POCSO: Allahabad HC Acquits Father, Uncle Accused By Mother Of Sexually Abusing 7-Year-Old Daughter

The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a doctor and his brother in a POCSO case in which the doctor’s estranged wife had accused them of sexually abusing their minor daughter during her stay with her father in Haldwani, holding that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the charges. Setting aside their life sentences, court said that where one parent accuses the other of sexually abusing their child, the evidence of the child witness must be examined "with great sagacity".

"Cases in which the POCSO Act is being used as an instrument to accuse either of the parents, then the evidence of a child witness should be considered with great caution...when it is portrayed by one parent that the other parent had brought about injustice to him or her and the child begins to sincerely believe (it)...then the child begins to testify against the other parent," the division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed in a judgment dated August 13.

Court acquitted Yatindra Mohan Bahuguna and his brother Samoj Bahuguna of all charges. Court also directed that Yatindra, who was in jail, be released forthwith.

What were the allegations in the POCSO case?

The case concerned allegations dating back to March-April 2018, when the child was around seven years old. According to the prosecution, Yatindra, a doctor based in Haldwani, took his daughter from Varanasi to Haldwani on March 23, 2018. She returned to her mother on April 3. The child later alleged that her father and his elder brother had subjected her to sexual abuse during her stay there. The girl allegedly said that her father touched her private parts, inserted his fingers into her vagina and anus, kissed her and, on one occasion, inserted a pink-coloured tube into her vagina. She further alleged that her uncle assisted his father by holding her hands during one of the incidents, while her father sat on her legs, and that he threatened her with consequences if she disclosed the abuse.

The mother lodged an FIR in Varanasi on June 8, 2018, under Sections 323 and 376 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 115(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), respectively] and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The child's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC [now Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)] was recorded three days later.

Since the alleged offences had taken place in Haldwani, the investigation was subsequently transferred to Uttarakhand. A second FIR, "to the same effect", was then registered at Haldwani on September 6, 2019, under Sections 323, 376, 376(2)(l), 376(2)(n), 376(2), 376-D and 506 of the IPC and Sections 5(g), 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 5(s) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Supreme Court later transferred the trial to Varanasi by an order dated August 4, 2021.

The Varanasi Special POCSO Court, by its judgment dated February 13, 2025, convicted both the father and his brother. Yatindra was convicted under Sections 376(2)(n)(f), 376-D, 323 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 5(g), 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while Samoj was convicted under Section 376-D IPC and Sections 5(g), 5(m), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Both were sentenced to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, with Yatindra also receiving separate sentences for offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted both accused under Section 376AB IPC.

Why did the Allahabad HC doubt the prosecution evidence?

The high court noted several circumstances surrounding the child's evidence. Her statement before the trial court was recorded for the first time in February 2022, when she was around 10 years old. During cross-examination, she said she had no memory of the statement recorded before the Magistrate, although she acknowledged her photograph and signature on it.

The bench also noted that the child had stated that she spoke to her mother almost every day while in Haldwani, sometimes twice a day, for around 15 minutes. Yet, according to the prosecution, she did not disclose the alleged abuse to her mother during those conversations because she was allegedly intimidated by her father.

Court also considered the medical evidence. The doctor found no injury on the child's body or internal organs, her hymen was intact and there was no bleeding. The doctor further stated that insertion of a tube as alleged could have resulted in injury and bleeding, but no such injury was found.

The bench noted that several details appearing in the child's later testimony were either absent from earlier statements or were disputed during cross-examination. It also took note of photographs showing the child affectionately hugging her father during the Haldwani stay and statements of employees who described their relationship as normal.

Court also pointed out that the child had lived with her mother from 2017 until she testified in court in 2022 and concluded that she could have been influenced by the strained relationship between her parents.

Court found the absence of any allegation against the father by the household staff, and the lack of corroboration from the maternal grandparents significant.

Court ultimately said that in cases where POCSO allegations are made by one parent against the other, the evidence of a child witness must be examined "with great sagacity". It said a child may, in certain circumstances, come to believe allegations against a parent if influenced by the parent with whom the child is living.

The bench further held that there was "absolutely no evidence" against Samoj Bahuguna and that he had been "roped in for no reason whatsoever".

Accordingly, court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's conviction and acquitted both accused of all charges.

Case title: Yatindra Mohan Bahuguna and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Judgment date: August 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay