State of Uttarakhand v. Sahab Singh Bisht Kamal Singh Another

2. The State's case, in summary, is that FIR No. 0123 of 2019 was lodged on 02.10.2019 at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun, based on allegations made by the complainant - the mother of the victim, a 12-year-old mentally challenged minor girl. The complainant alleged that respondent No. 1, Sahab Singh Bisht, repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim over the course of a month, with the active connivance and abetment of respondent No. 2, Meena Devi. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. However, upon trial, the learned court below acquitted both respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State contended that the Trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the respondents despite the presence of credible and consistent testimonies, particularly of the victim and her parents. It was submitted that the victim had categorically named Sahab Singh Bisht as the perpetrator and Meena Devi as an abettor.

4. It was further submitted that the minor inconsistencies in the victim’s statements were natural given her age and mental condition, and the Trial Court ought not to have discarded the prosecution case solely on such grounds. The prosecution relied on the principle that the sole testimony of the victim can form the basis for conviction if it is found trustworthy, especially in cases under the POCSO Act.

5. Counsel for the State also drew attention to the absence of a hymen found during the medical examination, asserting that it corroborated the allegation of penetration, notwithstanding the absence Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J. of external injuries. While the appellant did not cite any authority in this regard, it is generally recognised in jurisprudence that the absence of injuries does not necessarily rule out the occurrence of sexual assault.

6. The learned counsel further contended that the procedural anomaly concerning the timing of FIR registration and the presence of the victim and accused at the police station should not override the substantive weight of the evidence, particularly the consistent disclosure made by the victim.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the acquittal by the Trial Court is well-reasoned, based on thorough analysis of the material on record. It was argued that the testimony of the victim (PW-1) is marred by contradictions. In her cross- examination, she first claimed that the accused misbehaved only once, then stated that he had not misbehaved at all and had looked after her.

8. Learned counsel highlighted that medical evidence (PW-4) did not reveal any injuries, and the supplementary medical report was inconclusive. The FSL report was negative. Thus, no corroboration could be drawn to support the charge of penetrative sexual assault.

9. Counsel further pointed out contradictions in the statements of the victim’s parents (PW-2 and PW-3) regarding when and how they became aware of the incident. The presence of the victim and the Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J. accused at the police station prior to lodging the FIR casts doubt on the spontaneity and credibility of the complaint.

10. Learned Trial Court, it was submitted, has correctly extended the benefit of doubt in light of the inconsistencies and lack of medical and forensic corroboration, as per the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

11. We have carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below.

12. The entire prosecution case hinges on the testimony of the minor victim (PW-1), whose statements suffer from internal contradictions. Her version in examination-in-chief and cross-examination inconsistent. She alternates between alleging sexual assault and denying any misconduct, stating that the accused took care of her. These contradictions are material and go to the root of the prosecution’s case.

13. The medical evidence is equally unhelpful to the prosecution. The examining doctor (PW-4) categorically stated that there were no injury marks, internal or external, on the victim’s person. The supplementary report did not indicate any findings suggestive of force or recent sexual assault. The FSL report also did not yield any corroborative findings such as seminal traces. Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J.

14. In this context, the State’s reliance on the absence of hymen is insufficient to sustain the charge of penetrative sexual assault. It is now well-settled that the mere absence of hymen is not conclusive proof of such assault, particularly in the absence of corroborative medical, forensic, or testimonial evidence. In Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that medical findings indicating absence of hymen, in the absence of other substantive evidence, cannot by themselves justify a conviction for rape.

15. The contradictions in the testimonies of the victim’s parents (PW-2 and PW-3) regarding the timing and knowledge of the alleged incident are significant. Their statements that they came to know of the incident only upon being summoned to the police station contradict the sequence of lodging the FIR, raising substantial doubt on the spontaneous and voluntary nature of the complaint.

16. While this Court is mindful of the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, it must be noted that such presumptions arise only after the foundational facts are proved. In the present case, the foundational facts themselves - namely, occurrence of sexual assault - have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

17. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that presumptions, however strong, cannot substitute the burden of proof upon the prosecution to establish its case Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard holds true in POCSO cases, despite the victim-centric approach.

18. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 and Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in acquittal appeals, the appellate court must exercise great caution and restraint, and should not interfere with the findings of the Trial Court unless the conclusions drawn are perverse, manifestly illegal, or against the weight of evidence.

19. The acquittal in the present case is not based on conjecture but on critical appreciation of evidence, highlighting contradictions in testimony, absence of corroboration, and failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

20. Consequently, this Court finds no perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.08.2021. The Trial Court's view is both plausible and based on sound reasoning. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The Government Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated

12.08.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2019, hereby affirmed. Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:19.05.2025 NR/ Government Appeal No. 18 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs Sahab Singh Bisht @kamal Singh and Anr - 7 Ashish Naithani J.