Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case, Finds Evidence Unreliable

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a case under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, holding that where the prosecution evidence suffers from inconsistencies and does not inspire confidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused and no interference with acquittal is warranted.

A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal upheld the trial court’s judgment, observing that the findings recorded were a plausible and legally sustainable view based on the evidence on record.

The Court held that in the absence of perversity or patent illegality, an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, which had acquitted the accused of charges of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The prosecution case was that the accused had developed contact with the prosecutrix through mobile communication and allegedly committed sexual assault in April 2022, resulting in pregnancy, which was discovered later when the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination.

Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix, and had wrongly acquitted the accused despite clear allegations.

It was further submitted that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, and therefore the statutory protections under the POCSO Act were attracted.

The High Court, however, found that the prosecution had failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix through reliable and cogent evidence.

While reliance was placed on a school register entry indicating her date of birth, the Court noted that no foundational documents such as a birth certificate were produced and even the witness who produced the school record admitted lack of knowledge regarding the source of the entry.

The Court also examined the testimony of the prosecutrix and found material inconsistencies.

It noted that the prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination that she had not met the accused during the period when, as per medical evidence, conception would have occurred. There were also discrepancies between her statements before the police and her deposition before the Court, including improvements made during trial.

A crucial circumstance noted by the Court was the refusal of the prosecutrix and her father to consent to DNA testing of the fetus, despite such testing having the potential to conclusively establish paternity.

The Court found that this refusal, coupled with other inconsistencies, weakened the prosecution case and created reasonable doubt.

The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution’s version. The doctor’s testimony indicated that the pregnancy timeline pointed to conception occurring earlier than the alleged date of incident, thereby creating a mismatch between the oral evidence and medical findings.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court observed that although conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, such testimony must be credible, consistent and of sterling quality.

Where the evidence is contradictory or improbable, courts must exercise caution.

The Court further relied on principles governing appeals against acquittal, noting that if two views are possible on the evidence, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.

It held that the trial court had undertaken a proper appreciation of the material on record and its view could not be said to be perverse or unreasonable.

In view of these findings, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed the acquittal of the accused.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Date of Judgment: 07.04.2026