Ghaziabad POCSO Court Acquits Man After Six-Year Legal Battle
A special court designated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Ghaziabad has delivered a significant verdict, acquitting a man of charges including abduction and rape after an exhaustive six-year legal proceeding. The court's decision hinged on what it identified as substantial inconsistencies in the survivor's statements and notable lapses in the police investigation, ultimately extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Background and Initial Proceedings
The case originated with an FIR registered at the Tronica City police station on August 18, 2019. The complaint was filed by the girl's father, who alleged that his daughter had been kidnapped two days prior. Initially, the police invoked sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to kidnapping and illegal confinement. Following the girl's rescue and the recording of her statement, more serious charges under IPC section 376 for rape and relevant sections of the POCSO Act were added to the case.
The investigative process saw a chargesheet filed on October 31, 2019. However, the formal framing of charges by the court did not occur until nearly two years later, on August 9, 2021. The prosecution presented its case through five key witnesses during the trial, including the complainant father, the survivor herself, the examining doctor, and the investigating officers.
Court's Scrutiny of Evidence and Testimony
In its detailed judgment, the court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Neeraj Gautam, meticulously highlighted multiple contradictions in the survivor's account of events. A critical finding was the prosecution's failure to conclusively establish that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, which is a fundamental requirement for a case to be tried under the stringent POCSO Act.
The judicial scrutiny revealed evolving and conflicting narratives from the survivor:
- In her initial statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a magistrate, she stated that on August 16, 2019, two known men offered her chocolate outside her home. She claimed to have felt dizzy afterward and later regained consciousness on a bus with them.
- During her deposition before the trial court, her testimony shifted. She narrated being taken by bus to Rudrapur, then by train to Ludhiana, where she was allegedly forcibly confined for a period of 14 to 15 days.
- Under cross-examination, she presented yet another version, stating she had regained consciousness in a room.
The court referenced a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that such substantial inconsistencies in core aspects of the allegation severely undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case. It also raised questions about the plausibility of the initial abduction, noting the absence of any independent witness to corroborate the claim that an unconscious girl was taken from a public street onto a bus during daytime hours.
Investigation Lapses and Doubts Over Detention
Further weakening the prosecution's stance, the court found the claim of forcible detention to be doubtful. This doubt was amplified by the survivor's own admission during proceedings that she had cooked food for everyone during her stay in Ludhiana. The judgment also flagged serious ambiguities in the police's handling of the arrest and recovery process.
- The investigating officer failed to properly record the precise location of the accused's arrest.
- There was a lapse in obtaining mandatory witness signatures on relevant arrest and recovery memos, a procedural shortcoming that compromised the integrity of the evidence chain.
Verdict and Conclusion
Concluding that the cumulative effect of these gaps, contradictions, and investigative failures was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused of all charges. The order for his immediate release was passed on January 23, contingent upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 20,000 along with two sureties. This verdict underscores the judiciary's rigorous standard of proof, even in sensitive cases, where procedural integrity and consistent testimony are paramount for a conviction.
