In a recent ruling that has stirred debate, the Sikkim High Court overturned the conviction of a man accused under the POCSO Act for allegedly molesting a three-and-a-half-year-old child. The Court, led by Justices Bhaskar Raj Pradhan and Meenakshi Madan Rai, expressed skepticism over witness testimonies claiming the child was in a panicked state after the incident.
The judgment highlighted significant discrepancies in the accounts provided by witnesses. Central to the Court’s decision was the doubt cast on whether a child of such tender age could fully comprehend the nature of the alleged assault. The justices remarked that it was implausible for a child of three and a half to be in a state of panic due to understanding the sexual nature of such an act.
“The varying versions of events presented by witnesses, coupled with the delayed filing of the FIR, raised serious doubts about the consistency and reliability of the allegations,” the Court stated in its June 5 ruling.
The appeal, filed by the accused challenging his earlier conviction and twenty-year sentence, underscored the challenges faced by the prosecution in establishing a concrete case. Despite the provisions under the POCSO Act, the Court emphasized that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The legal proceedings, which commenced with an FIR filed in June 2021, were marked by conflicting statements from family members of the alleged victim. These inconsistencies, coupled with the delayed reporting of the incident, further complicated the case.
The defense counsel, Advocate Dewen Sharma Luitel, argued passionately for his client, asserting that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary coherence and substantiation.
Meanwhile, the State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Yadev Sharma, contested the appeal, asserting the seriousness of the charges under POCSO.
In conclusion, the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused has ignited discussions regarding the interpretation and application of child protection laws in cases where young children are involved as witnesses and victims. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in adjudicating sensitive cases under stringent legal frameworks.
