Madhya Pradesh high court frees jailed man, says prosecution framed him

BHOPAL/JABALPUR: Madhya Pradesh high court recently set aside a sessions court conviction in a Pocso case, holding that the prosecution tried to falsely implicate the accused to save the actual culprit, who may be a close relative of the survivor. HC allowed the accused to file a case of 'malicious prosecution' and seek compensation. The man had been sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment on charges of raping a six-year-old child.

The bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and D N Mishra pointed out contradictions in statements of key witnesses - including the survivor, her mother and uncle, and the doctor who examined her. HC also noted that the DNA report, which was presented to the court as 'positive', was not so.

Prosecution appears to be trying to save culprit: Court
There appears to be a gross injustice being done to the appellant by the trial court in not appreciating the evidence from the correct perspective. It appears that the prosecution not only tried to falsely implicate the appellant, but they are trying to save the actual culprit, who may be a close family relative, HC said in its recent order, adding that the DNA report of the girl revealed that it had "uninterpretable low male DNA".

The defence counsel said that during cross-examination, the girl's mother said that her brother-in-law and mother-in-law were instrumental in sending the appellant to jail and that the brother-in-law had forced blood out of the child so that they could file a complaint of sexual abuse. The doctor said that the injury to her private parts could not have been more than two-three hours old. The girl had said she had changed clothes and taken a bath, and "had no definite opinion" regarding commission of rape, the defence said.

The counsel pointed out that the doctor had examined the victim at 3.30pm on June 23, 2020, while the sexual assault had allegedly taken place the previous night, so the charge is not medically corroborated either. The govt counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the survivor has supported the prosecution, hence the conviction should be maintained.

After hearing both sides, HC pointed out that while the material available claims the girl was playing on the roof of her uncle's house and her mother was cooking when she went crying to her to say the accused had 'taken off her clothes and raped her', the FIR says that the girl's uncle informed the mother that the accused sexually abused the girl after which she called her to ask what had happened.

HC further said that the survivor's mother had admitted during cross-examination that the child's uncle had an old rivalry with the accused and he had "put his finger in the girl's private parts to draw blood before lodging the FIR".

Referring to the survivor's statement, HC noted that she had admitted that the accused had gone out to sell 'fulki' when the alleged crime took place. In reply to a question, she also said "nothing happened on the roof". "It is evident that when evidence of the victim and that of her mother Is read together, then it is in fact her uncle, who was responsible for causing injury to the victim so as to take revenge on the accused," the court said, and set aside the conviction.