E-Paper
‘Victim’s testimony untrustworthy’: Moga man acquitted in 2023 POCSO case
The accused, Mandeep Singh, was acquitted of charges under Sections 376 (2) (n) (repeated rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The court of additional sessions judge Yashika (special judge, POCSO court) on Friday acquitted Mandeep Singh, a resident of Moga, Punjab, in a case of alleged rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court’s decision was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the charges and its finding that the victim’s testimony was unworthy of credit.
The accused, Mandeep Singh, was acquitted of charges under Sections 376 (2) (n) (repeated rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Court cites delay in registering FIR
The case was registered after the then 16-year-old victim, a Class 9 student, filed a complaint on December 5, 2023, alleging that Mandeep, whom she had contacted via social media, came to her home in Village Faidan on October 6, 2023, around 12:30 PM while her parents were at work. She alleged he developed forcible physical relations with her and threatened to kill her brother and defame her if she disclosed the incident. She stated this threat prevented her from reporting it until her mother insisted she reveal what happened. Police subsequently arrested the accused.
However, the court highlighted significant issues in the prosecution’s evidence. The judge noted a delay of about 33 hours in registering the FIR without any justified reason. Crucially, the court stated that the victim’s own evidence was compromised: “victim has specifically stated before the court at the time of her cross examination that accused had not done any wrong act with her at any point of time.”
Testimony fails to corroborate medical evidence
Addressing the remaining evidence, the court found that the victim’s claim about the accused threatening to kill her brother lacked any corroboration beyond her oral allegation.
Furthermore, the court deemed the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report unreliable as it was “not corroborative.” The judgment stated, “The court is of the view that evidence adduced by the prosecution has no ring of truth and does not find to be of sterling character and is not sufficient to base the conviction of the accused.”
The court concluded by reinforcing a legal principle: “As far as the medical evidence is concerned, it is settled law that the same is corroborative in nature. Since, the ocular testimony of the victim is inconsistent, it would be unsafe to give weightage to the medical evidence.” Based on these grounds, the accused was acquitted.
