Supreme Court Restores Convictions in POCSO, Rape Case and Overturned Acquittal Citing High Court's Procedural Misapplication

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court accuqittal in case of Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs Hare Ram Sah & Ors and restored the convictions and sentences of Hare Ram Sah and Manish Tiwari. The Respondents were found guilty by the trial court under Sections 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for the rape of the appellant's then 12-year-old daughter.

The case is stemmed from the minor victim girl's pregnancy in 2016 which led to the disclosure that she had been repeatedly raped by the respondents 3-4 months prior, following the Holi festival. On the complaint of the appellant father, a case was registered by police under sections of IPC and POCSO Act.

The Trial Court sentenced both respondents to rigorous life imprisonment for rape under Sections 376(2) IPC and additional imprisonment for Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act with sentences running concurrently. When the conviction was appealed in the High Court, It had acquitted them, citing various infirmities including unproven date and time of incident, unverified age of the victim, lack of abortion proof, improperly framed charges, and an allegedly prejudiced joint trial.

When Supreme Court critically re-examined these points, It concluding that the High Court had misapplied legal principles and overlooked crucial evidence, leading to an "unreasonable acquittal" based on minor inconsistencies. The Apex Court emphasized that procedure should not control justice and that genuine doubts, rather than every minor discrepancy, should lead to acquittal.

The Court held that the victim's age (12-13 years) was adequately proven by oral testimonies and a school transfer certificate, despite minor variations, and her minority was "beyond doubt". The Court stressed sensitivity to socio-economic circumstances in rural areas where document discrepancies are common, to ensure POCSO Act's protections are not diluted.

The Apex Court observed that a minor victim's inability to recall precise dates/times after being threatened is "completely natural" and the The Court found the victim's consistent testimony about the incidents occurring "a few days after Holi" and the medical report confirming a 3-4 month pregnancy on July 1, 2016, sufficiently corroborated the timeframe. The Court noted that a minor victim's inability to recall precise dates/times after being threatened is "completely natural" and Apex Court found the testimony of the victim to be fairly consistent and had no reasonable ground to doubt the same.

The Court found that the delay of 3-4 months, as observed by the High Court, was appropriately explained as a consequence of intimidation by the respondents, which prevented the victim from disclosing the offense until her pregnancy was discovered., and further observed that the High Court gravely erred by overlooking ample documentary and oral evidence, including medical reports detailing pregnancy and a discharge ticket proving abortion, along with BSLSA's permission for the procedure.

Since the High Court observed that "charge was not framed properly as it recorded the date as 02.07.2016, whereas the incident was reported on 01.07.2016 and offence was committed 3-4 months prior to its reporting", the Apex Court that a mere error in charge does not invalidate a trial unless it occasions a "failure of justice" under Section 464 Cr.P.C.. The respondents were aware of the allegations from the chargesheet and suffered no actual prejudice.

On the validity of the Joint Trial, Supreme Court, relied on The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr, 1963 observed, on the aspect of offences on different time and different places, as a part of "same transaction" the application of three tests of “unity of purpose and design”, “proximity of time or place” and “continuity of action”. While upholding the High Court's factual finding that the offenses might not have been part of the "same transaction" for a joint trial, however, it crucially ruled that mere non-compliance with Section 223 Cr.P.C. regarding joint trial does not vitiate the trial unless actual prejudice and failure of justice are proven.

The Apex Court cautioned against misapplication of this principle, stating that minor inconsistencies should not be elevated to reasonable doubts. It stressed that while no innocent person should be punished, actual culprits should not be acquitted due to "unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure" as this "revolts against the sense of security of the society".

Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution presented a "fairly consistent and creditworthy case" that was wrongly discarded by the High Court based on a "misapplication of procedure", and consequently, It Apex Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and sentence was restored. The respondents were ordered to surrender within two weeks.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA