Observing that the prosecution evidence was “marred by material contradictions” and lacked the “requisite consistency, reliability and cogency”, a POCSO court acquitted a 22-year-old man from Zirakpur in a case alleging kidnapping of a 16-year-old girl and attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault. The court held that the cumulative effect of the evidence “does not inspire the confidence of the court” and that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the prosecution case, the girl was allegedly taken by the accused on December 9, 2023, after he called her to his shop in Dhakoli on the pretext of taking her to Ambala to meet his relatives. The prosecution alleged that during the train journey, the accused gave her a cold drink after which she became unconscious, and she later regained consciousness in Mumbai. She allegedly called her father using a stranger’s phone from Mumbai railway station, following which her father and nephew travelled by air and brought her back.

The prosecution further alleged that the accused attempted to establish physical relations with her. The FIR was initially registered under Section 365 IPC, which was later deleted, while Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and Section 4 read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act were added.

Gaps in investigation

The court pointed to several gaps in the police investigation. It noted that the investigating agency did not collect call detail records, customer application forms (CAFs) or tower-location data, seize the phones of the victim, accused or the stranger whose phone was allegedly used, or examine the stranger. No travel tickets or other documents were produced to corroborate the father’s claim that he travelled to Mumbai by air. The victim’s cousin, who allegedly accompanied her father, was also not examined. Inspector Bachu Singh was the investigating officer (IO) in the case.

The court also noted that no official from the coaching centre was examined and neither attendance records nor CCTV footage was produced. No site plan of the Dhakoli shop or Mumbai railway station was prepared. The court further observed that there was no daily diary report (DDR) entry or independent corroboration regarding the police visit to Dhakoli and no recovery was effected pursuant to the accused’s disclosure statement.

The court found material variations between the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and the medical history recorded during her examination. It also noted that she remained with her father for around 12 days before being presented before the police for recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

The court, however, held that the victim’s minority was proved, recording that she was 16 years, four months and 12 days old on the date of the alleged occurrence. It also considered her admission that she had been speaking to the accused on Instagram for three to four months, had met him two to three times and had gone to his Dhakoli place “of her own will and consent” and that “nobody had pressurised her”.

Defence counsel Deepanshu Bansal argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations through reliable and corroborative evidence. The court ultimately held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 4 and 18 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.