offence.
The incident was alleged to have happened on 28 May 2015 in a village in East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya, when the child was alone at home, but the FIR was lodged only on 8 June, after she told her school teacher. The Special POCSO Judge convicted him in December 2021, and the Meghalaya High Court upheld this in March 2022. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta went through the evidence and found it unsafe to rely on. The mother’s conduct was unnatural, since she brushed aside her niece’s report the next day and did not check her daughter or go to the police. Her niece, who first named the accused, admitted in cross-examination that she did not know him or recognise his face, and that his name had been supplied to her by the mother. The child herself could not identify him in court, said she had forgotten his face and that her mother had told her his name, and admitted that the Special Prosecutor had told her what to say, which raised the possibility of tutoring. The witnesses also gave different versions of his relationship with the family. The court gave the child due latitude for her disability, but held that it could not replace proof of identity. The “last seen” theory, which the State used to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, was a new improvement, since the mother had only seen him plucking leaves outside, not with the child. The teacher, to whom the child first disclosed the incident, was not examined, and the court drew an adverse inference. The court also held that the two doctors’ evidence could not be read, since the defence lawyer was absent at the time and the trial court did not give legal aid or defer the cross-examination. It found that the accused proved his alibi with credible evidence, and acquitted him, ordering his release if not wanted in another case.
Even in a serious offence against a child, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the offender, and courts can give latitude to a child witness with a disability but cannot dispense with proof of identity. A material fact that is a foundation of the prosecution case, such as the accused being seen near the house, and that is missing from a delayed FIR, is a significant omission that makes a later improvement doubtful. If the prosecution withholds a material witness, such as the teacher to whom the first disclosure was made, without explanation, the court can draw an adverse inference. Testimony of a witness not cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent, and no legal aid or deferral was given, cannot be read against the accused.
Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11881 of 2022, Supreme Court (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta), decided on 09.10.2026 | Citation: 2026 INSC 1102
Leave a Reply