Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case Over Gaps in Prosecution Evidence

The Supreme Court has said that an FIR need not contain every detail of an incident. However, if a crucial fact that forms the basis of the prosecution's case is missing from the initial version, the omission assumes considerable significance, Court clarified.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said a material improvement made during the course of trial, particularly regarding a circumstance sought to connect the accused with the alleged occurrence, necessarily calls for closer judicial scrutiny. If such an omission remains unexplained, the subsequent version could lose its evidentiary value, Court held.

Court made the observations while acquitting a man accused of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old specially-abled child in a case registered under the POCSO Act. Appellant Charming Rupon was the paternal uncle of the child.

Why did Supreme Court doubt the prosecution's version?

According to the prosecution, the victim, who was suffering from intellectual disability, was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the accused-appellant on May 28, 2015, at her residence.

On the date of the incident, the victim's mother had left the house in the afternoon to attend to some personal work, leaving the victim alone at home. She allegedly noticed the accused-appellant in the garden adjoining the house, where he was plucking mulberry leaves.

After the incident, the victim went to the house of her cousin and narrated the assault to her. The cousin informed the victim's mother about the disclosure, but she did not give much credence to it as the victim did not affirm the accusation when questioned.

However, on June 7, 2015, while attending school, the victim disclosed the incident to her teacher, Ms Princely, who in turn informed the victim's parents about the complaint made by the child. Thereafter, the victim's mother once again questioned the child, whereupon she narrated the occurrence, leading to the registration of the FIR at Police Station Khliehriat, East Jaintia Hills District.

By its judgment dated December 7, 2021, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The Meghalaya High Court dismissed the appeal.

On a thorough analysis of the mother's evidence, the Supreme Court found that her conduct was highly unnatural. It noted that she had been told by her own niece that her daughter, the victim, who was mentally impaired, had been subjected to rape. However, the mother did not give much credence to the complaint.

"The concern of a mother on receiving such complaint would be expected to be heightened as the child was suffering from mental deficiency. This disability factor of the child would definitely have made the mother more wary and a serious complaint of sexual assault on the child would not have been brushed aside so casually only because the child did not confirm that she had been subjected to any such assault," the Bench said.

If there had been any truth in the claim that the niece had informed her about the incident, the mother, being the child's mother, would have been expected to at least check her physical condition and, specifically, the genital area, the Bench added.

Finding these apparent grave discrepancies, Court said they were material aspects carrying significance and affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.

On carefully appreciating the testimony of the niece, Court also found that her evidence suffered from serious infirmities. Though she claimed to have seen the accused at the victim's house on the date of the alleged occurrence, she admitted in cross-examination that she neither knew the accused by face nor could identify him before the Court. This completely discredited the version stated by her in examination-in-chief.

She further clarified in re-examination that her earlier naming of the accused in examination-in-chief was incorrect and that the name of the alleged offender had been supplied to her by the victim's mother, Court pointed out.

"These admissions strike at the very foundation of her testimony and completely diminish its evidentiary value," the Bench said.

With regard to the victim's evidence, Court said she was a mentally challenged girl and, as such, a certain degree of latitude would have to be given while appreciating her testimony.

"However, even after giving due deference to her weak mental disposition we find that there was a complete failure of the victim to identify the accused-appellant before the court. Admittedly, the prosecution could not present any scientific corroboration for the incident as the FIR itself was lodged after 10 days of the incident. In such a situation, it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the victim so as to sustain the conviction of the accused," the Bench said.

Court also rejected the submission advanced by the State's Advocate General that the accused-appellant was last seen by the informant in the garden adjoining her house and, therefore, the burden shifted upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

It termed the submission "absolutely farfetched and unconvincing".

"If the informant had in fact seen the accused-appellant in the vicinity of her house on the relevant day and, on the very next morning, her niece had informed her about the incident, it is difficult to comprehend why she would hesitate in approaching the police immediately. The conduct of the informant in not taking any prompt action and not even physically checking her own daughter for signs of sexual assault despite allegedly receiving such information from her own niece, is a circumstance which creates a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story," the Bench said.

Non-examination of material witness

Court said it was significant that the prosecution withheld a material witness, namely Ms Princely, the teacher whose disclosure admittedly prompted the victim's mother to lodge the FIR.

"Though the prosecution is not obliged to examine each and every witness cited during investigation, it is unquestionably under a duty to examine those witnesses whose evidence goes to the root of the matter and is essential to elicit the truth. Where a material witness, capable of throwing light on the genesis of the occurrence is withheld without any plausible explanation, the court would be justified in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution, particularly when such witness occupies a pivotal position in the chain of events," the Bench said.

Court also held that the testimony of witnesses, particularly medical experts, could not be read in evidence as the defence was denied an effective opportunity of cross-examination due to the unavailability of counsel and the failure of the trial court to provide necessary assistance.

Cumulative discrepancies led to acquittal

Court said the cumulative effect of the unnatural conduct of the victim's mother, coupled with the significant delay in lodging the FIR; failure of the victim and her cousin to identify the accused-appellant before the Court; contradictory versions regarding the relationship of the accused-appellant with the victim's family; non-examination of the teacher, Ms Princely; and defence evidence indicating that the accused-appellant had gone to another village in connection with a property transaction, created serious doubt about the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution allegations.

"In our considered opinion, cumulatively taken, these circumstances are sufficient to persuade the court that it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant," the Bench said.

Finding the evidence on record woefully short of the standard required to sustain the conviction, Court held that the findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned judgments were unsustainable in law and deserved to be set aside.

Allowing the appeal, Court held that the appellant was entitled to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Case Title: Charming Rupon Vs State of Meghalaya

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta 

Date of Judgment: October 09, 2026