A 41 years old man who spent 7, years in jail in a POCSO case was recently acquitted after the special court said there was a possibility that this was a case of mistaken identity as the mentally disabled child’s statements were contradictory during identification of the accused.
The court to observe that his identification was not proved with reliable and acceptable evidence.

The court said that at the stage of identification of the accused – the victim, even after looking at him, said that she doesn’t know him. The court further said that only when the special public prosecutor, pointing to the accused, posed the question – ” is he the person who assaulted you?”, the child, in her reply, said ‘yes’.

Defence lawyer Kalpana Waskar had submitted that it is a case of false implication. Four attempts of the accused to seek bail were rejected by the special Pocso court over the years.

The child’s mother, who is a widow, had told the cops in October 2015, that the accused had first sexually assaulted the child in July 2015. The mother further said that on September 29, 2015, the accused beat the child when she went to a public toilet and raped her. The mother said that when the child revealed the incident, she examined her and found blood on the undergarments. Fearing damage of her reputation, the mother said she did not complain to the police.

The mother said that finally on October 1, 2015, when the brother of the accused beat her son, she decided to go to the police.

Referring to the contradictory statement of the victim, the court said that that the evidence of the victim, therefore, came under a cloud and appeared unreliable with respect to the victim’s identification.

“The accused cannot be held guilty for committing offence and held to be liable for punishment with such doubtful evidence. It is a golden rule of criminal justice system… that if two ways are possible, then the way which is beneficial to the accused needs to be adopted,” special judge Harsha Chetan Shende said.

“I, therefore, [am] of the opinion that the possibility of tutoring to the victim by the interested person cannot be ruled out. Her evidence, therefore, becomes doubtful and not of sterling quality,” the special judge said.