Chhattisgarh High Court Overturns POCSO Conviction, Highlights Consensual Relationship Evidence
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years in a POCSO case, declaring it a "grave miscarriage of justice" after finding evidence pointed to a consensual relationship rather than forcible abduction. The court emphasized that emotional considerations cannot replace judicial scrutiny in criminal proceedings.
Court Observes Emotional Overshadowing of Judicial Scrutiny
In a ruling delivered on February 4, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal heard a criminal appeal challenging the man's conviction under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court stated, "Emotional considerations appear to have overshadowed judicial scrutiny, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice." This observation came after reviewing the case details, where the survivor's father had filed a complaint in April 2022, alleging his 15-year-old daughter went missing and was later found with the accused in Hyderabad.
Contradictions in Survivor Statements Undermine Prosecution Case
The High Court noted significant contradictions in the statements of the survivor, which it said hit the "very foundation" of the prosecution's case. The survivor initially mentioned being married to the accused and having physical relations, but later stated no marriage occurred and physical relations followed. These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the veracity and reliability of her testimony, according to the court.
Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav, representing the accused, argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate evidence, relying on testimony from the survivor's close family members that suffered from material contradictions. He contended that the survivor and accused were in a consensual love relationship, living together as husband and wife after solemnizing marriage, and that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
State's Arguments and Court's Rebuttal on Minor Consent
Government advocate Shaleen Singh Baghel defended the trial court's conviction, asserting it was based on due appreciation of evidence, including reliable proof of the survivor's minority. He emphasized that consent is immaterial in cases involving a minor under the POCSO Act, and the alleged love affair or marriage does not dilute the statutory offences.
However, the High Court countered that in criminal jurisprudence, especially under POCSO, the burden lies on the state to prove minority beyond ambiguity. The court ruled that any ambiguity must go in favor of the accused. It found that the medical and scientific evidence did not significantly support the prosecution's story, and the circumstances—such as the survivor willingly accompanying the accused and residing peacefully in Hyderabad—were incompatible with theories of rape or kidnapping.
Acquittal Based on Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The court concluded that the trial court erred by not distinguishing between a consensual elopement arising from a love relationship and forcible abduction or sexual assault. It stated that criminal courts must base judgments on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than conjectures or sympathetic considerations. When two possible views exist on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused must prevail.
Ultimately, the High Court found the state failed to establish the essential ingredients of sexual assault and kidnapping of a minor beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence "unmistakably" pointed toward a consensual relationship and voluntary cohabitation. Therefore, the court set aside the trial court's sentence order and acquitted the man of all charges, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
