'Unnatural Behaviour For Victim To Accompany Rapist': Rajasthan High Court Acquits Former Sarpanch In POCSO Case
While setting aside a POCSO conviction against a former Sarpanch, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was highly improbable that once rape was committed upon a minor girl, she would voluntarily accompany the alleged perpetrator to another place. Furthermore, while raising suspicion over the age of the victim, the division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar...
While setting aside a POCSO conviction against a former Sarpanch, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was highly improbable that once rape was committed upon a minor girl, she would voluntarily accompany the alleged perpetrator to another place.
Furthermore, while raising suspicion over the age of the victim, the division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that while a school certificate was relevant, when contradictory material existed in government documents, the earliest admission record assumed determinative significance.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a former sarpanch against his conviction under POCSO in relation to the alleged sexual assault of a 17 year old girl.
It was the case of the prosecution, that the victim travelled with the appellant for her passport formalities, when during the night journey in a sleeper bus, the appellant committed sexual assault upon her. Further, the assault continued after they reached the hotel.
After hearing the contentions, the Court found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution case, and made certain significant observations.
The Court highlighted prosecution's reliance upon the Secondary Board mark sheet of the victim for her age, while the admission documents indicated her to be a major. In this background, the Court held that suppression of the best available evidence relating to age gave rise to adverse inference against the prosecution.
In criminal jurisprudence, when two views were possible, the one favourable to the accused had to prevail. In this light, the Court held that the minority of the victim was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Further, the Court took into account the delay of 24 hours in filing the FIR. It was observed, “While delay in reporting a sexual offence is not per se fatal, an unexplained delay coupled with contradictions and surrounding suspicious circumstances affects the credibility of the prosecution case”.
The Court further highlighted a novice fact stated by the victim during the proceedings, that did not find mention in her earlier statements, as per which she was subject to sexual intercourse by the appellant one more time in the past.
On this, the Court held that it was improbable for a girl to voluntarily travel again with her rapist. Further, it was equally improbable, that the victim was raped in the sleeper bus, yet she accompanied the appellant to the hotel, despite being in a public place for a while and not raising any alarm to seek protection.
“The conduct attributed to the prosecutrix, viewed in the aforesaid factual matrix, appears wholly unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour.”
“When the evidence is appreciated cumulatively, it becomes evident that the prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies, omissions, and investigative deficiencies…The minority of the prosecutrix is not conclusively established; the foundational story is improbable; the delay in FIR is unexplained; the earliest version is withheld; independent corroborative evidence is absent; and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution narrative.”
In this background, it was stated that criminal conviction could not rest on suspicion or conjectures. Proof beyond reasonable doubt was not a mere slogan but a constitutional safeguard protecting liberty.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
Title: Lajendra Singh v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 53